Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/20/2009 10 Toscana Project Appeal - Public Hearing
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: January 20, 2009 ITEM TITLE: Closed Record Public Hearing on appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Toscana Project. SUBMITTED BY: William R. Cook, Director of Community Economic Development CONTACT PERSON / TELEPHONE: Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner, 575-6162 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The Toscana Project is a residential development consisting of 84 duplex and 96 apartment units. The Hearing Examiner issued a decision on File CL(3) #7- 08, CL(2) #20-08, Adm Adj #16-08 and SEPA Appeal #4-08 on November 4, 2008. The • decision affirmed the SEPA MDNS and denied the SEPA Appeal and requested Class (3) and (2) land uses and Administrative Adjustments. The Applicant submitted a timely application to appeal the Hearing Examiner's Decision on November 20, 2008. Resolution Ordinance Other (Specify) Contract Mail to (name and address): Phone: Funding Source APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL: .7 City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council review the record, consider the testimony and either adopt, amend and adopt, reject, reverse, amend and reverse the findings, conclusions, and decision of the hearing examiner, or remand the matter for further consideration. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Hearing Examiner issued his decision on November 4, 2008 to affirm the SEPA MDNS and deny the SEPA Appeal, Class (3), Class (2), and Administrative Adjustment Applications. COUNCIL ACTION: PRI VVJLE'GED AND CONFIDENTIAL,: COVERED BY THE ATIORNEY-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT' PRIVILEGES MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor Edler, Members of City Council FROM: Jeff Cutter, Sr. Assistant City Attorney DATE: January 7, 2009 SUBJ: Toscana Development -Appeal Hearing In accordance with YMC § 15.16.040(B)(3), attached to this cover memorandum is the complete record of the Toscana Development application review proceedings. This record is being transferred to the City Council as the Legislative Body delegated with the authority to hear appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions. The Municipal Code suggests that the closed record public appeal hearing "should not be later than twenty days. following the date the legislative body receives the information from the planning department" (YMC § 15.16.050(A)). The appeal hearing set for January 20, 2009 satisfy's the above referenced timing requirement. This setting should provide the City Council and the parties to the appeal a reasonable opportunity to address their appeal issues. Following the closed record appeal hearing, for which the Council shall be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, Council will have the opportunity to 1) adopt, 2) amend and adopt, 3) reject, 4) reverse or 5) amend and reverse the findings, conclusions, and decision of the examiner; or Council may 6) remand the matter back to the Hearing Examiner for further consideration or for the purpose of the Hearing Examiner taking and considering new factual evidence. (YMC § 15.16.050(E)). If the Council renders a decision that differs from that of the Hearing Examiner then the Council shall adopt amended findings and conclusions consistent with their decision. Finally, as mentioned above Council will be acting in a quasi-judicial role during the appeal proceeding and therefore should, to accord the appearance of fairness requirements of such proceedings, avoid ex -parte discussion concerning any issues related to the appeal prior to the Council's decision following the hearing. - Also, please recall that in the event any inadvertent ex -parte conversation may occur, in the form of written or oral communication in any form, the Council member that experiences such contact should be prepared to disclose the specific nature and content of the communication at the outset of the appeal hearing. TOSCANA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 City Council Closed Record Appeal Public Hearing January 20, 2009 Applicant: Toscana Development File Number: UAZO CL(3)#7-08, CL(2)#20-08, ADM ADJ#16-08, EC #19-08, SEPA APPEAL#4-08, Appeal#4-08 Site Address: 7402 Coolidge Road Staff Contact: Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner Table of Contents CHAPTER AA Hearing Examiner's Decision CHAPTER A Staff Report CHAPTER B Maps CHAPTER C Site Plan CHAPTER D DST (Development Services Team) CHAPTER E SEPA Review CHAPTER F Application CHAPTER G Notices CHAPTER H Public Comment CHAPTER I SEPA Appeal Application CHAPTER J Supplemental Information CHAPTER K Minutes - RPC, Joint Board, & City Council CHAPTER L Hearing Examiner Appeal Application CHAPTER M Public Hearing DVD's. TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER AA Hearing Examiner's Decision EXHIBIT DOCUMENT'�� DATE AA -1 Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision 09/22/08 AA -2 Hearing Examiner's Final Decision 11/04/08 • • City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Decision November 4, 2008 In the Matter of an Application for Class (3) Uses, for Class (2) Uses and for Administrative Adjustments Submitted by: Envizage Development Group For a Mixture of Duplex & Apartment Units with Lot Coverage & Rear Setback Administrative Adjustments in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts R NO V Ii 4 NM OITY OF UMW PIA VW UAZO CL(3) #7-08 UAZO CL(2) #20-08 UAZO ADM ADJ #16-08 EC #19-08 SEPA APPEAL #4-08 Introduction. The proceedings in this matter may be summarized as follows: (1) The Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on August 14, 2008. Testimony at the public hearing raised an issue as to the intent of the Yakima City Council and the representations made to neighboring property owners as to the type of development that would be compatible and allowed on the subject property here proposed for development. The Examiner closed the hearing, but allowed anyone with further information by way of videotapes, audiotapes and other documents related to that issue one week to submit them to Assistant Planner Joseph Calhoun for inclusion into the record and for forwarding to the Examiner for review. (2) An extension of time was requested to provide the information. That request was granted until September 8, 2008 by an interim decision dated August 21, 2008. (3) Within ten business days of that date, the Examiner reviewed all the information provided and issued an interim decision dated September 22, 2008, summarizing the testimony presented at the hearing and the relevant evidence submitted Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 1 DOC. INDEX 1AA-Z V,L NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKttllu4 Ark SID DN after the hearing. The interim decision indicated that the hearing would be reconvened on October 21, 2008, for two limited purposes: (a) For the purpose of learning from interested parties and/or their representatives whether there is any interest in exploring and discussing among themselves the possibility and mechanism for resolving the compatibility issues in this matter through a development agreement or covenants rather than by issuance of a final decision in this matter; and (b) If no such interest exists, for the purpose of obtaining the recommendation of Mr. Calhoun regarding the conditions in his staff report that were questioned at the hearing and information as to three other subjects that would be relevant if this application were to be approved. (4) It was determined at the hearing that interested parties would not be able to resolve among themselves the compatibility issues in this matter. The applicant indicated that he needed substantially what he was proposing in order to put in the amenity package. Neighbors opposed the apartment and duplex developments as proposed, but their representative, attorney Chad Hatfield, recommended that the applications be denied with leave for the applicant to submit a revised application and site plan to be circulated in order to avoid the need to defend appeals. The requested information was provided. This decision has been issued within ten business days of the October 21, 2008, hearing. Summary of Decision. The SEPA MDNS is affirmed. The SEPA MDNS appeal, the application for Class (3) apartment uses, the application for Class (2) duplex uses and the application for lot coverage/rear setback Administrative Adjustments are denied. Basis for Decision. Based upon the Examiner's view of the site without anyone else present on August 11, 2008 and his review of the evidence presented in this matter in light of the pertinent provisions of the City's SEPA Ordinance, the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, the Hearing Examiner makes the following: Envi7age Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 2 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 • • RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008. CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. FINDINGS I. Applicant. The applicant is Envizage Development Group, 200 Galloway Drive, Yakima, Washington 98908. II. Location. The location of the property is in the vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run. The tax parcel numbers of the property are 181315-31011 and 181315-34037. III. Application. This application submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development on April 17, 2008 requests: (1) Class (3) use approval for 96 apartment units in one building containing three dwelling units, four buildings containing four dwelling units, one building containing five dwelling units and nine buildings containing eight dwelling units which would all be located in the portion of the property zoned Two -Family Residential (R-2) along the east portion of the property; (2) Class (2) use approval for 84 dwelling units in 42 duplexes in the portion of the property zoned Single -Family Residential (R-1) along the west and south portion of the property; (3) An Administrative Adjustment to allow 65% lot coverage rather than 50% lot coverage in the portion of the property zoned R-2 proposed for apartment buildings; (4) An Administrative Adjustment to allow a 5 -foot rear setback rather than a 15 - foot rear setback for apartment building 7 shown on the site plan along the south boundary of Lot 1; and (5) SEPA environmental review. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 3 DOC. INDEX # AA -2- 1 UEVVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA 1110 PLANNING DIV. IV. Notices. Notices for the hearing and environmental review were provided in accordance with applicable ordinance requirements in the following manner: Posting of land use action notice re applications on property: Mailing of notice of SEPA review & hearing to property owners: Publishing of notice of SEPA review & hearing in newspaper: Mailing of notice of SEPA MDNS to property owners: Publishing of notice of SEPA MDNS in newspaper: Posting of land use action notice re SEPA appeal on property: Mailing of notice of SEPA appeal hearing: May 19, 2008 June 13, 2008 June 13, 2008 July 14, 2008 July 14, 2008 July 29, 2008 July 31, 2008 V. Testimony and Evidence Presented at the Hearing. The main points set forth in the public testimony presented at the hearing of August 14, 2008, were paraphrased or summarized in the Examiner's interim decision dated September 22, 2008. Many letters which also expressed those same points, nearly all in opposition to the proposal, are in the record. The Examiner has read the summary of the testimony and all the letters and other documents in the record more than once before issuing this decision. VI. Current Zoning and Land Uses. The subject property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential (R-1) and Two -Family Residential (R-2). The property previously was an orchard and contains a single-family residence and accessory buildings which are to be demolished. Adjacent properties have the following zoning and land use characteristics: Location North South West East Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 Zoning R -1/B-1 R -1/R-2 R-1 R -1/R-3 4 Land Use Residential/Vacant Land Residential Residential Residential/Mobile Home Park DOC. INDEX # AA -2- • • RECEIVE N O V 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMI PLANING DIV. VIL Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance. Traffic concurrency review under the City's Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance completed on July 3, 2008, determined that reserve capacity is available on all impacted streets. VIII. State Environmental Policy Act. The Examiner's Findings as to the State Environmental Policy Act are as follows: (1) After expiration of the 20 -day comment period, a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on July 14, 2008 (EC #19-08) pursuant to the optional process in WAC 197-11-355. The comments submitted prior to issuance of the MDNS are summarized by Assistant Planner Joseph Calhoun's staff report as follows: (a) Views from houses along the canal will be altered; (b) Proposed densities are too high for the subject property; (c) Traffic increase; (d) Property values of surrounding homes will decrease; (e) Proposed use is not compatible with current zoning district or the surrounding neighborhood; (f) Noise from recreation facility, proposed pool and traffic will be detrimental to neighborhood; (g) Toxins are likely present from past orchard use; (h) Possible safety issues with the canal; (i) Adjustments should not be allowed; (j) Smog/air quality issues; (k) Proposed interior streets do not meet standards; and (1) Lighting should be directed away from homes uphill. (2) The MDNS required the following 18 mitigation measures: Enviinge Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 5 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. (a) No development permit shall be issued prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning review. (b) Contractors doing clearing, grading, paving, construction or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA). Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. (c) The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the limitations of its water rights. A water right permit is required for all surface water diversions and for any water from a well that will exceed 5,000 gallons per day. (d) A NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Washington State Dept. of Ecology is required. The permit requires that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) is prepared and implemented for all permitted construction sites. Permit coverage and erosioncontrol measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima's Engineering Division prior to construction. (e) The Yakima Valley Canal Company (YVCC) will not allow any excavation or construction within their right-of-way. Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way. (f) Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. If Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are used in the drainage design, the UIC wells must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and a copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and registration number(s) shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer. (g) Ecology recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found at Envi72ge Development Group. Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 6 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 • RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. concentrations above MTCA clean up levels, Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence. (h) Public waterlines are required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall be placed in the street connect to the existing waterline in Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependent on the required fireflow for the buildings. (i) In accordance with YMC § 12.03.020, sewer is to be extended along the east edge of the property to provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer pipe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly finger of the development to provide gravity sewer to existing residences on the west and south sides of the canal. (j) All public utility lines on private property shall be located in a minimum 16 -foot easement. (k) Fire Department Access Roads shall be installed and designed to the standards of the 2006 International Fire Code (IFC). (1) The proposed gates shall comply with the 2006 IFC standards and be equipped with a Knox Box rapid entry system or Opticom system which will be approved by the fire code official. (m) Where required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6 of the IFC. (n) Kem Road shall be maintained at a minimum of twenty -feet of paved surface. (o) During project construction, all contractors shall adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. These hours are 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday thru. Friday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends and holidays. (p) Title 12 development standards shall be applied to this project including streets built to city standards with curb, gutter, five-foot sidewalks and streetlights. Five-foot sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed along the Castlevale frontage. Public easements will be recorded where needed. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 7 DOC. INDEX # AA -2- RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA • PLANNING DIV. (q) Parking and street lighting shall adhere to the standards of YMC § 15.06.100. Lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties. (r) Sitescreening Standard "A" shall be installed along the west and south property lines due to adjacent single-family residential land uses. A higher standard may be substituted. (3) A SEPA appeal (#4-08) was filed on July 28, 2008 by Carriage Hill Concerned Citizens. The appellant contends that mitigation requirements are insufficient to mitigate environmental impacts to an insignificant level and that probable significant environmental impacts remain that require an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposal. The appellant further contends that some of the findings or mitigation requirements m the MDNS improperly defer studies and information needed to make a proper environmental determination and/or improperly set forth requirements in general terms that cannot be reasonably accomplished or ascertained. Mr. Calhoun's staff reports aptly summarize and address those contentions. The Examiner's Findings as to each of those contentions are as follows: (a) Water Resources. (Finding G and Mitigation Requirement 5). "Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way." Such a "requirement" is ambiguous and so completely subjective as to be unenforceable. Absolute setbacks from the canal should be set forth. Studies related to soil stability and retention need to be performed up front in order to make a proper determination, Examiner's Findings: MDNS Finding G and Mitigation Requirement 5 are based on a written comment received from the Yakima Valley Canal Company on May 22, 2008. Absolute setbacks from the canal are in fact set forth. The project site plan shows a minimum setback of 20 feet from the canal right-of-way. In addition, the applicant will be required to submit a grading plan for review by City Engineering before any permits are issued. A letter in the record from Brad Cara P.E. of PLSA Engineering and Surveying states that the soils within the proposed Toscanna development are cohesionless and non plastic soils which are stable on slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. The testimony of Rick Wehr of PLSA Engineering and Surveying during the August 14, 2008, hearing indicated that the Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 8 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 • r RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAlatelA PLANNINGDIV. maximum slope on the project would be a 2 to 1 slope which would be a condition of the project. (b) Water Quality. (Finding C and Mitigation Requirement 3). Water rights need to be determined in advance and not left up to future speculation. Examiner's Findings: MDNS Finding C and Mitigation Requirement 3 are based on a standard comment letter received from the Department of Ecology on June 30, 2008, which states that a water right permit is required if surface water is being diverted or if water is being withdrawn from a well in excess of 5,000 gallons per day. The SEPA Checklist for this project indicates that no surface water diversions or withdrawals will occur and that no ground water will be withdrawn. (c) Storm Water Management. Due to the large excavation proposed for this site, a full Stormwater Prevention Plan should be required in advance of environmental review determinations. Furthermore, it is stated that "The applicant should not assume they can put all of their runoff into the City lines." There needs to be requirements of what can and cannot be allowed to quantify what amount of run-off, if any, can be transferred off-site. Examiner's Findings: The applicant is required to submit complete stormwater design plans to the City Surface Water Engineer prior to any construction or the - issuance of permits. The applicant is also required to obtain an NPDES stormwater general permit from the Department of Ecology. City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer Randy Meloy indicated in a letter dated August 18, 2008, that the applicant will be required to retain on-site and treat runoff for up to the 6 month, 24-hour storm (0.65 inches of rainfall over a 24-hour period), and may discharge excess runoff' from larger storm events into the storm drain. That would be a condition of the project. (d) Toxics. (Finding G and Mitigation Requirement 7). No actual "requirement" is set, forth. It is merely stated that soil testing is recommended. Soil sampling for lead, arsenic, and other toxins must be required. Examiner's Findings: A Phase 1 Environmental Assessment prepared in July 2003 by PLSA Engineering and Surveying for a portion of the "Pearson Property" having the same type of soil as the project site concluded that lead and arsenic solution used in orchards for pest control in the Yakima Valley before 1950 has in PLSA 's considerable experience long since converted into a non -leachable form which Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 9 DOC. INDEX LA _ Z RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIM• PLANNING DIV. passes the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure test. Metals passing this test are designated as solid waste in accordance with WAC 173-303-090(8)(c) and are not considered hazardous or dangerous. State law does not regulate solid waste accumulations of less than 2,000 pounds. Metals from pest control activity have never been found to be sufficiently concentrated to accumulate 2,000 pounds over an area the size of the project site. WAC 173-340-740 Method A does not distinguish between leachable and non -leachable metals and lists cleanup levels for lead and arsenic at 250 and 20 mg/kg, respectively. The WAC further states that exceeding these levels does not necessarily trigger requirements for cleanup action. Lead and arsenic concentrations in orchard land in the Yakima Valley which was in production before 1950 frequently have lead concentrations as high as 600 mg/kg. There has been no regulatory action to date requiring cleanup of these former orchards. No action is recommended as a result of the Environmental Site Assessment. Furthermore, Rick Wehr indicated during the August 14, 2008, hearing that there will be no contamination of any nature from the lead and arsenic in the soil once the buildings, grass, paving and sidewalks are in place. (e) Transportation. Traffic studies need to be required up front. Presently, there is insufficient information to make an appropriate determination. Examiner's Findings: The applicant did submit a Traffic Study on March 18, 2008. The City's Traffic Concurrency Review was completed on July 3, 2008. It was determined that adequate capacity exists on all impacted streets. (f) Noise. The proposed project is adjacent to a residential community. Construction hours need to be appropriately limited. Examiner's Findings: Mr. Calhoun recommended the same construction hours that Subsection 6.04.180(15) of the Yakima Municipal Code makes uniformly exempt from noise standards on all other projects. Although those regulations allow construction to continue until 10:00 p.m. every day of the week, applicant's attorney Alison Moss indicated that the applicant would be willing to stop construction activity earlier than that, and a specific limitation in that regard would be a condition of the project. (g) Light and Glare. Additional consideration of all impacts needs to be considered. For example, no reference is made regarding glare from the swimming pool or what type of lights may be used. Examiner's Findings: Although Section 15.06.100 of the Yakima Municipal Code only applies to parking Envi7age Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 10 Doc. INDEX # AA -2- • • RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. lots "and loading spaces used at night, the SEPA Checklist indicates that shielded light fixtures and perimeter buffer planting will be used to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. The applicant's representative, Paul Casey, further indicated during the hearing of August 14, 2008, that all the on-site exterior lighting would be shielded to avoid night glare and glare to the adjacent properties or even to the units themselves, which would be a condition of the project. (h) Aesthetics. Higher standards are required to preserve the adjacent neighborhoods. Examiner's Findings: The project would comply with the R-2 height restriction of 35 feet and would be more restrictive than the 35 foot R-1 height restriction by limiting the height of one-story duplexes around the perimeter of the development to 18 feet and the height of any two-story duplexes to 25 feet. Buildings would meet or exceed setback requirements, except for one building on the R-2 lot where a rear setback Administrative Adjustment is requested. The lot coverage for the R-1 lot is proposed to be 36.9% where 45% is allowed. An Administrative Adjustment is requested for the R-2 lot to have 65% rather than 50% lot coverage, but the overall lot coverage for the project would be about 45%. (i) Sitescreening. The proposal is for medium and high densities to be built adjacent to low density neighborhoods. Higher sitescreening standards than standard "C" are appropriate. The statement that "the developer may substitute a higher sitescreening standard..." is meaningless. A higher standard must be made a requirement. Examiner's Findings: Table 7-1 in Chapter 15.07 of the Yakima . Municipal Code requires sitescreening- standard "A" along the canal property line. That standard requires a 10 foot=wide landscaped buffer with a combination of trees at 20 to 30 foot centers, shrubs and groundcover. Substandard "C" would be a 6foot-high view -obscuring fence. Due to the topography of the land adjacent to the canal and the location of the sitescreening, the recommended 6 - foot -high chain-link fence along with a 6 -foot -wide landscaped buffer would be a condition of the project. Section 15.04.080 of the Yakima. Municipal Code requires a 4 -foot -high fence around swimming pools. Based upon the testimony of the applicant as to the design and location of the swimming pools and recreation facilities, the recommended 6 -foot -high wrought iron fence with a minimum 3 - Envisage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 11 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 RECEIVED NOV 0 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. foot -wide landscaped buffer consisting of trees, shrubs and groundcover around the pool/recreation facilities would be a condition of the project. (j) Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan for the following non -exhaustive reasons: it does not preserve existing established neighborhoods; it detracts from the quality of life and sense of community within the area; and it provides for higher densities than designated by the future land use plan. Examiner's Findings: The compatibility of the project with the Comprehensive Plan is not one of the 16 Environmental Elements to be addressed by a SEPA Checklist and mitigated by a SEPA MDNS. It is, however, relevant' to the criteria for approval of Class (2) and Class (3) uses and will therefore be discussed below in the analysis of those criteria. (4) Subsection 6.88.170(F)(2)(a)(1)(d) of the Yakima Municipal Code provides that "The SEPA determination of the responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight, and the appellant shall bear the burden to establish a violation of SEPA, the SEPA rules, or the provisions of this chapter." The above Findings relative to each claim of the SEPA appeal indicate that all probable significant adverse environmental impacts of this project have been reduced below a level of significance either by the MDNS conditions or by the additional conditions that would be imposed on the project through Class (2) or Class (3) review. All of the mitigating measures need not be stated in the MDNS if they are included as features of the proposal or as conditions that would be imposed on the proposal. Giving the determination of the responsible official the substantial weight to which it is entitled, the Examiner is unable to fmd that the appellant has met its burden of establishing a violation of SEPA, the SEPA rules or the other SEPA provisions. The SEPA responsible official correctly determined that this proposal does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. (5) This decision affirming the SEPA MDNS does not, however, conclude the analysis. As in the recent case of Cingular Wireless v. Thurston County, 131 Wn. App. 756, 129 P.3d 300 (2006), a special use permit is properly denied when there are valid concerns about incompatibility with neighborhood character even though the SEPA MDNS is affirmed on appeal. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 12 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 • • RECEIVED N O V 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. IX. Class (3) Apartment Use Review Criteria. The proposed apartments are Class (3) uses in the Two -Family Residential District (R-2). The Hearing Examiner's Findings and Conclusions would have to set forth specific reasons and ordinance provisions demonstrating that this decision satisfies the requirements set forth in Subsections 15.04.020(3) and 15.15.040(5) of the Yakima Municipal Code before this Class (3) application for apartments could be approved. The Examiner therefore makes the following Findings in regard to the Class (3) application for apartments: (1) Subsection 15.04.020(3) of the Yakima Municipal Code states that Class (3) uses are generally not permitted in a particular district: "Class (3) Uses are generally not permitted in a particular district, but may be allowed by the hearing examiner after Class (3) Review and a 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." (2) Subsection 15.15.040(5) of the Yakima Municipal Code requires the Hearing Examiner's decision to be based upon compliance with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the zoning district and the provisions and standards of the zoning ordinance: "5. Findings and Conclusions. The hearing examiner shall prepare written findings and conclusions stating the specific reasons, and citing the special chapters and sections of this title upon which his decision to approve with conditions, or deny the issuance of a certificate of zoning review, is based. The findings shall demonstrate that the hearing examiner's decision complies with the objectives of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the zoning district, and the provisions and standards established herein." (3) Relative specifically to compliance with the objectives of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the Examiner makes the following Findings: Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC. #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 13 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIM• PLANNING DIV. (a) The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (Map III -3) designates the subject property as suitable for Medium Density Residential development, which is defined as follows on page II1-9 of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan: "Medium Density Residential Characterized by a mixture of single family detached residences and duplexes, with a variety of other housing types at a residential density ranging between 7.0 and 11 dwelling units per acre." (b) Figure III -2, the Land Use Compatibility Chart on page III -7 of the 1997. Comprehensive Plan, lists a proposed High Density Residential Use as "generally compatible" in a Medium Density Residential designation, but the Chart is preceded by the following caveat: "This Chart is intended to be used as a general guide for land use compatibility issues. As a guide, the Chart is only a portion of the decision making process related to land use locational decisions and recommen- dations. Development regulations, including current zoning, and Hearing Examiner and Legislative Body deliberations and public comments play a further role in this process. Each land use category noted below may contain a wide range of specific land uses. Depending on each specific use, compatibility may be more or less than indicated on this table." (c) The City's zoning ordinance more specifically implements the Comprehensive Plan Medium Density Residential designation by providing that multi -family dwellings having a density in excess of 12 dwelling units per net residential acre are Class (3) uses which are generally not compatible in a particular district. (d) The apartments proposed for the Two -Family Residential District (R-2) are not a mixture of single family detached residences and duplexes, with a variety of other housing types at a residential density ranging between 7.0 and 11 dwelling units per acre. Rather the Class (3) use application is for approval of 96 apartment units in one building containing three dwelling units, . four buildings containing four dwelling units, one building containing five dwelling units and nine buildings containing eight dwelling units. The proposed apartments in the .R-2 zoning district would have a density of 14.6 dwelling units per net residential acre. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 14 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 • • • RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. (e) The weight of credible evidence presented by the neighbors in their letters and testimony indicates that the proposed apartments fail to comply with Comprehensive Plan Objective H3.1 which is to stabilize existing viable neighborhoods and with Comprehensive Plan Policy H1.6.2 which is to encourage compatible infill of existing neighborhoods. Unless the pertinent .Two -Family Residential District (R-2) zoning ordinance provisions that implement the Comprehensive Plan provisions provide an exception for apartments to be located with the proposed density of 14.6 dwelling units per net residential acre, a Comprehensive Plan amendment to a different Comprehensive Plan designation would be a prerequisite to approving this application. Thus, it must be determined whether the pertinent Two -Family Residential District zoning ordinance provisions provide some exception to allow apartments of this density under this Comprehensive Plan designation in this location that does not appear in the Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Plan provisions themselves. (4) Relative specifically to compliance with the intent, character, provisions and standards of the zoning district, the Examiner makes the following Findings: (a) The intent and character of the R-2 zoning district are specifically described in Subsection 15.03.030(3) of the Yakima Municipal Code as follows: "Two -Family Residential District (R-2) The purpose of the two-family residential district is to: a. Establish and preserve residential neighborhoods for detached single- family dwellings, duplexes and other uses compatible with the intent of this district; and b. Locate residential development with densities up to twelve dwelling units per net residential acre in areas receiving a fullrange of public services including public water and sewer service, and police and fire protection. The district is characterized by up to fiftypercent lot coverage, access via local access streets and collectors, one and two story buildings, some clustering of units, and large front, rear and side yard setbacks. Typical uses in this district are single-family dwellings and duplexes. The density in this district generally ranges from seven to twelve dwelling units per net Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20.08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 15 DOC. INDEX RECEIVED NOV 0 4 200lik CITY OF YAKI PLANNING DIV. residential acre; however, development up to eighteen dwelling units per net residential acre may be allowed in accordance with Table 4-1. This higher density development shall be allowed only on those limited occasions when the reviewing official finds that the location and site plan of the project is such that the higher density would be compatible with neighboring land uses and the level of public services, and is consistent with the goals and objectives in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan." (b) The reference in this intent statement to allowing up to eighteen dwelling units per net residential acre in accordance with Table 4-1 is a reference to the listing of multi -family dwellings of a density of 13 or more dwelling units per net residential acre as a Class (3) use in the R-2 zoning district. Section 15.02.020 of the Yakima Municipal Code defines Class (3) uses 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 for 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 hearing 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." (c) Here the density and intensity of the proposed apartment use cannot be changed by merely imposing conditions because that would involve a substantial revision to the site plan. The proposed density is what it is and was not a negotiable characteristic of the proposal. The applicant indicated that he needed substantially what he was proposing in order to put in the amenity package, and the neighbors were united in opposition to the proposed density of the apartments. Although the position of the neighbors is not by itself a basis for finding that a proposal is incompatible with a neighborhood, valid concerns they express to support their position are properly considered. Here the Examiner must determine whether a use that is legislatively declared to be generally incompatible with its neighbors is compatible with the intent and character of the district and to Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 16 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 • • • NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. determine whether the difficulties related to compatibility have been adequately resolved. Section 15.02.020 of the Yakima Municipal Code defines "compatibility" as follows: "Compatibility means the characteristics of different uses or development that permit them to be located near each other in harmony." This definition is consistent withthe first definition of "compatible" as "capable of existing or operating together in harmony" set forth m the resource referenced in that section, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983. Section 15.02.020 defines the term "intensity" as follows: "Intensity is the combination of factors .(such as visual appearance and building size, traffic generation, noise, dust and light and economic value) associated with a particular use that determines the potential impact of that use on neighboring land uses. The higher the intensity the greater the possible impact on neighboring land uses. Generally, the intensity of a land use will determine its compatibility with other types of land uses." Section 15.04.010 explains the purpose of the legislative classification of uses as Class (1), Class (2) or Class (3) uses in particular zoning districts as follows: "15.04.010 - Purpose For any particular district, there are some uses that are consistent with the intent and character of the zoning district; some uses that may be consistent if careful site design neutralizes the adverse characteristics of the use or site; and other land uses that, regardless of site design, are not consistent with the intent or character of the district. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the degree to which each land use is permitted in each district and establish the appropriate level of review for each land use in terms of the specific standards and requirements of each district." (d) Based on the weight of credible evidence in regard to incompatibility of the proposed apartments with the existing nearby uses in the district that was submitted in the form of testimony and written comments of many neighbors and their representative, the Examiner makes the following Findings: Envizage Development Group Toscana Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 17 DOC. INDEX # ��-2 DECEIVED N O V 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAK. PLANNING D (i) The existing uses to the west, south and north of the proposed development are characterized predominantly by nice single-family residences. That district is one of the nicer and more well-established and well-maintained neighborhoods in all of Yakima. There are high income homes in this neighborhood and a commitment and investment by the homeowners over the course of probably 30 to 40 years who have covenants and restrictions on their property and have . maintained this neighborhood throughout this time. The neighbors who submitted letters and testimony are committed to preserving the unique single-family residential character of their neighborhood. (ii) High-density residential uses are generally incompatible in this zoning district. Administrative lot coverage and rear setback Adjustments are here being requested solely to incorporate residential uses in the development that have a higher density than would otherwise be permitted. (iii) The density and intensity of the proposed apartments present compatibility problems with visual appearance and building size, traffic generation, noise and light. The topography of the area exaggerates these problems. This area is different from a lot of other areas because it is shaped like_ an amphitheater. The surrounding single-family residences would look down upon the proposed development. Noise gets magnified and travels up the hill. Residents can often hear skating at a skate park that is located some considerable distance away. The increased density and intensity of the apartment use would create more noise from the increased traffic which also would contribute to traffic congestion on Castlevale Road and at the intersection of Castlevale Road with 40th Avenue. It would exacerbate potential safety issues when the hilly access street is icy during winter months. The increased density would also result in more noise from recreational and other activities of the residents of the apartments at their swimming pool or elsewhere on the site. Due to the amphitheater -like topography of the area to the north, west and south of the proposed apartments, the noise and visual appearance created by the increased density of the apartments could not be effectively buffered by fences, plantings, walls, berms or other methods. A density of this magnitude Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 18 DOC. INDEX ,.A-2- • • 9ECEIVED N O \/ 0 4 2008 i:IIY OF YAKIIwh PLANNING DIV. would be incompatible with the numerous neighbors residing on the surrounding hillside rather than only those adjacent to the site. (iv) Since there are no apartments in the immediate area, the proposed density of the apartments would stand out and the visual appearance would be conspicuously different from its surroundings. The apartment buildings would be of a conspicuous size, number and scale in the view of surrounding homes. The number of units would result in a level of activity that would be in sharp contrast to the level of activity in the existing neighborhood of single-family homes, which would have a view overlooking the apartments on three sides of the development, and in the senior mobile home park next to the development on the remaining side. (v) The expectations of some of the neighbors which helped form their view as to compatibility of the proposal originated in 1996 when they withdrew their opposition to Comprehensive Plan revisions on the property on the understanding that the Two -Family Residential District property would be developed with two-family residences, which they considered to ' be compatible. (vi) Besides the fact that a density of 14.6 dwelling units per net residential acre exceeds the density generally permitted throughout the district, that density would require Administrative Adjustments of the lot coverage or impervious area of the apartment property from 50 percent to 65 percent and of the rear setback for one of the apartment buildings from 15 feet to 5 feet. (vii) Although some features would promote compatibility with the neighborhood such as the architectural details, the high quality building standards, the location of the larger swimming pool for the apartments nearly 400, feet from the nearest existing residence and other positive aspects of the proposed apartment development, the proposed incompatible density and intensity of the apartment buildings, on balance, outweigh the features that tend to promote their compatibility with the neighborhood. (e) The Hearing Examiner's determination as to compatibility must be guided by the City Council's legislative determination to the effect that the Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL 44-08 19 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA 410 PLANNING DIV. proposed apartment use having a density of 14.6 dwelling units per net residential acre in an R-2 zoning district is generally incompatible with its neighbors. The weight of credible evidence. submitted relative to ihis particular neighborhood supports that legislative determination. The Examiner is therefore unable to find that the proposed density and intensity of the apartment development is compatible with the characteristics of the existing uses in the neighborhood and is likewise unable to determine that the difficulties related to compatibility have been adequately resolved. Thus, the Class (3) use application cannot be approved. X. Class (2) Duplex Use Review Criteria. The proposed duplexes were Class (2) uses in the Single -Family Residential District (R-1) when this application was filed, though as of October 2008 they have been classified as Class (3) uses in the R-1 zoning district for any future applications. The Hearing Examiner's Findings and Conclusions would have to set forth specific reasons and ordinance provisions demonstrating that this decision satisfies the requirements set forth in Subsections 15.04.020(2) and 15.14.040(5) of the Yakima Municipal Code before this Class (2) application for duplexes could be approved. The Examiner therefore makes the following Findings in regard to the Class (2) application for duplexes: (1) Subsection 15.04.020(2) of the Yakima Municipal Code states that although Class (2) uses are generally permitted in a particular district, their compatibility cannot be determined in advance: "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. Therefore, Class (2) Review by the administrative official is required in order to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district and 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. Enviz ge Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 20 DOC. INDEX # /4/4-2 • r RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 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, Class (3) uses being higher that Class (2), and Class (2) uses being higher than Class (1)." This Examiner has previously held that the provisions in the zoning ordinance requiring a higher level of review than normal for a type of use does not change the nature of the use itself or the presumption attributed to it, only the type of review (CLC Associates, City of Yakima No. CL (2) #16-05, July 10, 2006). (2) Subsection 15.14.040(5) of the Yakima Municipal Code requires the decision as to the proposed Class (2) duplex use to be based upon the same criteria as the proposed Class (3) apartment use; i.e., compliance with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the zoning district and the provisions and standards of the zoning ordinance: "5. Findings and Conclusions. The administrative official shall prepare written findings and conclusions stating the specific reasons, and citing the specific chapters and sections of this title upon which his decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Review is based. The fmdings shall demonstrate that the administrative official's decision complies with the objectives of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the zoning district, and the provisions and standards established herein." (3) Relative specifically to compliance with the objectives of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the Examiner makes the following Findings: (a) The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (Map III -3) designates the subject property as suitable for Low Density Residential development, which is defined as follows on page 1II-9 of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan: "Low Density Residential Primarily single family, detached residences. Net residential density before considering roads and right of ways is less than 7.0 dwelling units per acre, which is considered thelowest residential density to efficiently support public services." (b) Figure I1I-2, the Land Use Compatibility Chart on page III -7 of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan, lists a proposed Low Density Residential Use as "generally compatible" in a Low Density Residential designation, but the Chart is Envi7age Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 21 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA1110 PLANNING DIV. preceded by the caveat quoted above in Finding IX(3)(b) which indicates that the Chart is only a portion of the decision which also includes Hearing Examiner and Legislative Body deliberations and public comments. (c) The City's zoning ordinance more specifically implements the Comprehensive Plan Low Density Residential designation. When this application was filed, Table 4-1 in Chapter 15.04 of the Yakima Municipal Code provided that duplexes were Class (2) uses which were generally permitted in the R-1 zoning district except for the fact that compatibility could not be determined in advance. (d) Even though the density of the proposed duplex development at 5.67 dwelling units per net residential acre is within the permissible density of the Low Density Residential designation, the 84 duplex units m 42 duplex structures proposed for the Single -Family Residential District (R-1) on the property are not "primarily single family, detached residences." Rather, the Class (2) use application involves solely duplex units without any single-family residences. (e) The weight of credible evidence presented by the neighbors m their testimony and letters was to the effect that the proposed duplexes would fail to comply with Comprehensive Plan Objective L2 which is to establish a pattern of development that supports a sense of community, with Comprehensive Plan Policy H1.6.2 which is to encourage compatible infill of existing neighborhoods and with Comprehensive Plan Policy G9.3 which is to encourage infill development with new construction that is compatible with the scale and density of the surrounding housing. Unless the pertinent Single -Family Residential District (R-1) zoning ordinance provisions that implement the Comprehensive Plan provisions provide an exception for a development consisting of 42 duplex structures containing 84 dwelling units without any single-family detached residences to be located in this Low Density Residential designation, a Comprehensive Plan amendment to a different Comprehensive _ Plan designation would be a prerequisite to approving this application. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the pertinent Single -Family Residential District zoning ordinance provisions provide some exception to allow a concentrated development of this number of duplex structures without any single-family detached residences that does not appear in the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan provisions themselves. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 22 DOC. INDEX 0 • r RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. (4) Relative specifically to compliance with the intent, character, provisions and standards of the zoning district, the Examiner makes the following Findings: (a) The intent and the character of the R-1 zoning district relative to the type of structures allowed in the zoning district are specifically set forth in the first part of Subsection 15.03.030(2) of the Yakima Municipal Code as follows: "Single -Family Residential District (R-1) The single-family residential district is intended to: a. Establish and preserve residential neighborhoods for detached single-family dwellings free from other uses except those which are compatible with, and serve the residents of, this district; and b. Locate moderate -density residential development, up to seven dwelling units per net residential acre, in areas served by public water and sewer. Detached single-family dwellings are the primary use in this district... . (b) Table 4-1 of the Yakima Municipal Code listed duplexes as Class (2) uses in the R-1 zoning district when this application was filed. Section 15.02.020 of the Yakima Municipal Code defines Class (2) uses as follows: "Class (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." (c) Here the duplex development consisting of 42 duplex structures could not be required to include single-family residences by merely imposing conditions because that would involve substantially redesigning the project. The proposal for 42 duplex structures is what it is and was not a negotiable characteristic of the proposal. The reasons given by the neighbors for their opposition to duplexes near their single-family residences must be taken into account by the Examiner to determine whether the proposed duplex development promotes compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objectives of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. As previously noted, Section 15.02.020 of the Yakima Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADT #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 23 DOC. INDEX # AA -2 NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMF. PLANNING DIV.. O Municipal Code defines "compatibility" as "the characteristics of different uses or development that permit them to be located near each other in harmony." (d) Based on the weight of credible evidence regarding the incompatibility of 42 duplex structures without any single-family residences being located adjacent to the existing single-family neighborhood, the Examinermakes the following Findings: (i) As noted in Finding IX(4)(d)(i) above, the neighborhood to the west, south and north of the proposed development is one of the nicer and more well-established and well-maintained neighborhoods in all of Yakima. There are high income homes in this neighborhood and a commitment and investment by the homeowners over the course of probably 30 to 40 years who have covenants and restrictions on their property and have maintained this neighborhood throughout this time. The neighbors who submitted letters and testimony are committed to preserving the character of their unique neighborhood. (ii) Although the testimony indicated that there are already three nice well-maintained duplexes on individual parcels south of the proposed development, former Hearing Examiner Philip Lamb denied an application for four duplexes in an R-1 zoning district south of this proposed development (City of Yakima No. CL (3) #6-99 dated September 28, 1999). His decision was consistent with theintent of the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation quoted in Finding X(3)(a) above to allow "primarily single family, detached residences" and the intent of the R-1 zoning district quoted in Finding X(4)(a) above to the effect that "detached single-family dwellings are the primary use m this district." The following reason for denying that application for four duplexes was stated at page 9: "The clear language of both the Plan and the Zoning Ordinance indicate that duplexes may be scattered throughout the R-1 zone, but not placed in a concentrated fashion which is far more dense than seven units per acre." Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 24 DOC. INDEX • • RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIM, PLANNING DIV Even though the duplexes in this proposed duplex development would not be more dense than seven units per acre, they would be placed together in a concentrated fashion rather than scattered throughout the R-1 zone and there would be no blending of uses on the site from single-family residences to duplexes. Mr. Lamb and this Hearing Examiner have both required blending of duplex or common wall developments to recognize the primary use required in the Low Density Residential designation and in. the R-1 zoning district. Blending of duplex or common wall developments with adjacent single-family residences can be accomplished by. requiring single -story single-family residences to be constructed on the lots adjacent to single-family residences in order to promote compatibility (Plat of Cottonwood Grove, Yakima County No. SUB 99-109, June, 2000; Plat of KIMCO South, Yakima County No. PRJ 2003-038, August 9, 2005). (iii) As previously noted in Finding IX(4)(d)(iii), this area is different from a lot of other areas because it is shaped like an amphitheater. The surrounding single-family residences would look down upon the proposed development and therewould be no effective way to effectively screen the different visual design .characteristics and living styles of the duplex structures from the existing single-family residences located above them by means of fences, plantings, walls, berms or other methods. (iv) The expectations of some of the neighbors which helped form their view as to compatibility of the proposal originated in 1996 when they withdrew their opposition to Comprehensive Plan revisions on the property on the understanding that single-family residences, which they considered to be compatible on the Single -Family Residential property, would be allowed there rather than duplexes. In this regard, the representative of the former owner of the property described his Comprehensive Plan requests at a public hearing to include "low density or R-1 housing along the entire west side perimeter of .the property bordering the canal which would protect, we believe, the residents west of Carriage Hill." The former owner said that "solves the problem of Carriage Hill. We have a border of single - dwelling houses and then in the center there next to the trailer court where Envi7age Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 25 DOC. INDEX #AA -2 RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMO PLANNING DIV. people wouldn't want to have single -dwelling houses, we have created an area where we intend to put in a gated condo area for senior citizens." (v) There are 16 individual homes on the Conestoga side of the property and 28 units are proposed on the other side. That is almost doubling the units from one side to another. There would be a stark contrast just from one property to the next with about a 75% increase in traffic for the duplex uses with a corresponding increase in activity, noise, light and glare from just one property to the next. This incompatibility can. be rectified by requiring blending and a mirror image so that the Conestoga residents would see the same lot sizes and the same type of structures. Visually there would be a blending rather than a checkerboard of uses and the applicant would fairly be taking the risk of lowering property values by keeping the blending from single-family residences to .duplexes on his own property. A blending would prevent a distinct contrast of neighborhoods and a checkerboard of different types of development that would be totally incompatible. A blending would satisfy Objective L2 of the Comprehensive Plan to establish a pattern of development that supports a sense ' of community, and a blending would preserve the expectations of any fp property owners who were told there would be single -dwelling houses there or who purchased their residences in reliance on those types of assurances. (vi) Although features such as the architectural details, the high quality building standards and the stricter duplex height limitations than required by the zoning standards would promote compatibility with the neighborhood, the incompatibility of a concentrated development with the proposed number of duplex structures and without any blending of single- family residential structures near existing single-family residences, on balance, outweighs the features of the proposed duplex development that tend to promote its compatibility with its neighbors. (e) The Examiner's determination as to compatibility must be guided by the legislative determination to the effect that the R-1 property on the site is intended primarily for single-family residences rather than a concentrated development exclusively of 42 duplex structures. Under the weight of credible evidence submitted in this matter, the Examiner is unable to find the proposed 84- Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 26 0 DOC. INDEX # AA -2- • • raCoaCu v MU' NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING OIA/. unit duplex use consisting of 42 duplex structures to be compatible with the intent of the R-1 zoning district, with the character of the existing single-family residential uses in the neighborhood and with the objectives and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. XI. Administrative Adjustment Criteria. Since Section 15.10.020 of the Yakima Municipal. Code requires a determination that an "adjustment and/or reduction is consistent with the purpose of this title" and since the proposed apartment development is not consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance in the ways explained in the Findings set forth in Section IX above, the lot coverage and rear setback Administrative Adjustments for the apartment development cannot be approved. XII. Consistency of the Proposed Uses with Criteria of Section 16.06.020(B) of the Yakima Municipal Code is determined by consideration of the following factors: (1) The types of land uses permitted at the site by the Two -Family Residential District (R-2) and the Single -Family Residential District (R-1) do not include the proposed apartment and duplex developments which respectively fail to satisfy the requirements for approval of Class (3) and Class (2) uses. (2) The density of residential development or the level of development such as units per acre or other measures of density of the proposed apartment development would be incompatible with the single-family residential neighborhood that already exists in the surrounding area. The proposed duplex development which would comply with prescribed density levels would be incompatible for other reasons. 3) The availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities which could be provided at the developer's expense would not be necessary absent Class (3) and Class (2) use approval of the proposed apartment and duplex developments. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 27 DOC. INDEX RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIM110 PLANNING DIV 4) The characteristics of the development of the proposed apartments cannot be consistent with the R-2 development regulations without Class (3) use approval and approval of lot coverage and rear setback Administrative Adjustments. The development of the proposed duplexes cannot be consistent with R-1 development regulations without Class (2) use approval. CONCLUSIONS Based on the Findings set forth above, the Examiner reaches the following Conclusions: (1) The Yakima Municipal Code confers jurisdiction upon the Hearing Examiner to hear and decide SEPA MDNS appeals, Class (3) and Class (2) use applications and Administrative Adjustment applications in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the SEPA ordinance and the zoning ordinance. (2) Based on the Findings set forth in Section IV of this decision, the Examiner concludes that public notice requirements have been satisfied. (3) Based on the Findings set forth m Sections VIII, IX, X and XI of this decision, the Examiner affirms this SEPA MDNS, denies this SEPA appeal, and also denies these Class (3) and Class, (2) applications and these Administrative Adjustment applications. (4) Based on the Findings set forth in Sections IX, X and XII of this decision, the proposed Class (3) apartment uses and Class (2) duplex uses have not been shown to be in compliance and compatible with the objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent, character, provisions and standards of the zoning district where they would be located, and with the consistency criteria in the Yakima Municipal Code. (5) Based on the Findings in Section XI of this decision, these requested Administrative Adjustments to lot coverage and rear setback standards would not properly be granted for uses which have not been shown to be in compliance and compatible with the objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent, character, provisions and standards of the zoning district where they would be located, and with the consistency criteria in the Yakima Municipal Code. (6) This decision may be appealed within the time and in the manner required by Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 28 DOC. INDEX • • • • RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKINiw PLANNING DIV. applicable City ordinances and/or State statutes. DECISION Based on the Findings and Conclusions set forth above, the Examiner issues the following decision: (1) SEPA MDNS EC #19-08 is AFFIRMED. (2) SEPA Appeal #4-08, Class (3) apartment use application CL(3) #7-08, Class (2) duplex use application CL(2) #20-08 and lot coverage/rear setback Administrative Adjustment application ADM ADJ #16-08 are DENIED. (3) As an alternative to appealing the denial of the Class (3) use, Class (2) use and Administrative Adjustment applications and as recommended by the legal representative for neighbors opposed to these applications, the applicant shall within the period allowed for an appeal of this decision have the option of giving written notice to the Planning Division of his intent to thereafter submit the following within a timeframe to be established by the Planning Division: (i) a revised application, (ii) a revised site plan, (iii) a revised SEPA Checklist, and (iv) any other documents required by the Planning Division to issue a new SEPA determination and to schedule a reconvened hearing to be held with the same type of notice after circulation of the same documents for agency and public comments in the same manner that would be required for a new application. The final decisions resulting from the reconvened hearing process would be subject to appeal. (4) If instead the applicant elects to appeal this decision, the opponent(s) may also appeal the denial of their SEPA appeal, and all aspects of this decision shall be final subject only to any further review processes that are directed as a result of the appeal(s). DATED this 4th day of November, 2008. Envi7 ge Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 29 . Gary M. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner DOC. INDEX # AA -2 RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 QTY 0f YAKIMA• PLAID DIV City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision Reconvening Hearing September 22, 2008 In the Matter of an Application for Class (3) Uses, for Class (2) Uses and for Administrative Adjustments Submitted by: Envizage Development Group For a Mixture of Duplex & Apartment Units with Lot Coverage & Rear Setback Administrative Adjustments in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts UAZO CL(3) #7-08 UAZO CL(2) #20-08 UAZO ADM ADJ #16-08 EC #19-08 SEPA APPEAL #4-08 Introduction. The proceedings in this matter to this point may be summarized as follows: (1) The Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on August 14, 2008. Testimony at the public hearing raised an issue as to the intent of the Yakima City Council and the representations made to neighboring property owners as to the type of development that would be compatible and allowed on the subject property here proposed for development. The Examiner closed the hearing, but allowed anyone with further information by way of videotapes, audiotapes and other documents related to that issue one week to submit them to Assistant Planner Joseph Calhoun for inclusion into the record and for forwarding to the Examiner for review. (2) An extension of time was requested to provide the information. That request was granted until September 8, 2008 by an interim decision dated August 21, 2008. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd.ISeattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 1 DOC INDEX AA -1 • • RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIih PLANNING DIV. (3) Within ten business days of that date, the Examiner has reviewed all the information provided and has issued this interim decision reconvening the hearing for limited purposes. Summary of Decision. Since this appears to be a situation where even the prevailing party could lose valuable benefits that could be achieved by an agreed resolution of compatibility issues, the Examiner will reconvene the hearing in this matter in one month for the limited purpose of learning from interested parties and/or their representative(s) whether there is any interest in exploring and discussing among themselves the possibility and mechanism for resolving the compatibility issues in this matter through a development agreement and/or covenants rather than by issuance of a final decision in this matter. The hearing in this matter will be reconvened on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the Yakima City Council Chambers, City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. Basis for Decision. Based upon the Examiner's review of the evidence presented in this matter in light of the pertinent provisions of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, the Hearing Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS I. Applicant. The applicant is Envizage Development Group, 200 Galloway Drive, Yakima, Washington 98908. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 2 DOC. INDEX # RECEIVED SEF 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIM,: PLANNING DIV. II. Location. The location of the property is m the vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run. The tax parcel numbers are 181315-31011 and 181315-34037. III. Application. This application submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development on April 17, 2008 requests: (1) Class (2) use approval for 84 dwelling units in 42 duplexes in the portion of the property zoned Single -Family Residential (R-1) along the west and south portion of the property; (2) Class (3) use approval for.96 apartment units in one building containing three dwelling units, four buildings containing four dwelling units, one building containing five dwelling units and nine buildings containing eight dwelling units which would all be located in the portion of the property zoned Two -Family Residential (R-2) along the east portion of the property; (3) An Administrative Adjustment to allow 65% lot coverage rather than 50% lot coverage in the portion of the property zoned R-2; (4) An Administrative Adjustment to allow a 5 -foot rear setback rather than a 15 - foot rear setback for building 7 shown on the site plan along the south boundary of Lot 1; and (5) SEPA environmental review. IV. Notices. Notices for the hearing and environmental review were provided in accordance with applicable ordinance requirements in the following manner: Mailing of notice of SEPA review & hearing to property owners: Publishing of notice of SEPA review & hearing in newspaper: Mailing of notice of SEPA MDNS to property owners: Publishing of notice of SEPA MDNS in newspaper: Posting of land use action notice on property: Mailing of notice of SEPA Appeal hearing: Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 3 June 13, 2008 June 13, 2008 July 14, 2008 July 14, 2008 July 29, 2008 July 31, 2008 DOC. INDEX # AA -I RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKiilite. PLANNING DIV. V. Current Zoning and Land Uses. The subject property is currently zoned Single - Family Residential (R-1) and Two -Family Residential (R-2). The property previously was. used as an orchard and contains a single-family residence and accessory buildings which are to be demolished. The existing zoning and existing land uses on adjacent properties are: Location Zoning Land Use North R -1/B-1 Residential/Vacant Land South R -1/R-2 Residential West R-1 Residential East R -1/R-3 Residential/Mobile Home Park VI. Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance. Traffic concurrency review under the City's Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance completed on July 3, 2008 determined that reserve capacity is available on all impacted streets. VII. State Environmental Policy Act. After expiration of the 20 -day comment period, a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on July 14, 2008 (EC #19-08) pursuant to the optional process m WAC 197-11-355. The comments submitted prior to issuance of the MDNS are summarized by Assistant Planner Joseph Calhoun's staff report as follows; (1) Views from houses along the canal will be altered; (2) Proposed densities are too high for the subject property; (3) Traffic increase; (4) Property values of surrounding homes will decrease; Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 4 DOC. INDEX RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA 41) PANNING DIV. (5) Proposed use is not compatible with current zoning district or the surrounding neighborhood; (6) Noise from recreation facility, proposed pool and traffic will be detrimental to neighborhood; (7) Toxins are likely present from past orchard use; (8) Possible safety issues with the canal; (9) Adjustments should not be allowed; (10) Smog/air quality issues; (11) Proposed interior streets do not meet standards; and (12) Lighting should be directed away from homes uphill. The MDNS required the following 18 mitigation measures: (1) No development permit shall be issued prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning review. (2) Contractors doing clearing, grading, paving, construction or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA). Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. (3) The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the limitations of its water rights. A water right permit is required for all surface water diversions and for any water from a well that will exceed 5,000 gallons per day. (4) A NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Washington State Dept. of Ecology is required. The permit requires that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) is prepared and implemented for all permitted construction sites. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima's Engineering Division prior to construction. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA-APPEAL #4-08 DOC. INDEX # AA -1 0 • • RECEIVED SEP .2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKiivifrk PLANNING 0!V/. (5) The Yakima Valley Canal Company (YVCC) will not allow any excavation or construction within their right-of-way. Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way. (6) Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoirstorage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. If Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are used in the drainage design, the UIC wells must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and a copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and registration number(s) shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer. (7) Ecology recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed .for lead and arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found at concentrations above MTCA clean up levels, Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence. (8) Public waterlines are required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall be placed in the street connect to the existing waterline in Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependent on the required fireflow for the buildings. (9) In accordance with YMC § 12.03.020, sewer is to be extended along the east edge of the property to provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer piPe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly finger of the development to provide gravity sewer to existing residences on the west and south sides of the canal. (10) All public utility lines on private property shall be. located in a minimum 16 - foot easement. (11) Fire Department Access Roads shall be installed and designed to the standards of the 2006 International Fire Code (IFC). (12) The proposed gates shall comply with the 2006 IFC standards and be equipped with a Knox Box rapid entry system or Opticom system which will be approved by the fire code official. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 DOC. INDEX # AA.I RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKiivi,s PLANNING DIV. (13) Where required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6 of the IFC. (14) Kern Road shall be maintained at a minimum of twenty -feet of paved surface. (15) During project construction, all contractors shall adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. These hours are 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends and holidays. (16) Title 12 development standards shall be applied to.this project including streets built to city standards with curb, gutter, five-foot sidewalks and streetlights. Five-foot sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed along the Castlevale frontage. Public easements will be recorded where needed. (17) Parking and street lighting shall adhere to the standards of YMC § 15.06.100. Lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties. (18) Sitescreening Standard "A" shall be installed along the west and south property lines due to adjacent single-family residential land uses. A higher standard may be substituted. A SEPA Appeal (#4-08) was filed on July 28, 2008 by Carriage Hill Concerned Citizens. The appellant contends that mitigation requirements are insufficient to mitigate environmental . impacts to an insignificant level and that probable significant environmental impacts remain that require an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposal. The appellant further contends that some of the findings or mitigation requirements in the MDNS improperly defer studies and information needed to make a proper environmental determination and/or improperly set forth requirements in general terms that cannot be reasonably accomplished or ascertained. Those contentions are summarized in Mr. Calhoun's staff report as follows: Envi7age Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes'and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 7 DOC. INDEX 0 0 • • RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMAe PLANNING DIV. (1) Water Resources. (Finding G and Mitigation Requirement 5). "Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way." Such a "requirement" is ambiguous and so completely subjective as to be unenforceable: Absolute setbacks from the canal should be set forth. Studies related to soil stability and retention need to be performed up front in order to make a proper determination. (2) Water Quality. (Finding C and Mitigation Requirement 3). Water rights need to be determined in advance and not left up to future speculation. (3) Storm Water Management. Due to the large excavation proposed for this site, a full Stormwater Prevention Plan should be required in advance of environmental review determinations. Furthermore, it is stated that "The applicant should not assume they can put all of their runoff into the City lines." There needs to be requirements of what can and cannot be allowed to quantify what amount of run-off, if any, can be transferred off- site. (4) Toxics. (Finding G and Mitigation Requirement 7). No actual "requirement" is set forth. It is merely stated that soil testing is recommended. Soil sampling for lead, arsenic, and other toxins must be required. (5) Transportation. Traffic studies need to be required up front. Presently, there is insufficient information to make an appropriate determination. (6) Noise. The proposed project is adjacent to a residential community. Construction hours need to be appropriately limited. (7) Light and Glare. Additional consideration of all impacts needs to be considered. For example, no reference is made regarding glare from the swimming pool or what type of lights may be used. (8) Aesthetics. Higher standards are required to preserve the adjacent neighborhoods. (9) Sitescreening. The proposal is for medium and high densities to be built adjacent to low density neighborhoods. Higher sitescreening standards than standard "C" are appropriate. The statement that "the developer may substitute a higher sitescreening standard..." is meaningless. A higher standard must be made a requirement. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08;-SEPA APPEAL #4-08 DOC. INDEX # AA— RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKINditi PLANNING DIV. (10) Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan for the following non -exhaustive reasons: it does not preserve existing established neighborhoods; it detracts from the quality of life and sense of communitywithin the area; and it provides for higher densities than designated by the future land use plan. VIII. Testimony Presented at the Hearing. The main points set forth in the testimony presented at the public hearing are here paraphrased or summarized for two reasons: (1) Regardless of what the Examiner may ultimately decide, it is likely that the decision in this matter will be appealed to the City Council and possibly to Superior Court. A summary of the testimony will assist those involved in reviews of the Examiner's ultimate decision. (2) The summary of the testimony will afford the persons interested m this matter a convenient way of studying the respective positions of those who testified. That in turn may help them determine if they would like to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by this interim decision to explore the . possibility of resolving the compatibility differences here through a development agreement or other agreed method that would avoid appeals and could provide a better result with more certainty for interested parties than would result from a decision denying or approving the application. A decision denying the application could result in construction of Class (1) single-family residences to a height of 35 feet that would obstruct views without the quality and design standards here proposed because at least Class (2) review is required to impose conditions to promote compatibility. Approval of the application could result in conditions that would be unacceptable to the applicant or interested property owners, or both. That testimony may be summarized or paraphrased as follows: (1) Joseph Calhoun: Assistant Planner Joseph Calhoun presented his staff report recommending that the application be approved with conditions and his staff report recommending that the SEPA MDNS be upheld. Both staff reports are in the record. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 9 DOC. INDEX # AA ---1 • • RECEIVED SEF 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIIvii, PLANNING DIV. (2) Paul Casey: He is the architect for the project and is the principal owner of the Casey Group Architects which has about 21 years of experience in designing a variety of residential designs similar to this project. Their main goal is to create a positive living environment for the people who live in the project as well as those located in the area. The quality of this project is first illustrated by an existing two-story apartment and condominium complex in Puyallup, Washington which is located around a traditional streetscape system. Pictures of the complex are presented because they show the same unit style and designas the proposed project. The primary goal is to create a pedestrian - friendly streetscape that loops the project and interconnects each living unit with swimming pool facilities and a recreation facility in the center part of the site. Although you see a lot of three-story apartments, the buildings in this project are all two-story. The other unique feature of this type of development is that every unit has its own dedicated attached garage so you will not see a lot of cars and carports around the site. What further enhances this project is the fact that the garages themselves are faced away from the internal streets so you will not see a lot of garage doors as you drive by. What you will see is front doors, porches, plants on patios and that type of thing instead of seeing carports and garages that you might see with standard mutt -family development: The second project that illustrates the proposal is located in Tumwater, Washington. It features the same building design as the Puyallup project and the use of the private and pedestrian -oriented streetscape located around a common recreation facility and pool. Eventhough the building designs for the proposal are the same, the architectural character of the proposal is more suitable to the environment here which includes more flat roofs and more stucco -look products instead of having horizontal siding and shingle roofs. The basic feature of the proposal is more of a Tuscany feel in the architecture with a little southwestern flare that is more compatible with the landscaping in this area. It is a very beautiful area and we want to complement the features that this environment offers. Low -slope roofs of white, matte single -ply vinyl - type membrane roofing material engineered for roofmg applications with a parapet around them will be used to achieve the Tuscany and southwestern character. Some areas on the one-story duplexes will have a slope roof with possibly either a concrete tile or a real heavy -grade composition shingle. Additional exhibits, primarily color exhibits, and information regarding the duplex floor plans and elevations as well as the apartment elevations illustrate the quality of the project since there was concern that this project could affect the neighborhood values. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 10 DOC. INDEX # AA -1 RECEIVED SEP 2. 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMt PLANNING DIV The goal of the general site planning of this project is to develop the property in a reasonable fashion to help preserve the value and the views that the neighbors enjoy. The duplex portion of the site is on the upper part of the site and then the apartment part of the site is at the lower portion further away from the existing residences to the north, west and south of the project based on good planning policy of being a good neighbor to the people that have already developed their properties. The lower -density duplexes will be compatible with the single-family residences above and their height will protect views. The other site planning feature similar to the other two projects in western Washington is a system of private drives that extend around and through the site. There are a series of parallel stalls located along those drives and pedestrian walkways on both sides of those drives. The width of the drives is 24 feet plus the width of parking stalls and parking. Each duplex has its own dedicated two -car garage that is accessed through a short private drive off of the main drive to create a nice pedestrian -friendly environment for those located within. The proposal mainly includes single -story duplexes, but some two-story duplexes are being requested. The apartments located on the bottom part of the site by the existing mobile home park to the east are the two-story structures. There is a recreation area intended to serve the occupants of both the apartments and the duplexes with a pool facility in between. There are common yard areas between the two developments with a jogging trail/walking path linking the two. There is a secondary recreation facility dedicated just for the duplex occupants located approximately 300 feet away from the property line at the canal side of the property. The garages for both the duplexes and apartments are oriented off the private drive so that people who drive in do not look at a series of garage doors. The administrative adjustment to increase the impervious portion on Lot 1 from the 50% that is allowed to 65% is requested because a major portion of the common recreation facility and space for the apartments is actually located on the duplex portion of the property. It is also requested as a little bit of a trade-off for the nice pedestrian street with more walkways and parallel parking areas, for the attached garages and for the very large recreation area that all require more impervious area than would be standard for a multi -family project. The 37% impervious area of the duplex development with the requested 65% impervious area of the apartment development averages 45% for the whole project which is within the R-1 45% limitation and less than the 50% R-2 limitation. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments, at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 11 DOC. INDEX # AA— / • • • RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKii PLANNING DIV. The second administrative adjustment requested regarding the reduction in the rear yard setback south of apartment building 7 on Lot 1 from 15 feet to 5 feet is not next to any adjacent landowner. Although the applicant agrees with most of the staff recommendations, relief is requested on a few items. As to the fence and sitescreening Standard "C" along the canal area northwest and south of the property, the fence should be added because of safety concerns, but the applicant prefers a durable, unobtrusive black chain link fence similar to two neighbors' existing fences instead of a solid fence. That type of fencing is galvanized metal with a black vinyl coating which does not break down or .require repainting or restaining like wood does. The fencing would be 30 feet from the centerline of the canal and there would be a 20 -foot rear yard for the duplexes east of the fence. If the preferred type of fencing were allowed, the applicant would be willing to increase the Standard "C" three-foot landscaped area within the fenced backyard areas of the duplexes to a continuous, uniform six-foot landscaped area along the entire length of the canal separating the duplexes from adjacent single-family residences. That would allow for a more prominent -type of landscaping with the backyards of the existing residences facing the backyards of duplexes. Covenants could be worked out to ensure maintenance of landscaping, but projects of this nature have more of a standard landscape maintenance program put in place. A homeowners type of association or the owner of the duplexes maintain everything together and the owners or residents of the duplexes do not have to maintain their own yard. While the apartments on Lot 1 are for rental facilities, the duplexes are at this time envisioned to be sold as condominiums. Given the present market conditions, they could end up being rented for a short period of time, but that is not the goal. The developer wants to build duplexes in the same sequence as he feels that they can be sold. Relative to the staff recommendation as to pool screening, pictures illustrating what the developer has already done on other projects show a nice attractive black wrought iron type fence around the pool enclosure. As part of being a good neighbor, the larger pool is located about a football field length away from the canal. The additional 60 feet of canal right-of-way makes the pool nearly 400 feet from the residences. So in terms of initial construction of the apartments, sound is not going to be an issue. Although people, including children, will enjoy an outside pool deck, it will be no different than some of the existing pools located in that residential area. In terms of sound, almost 400 feet is a large distance andwhen considering decibels of human voice levels is just not Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 12 DOC. INDEX # AA- I RECEIVED SEP 2 2 Z008 CITY OF YAKilvi-. PLANNING DIV. 1111 going to be a noticeable issue. As the project builds out, the duplexes built up the hill will also screen and further mitigate any kind of noise transfer to. those residences. So black wrought iron fence with the landscaping around the outside of the pool deck is preferred to the recommended pool screening. Relative to screening of any light sources, the SEPA checklist states that all the on-site exterior lighting will be shielded to avoid night glare and glare to the adjacent properties or even to the units themselves. Relative to the staff recommendation to limit duplexes along the canal area to one story, the initial plan was to make the duplexes single -level living facilities essentially for baby boomers. But with market demands, some people may want a larger unit. As a result of the staff report and anticipating a possible limitation to one story, pictures of back yards along the canal were taken and put in an exhibit showing the impacts of the duplexes on the views of the residents when sitting on the lowest floor level of their homes. The evaluation was based on the City's GIS topography of the site and of the adjacent residences. The height of the driving area by the canal and the lowest floor of each residence was established by looking at the contour lines. The topography shown by the City's GIS database was cross checked against the photos and a site reconnaissance looking at the approximate elevation of those lower homes. Although zoning allows a 35 -foot height for these duplexes, the applicant had already voluntarily agreed to limit the height to 25 feet to be a good neighbor. The additional evaluation was then conducted to determine which units could be two stories without interfering with views. The approximate floor elevation of each existing residence was established. The existing site sections provided with the application and added information were used to prepare a Two Story Duplex View Impact Analysis illustrating which duplexes can be two stories or 25 feet high without interfering with views. That illustration shows Site Section A -A and B -B with the canal on the left hand side and the property line between the canal and the Toscanna development. The conceptual outline of a single -story duplex is shown with a dash line above that illustrating the additional height of a 25 -foot -high two-story duplex. A larger diagram at the lower left portion of the illustration shows how the dash line relates to the view from residences. The top of the duplexes is set at elevation 1,270 feet based upon the anticipated floor elevation of the duplexes at 1,246 feet all along the canal side of the property and upon the City's definition of building height. The maximum height of two-story units would be 25 feet which would reach the elevation of 1,270 feet. Since the views of people sitting in a chair in the lowest level of Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 13 DOC. INDEX • • RECEIVED SEP 2 2 200 CITY OF YAKil', p, PLANNING DIV. their residences would be from four feet above the floor level, any residences having a floor elevation of at least 1,266 feet would have an unobstructed regional view of the valley over the roof of a 25 -foot -high two-story duplex. Since the hillside up to the existing single-family residences is steeper along the north and northwest portion of the property than at the south portion of the property, the seven northernmost duplexes along the canal designated on the site plan as duplexes A, C, E, G, J, L and N and two duplexes beyond the two duplexes southerly thereof designated as duplexes T and V could be 25 - foot -high two-story duplexes without obstructing regional views across the valley of people sitting on the lowest level of the single-family residences behind them. A height limit of 18 feet for the other duplexes along the canal that would be one story would be necessary to avoid obstructing the regional view across the valley from the residences behind them. The applicant would agree to a height limitation of 25 feet for the two- story duplexes along the canal. Regarding the SEPA appeal, the applicant agrees with staff's responses regarding each of the appeal points. Since the pool area is more than a football field away from the residences and the light fixtures on the entire site are shielded, the light, glare and screening aspects of the pool are not a problem for neighboring properties. Pictures of residences the developer has done in the past show four styles of duplexes which are all about 1,900 to 2,000 square feet. The theme is a Tuscan design with some southwestern flare — a stucco look, trellises and terracotta colored roofs, whether they be concrete tile or high grade architectural shingles to simulate tile. The single -story duplexes have a primary roof elevation of about 13 feet with limited areas that reach up to about 18 feet. Pictures also show the standard apartment design. The proposed apartments have the same floor plans as those projects already built by the developer except with lower sloped roofs, stucco -look type siding and some stone accents. Excavating will not occur within the canal right-of-way area at all. Full geological or geotechnical reports and grading studies will be required from a professional engineer that will be reviewed by City staff. The canal company will be involved. A landscape plan is traditionally completed through the building permit and site development review phases where the City will determine the landscape buffer requirements. The applicant would agree to an 18 -foot limitation on the height of one-story duplexes. Even though the apartments are Class (3) uses, the duplexes are Class (2) uses which basically require administrative review. The duplexes were combined for a hearing because of the combined submittals. Mr. Casey doesn't understand the concern about Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 14 DOC. INDEX • # _r RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMd, 410 PLANNING UN duplexes. There are already three duplexes at the south end of the property that look like nice, well-maintained homes on individual parcels. R-1 zoning allows up to 7 units per net acre and the duplex development is only 5.67 units per net acre. The purpose of the variances is to create a whole that is better than the sum of its parts. A developer could come in and construct 35 -foot -high single-family residences which would block all the views, but the majority of the duplexes would be limited to an 18 -foot height. (3) Dave Sjule: Although he has lived in Yakima for 15 years, this is his first stab at doing a significant project here. He is more of a vision guy as opposed to the legal stuff, but is trying to give himself a little bit of room in terms of architectural design. Sierra Sun, a project that this apartment design is based on, has been recognized as a top project in the State and has had national recognition as one of the top projects in the country. The neighbors generally show up and like the project when it is done. The market is changing pretty radically right now. His intention is another award-winning project here to go with the Tuscany theme of Yakima, watching the winery theme come up. It is very difficult right now with materials selections and the way the market is changing with oil, gas and so many of the items. So materials selection is going to be a continuing process. Approximately $500,000 will be spent on the two pools. He is very concerned about the requirement to cover those pools because they generally have been considered a very significant architectural feature of the project. The apartments are going to be cut down significantly to protect the views in the project and the views of the neighbors. With the apartments set down, the slope of the land, the retaining walls and the buildings, no one really is going to be able to see these pools except for the residents of the project. Everyone has always thoroughly enjoyed the beauty of the pools as opposed to blocking them off. This is a double -gated community and he likes to retain control over his projects° so there is not a whole bunch of different owners. He cannot have someone messing up the neighborhood. His intent is that his association will have control over all the landscaping that is going to be maintained professionally. That should alleviate fears about lack of maintenance of the landscaping around the property. Probably about a million dollars will be spent for landscaping on this project. Wood fencing involves a big problem with decay, warping, maintenance and is very unsightly as time goes on. Since the proposed fence is about ten feet below the canal, no one above the site is even going to be able to see the fence even though it is needed for safety. Black is clean and kind of Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 15 DOC. INDEX # AA_I • • RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKlivii, PLANNING DIV blends into the hill. Although he anticipates significant landscaping around the property along the lines of his company's existing projects, a landscape architect familiar with Yakima conditions will have to be retained for the landscaping plan. The duplex sites along the canal will have to be cut down about six feet with a 2 to 1 slope in a way engineered to protect the canal and the project. The canal company will have a say in that process. Based on his past record for 30 years, he only does "A" projects. The plan is to build the apartments first. They would be completed to the minimum standards of his company's Sierra Sun development in Puyallup. Although the units in that project rent for $1,200.00 to $3,000.00 per month, it is unknown what rents the units will rent for here. Duplex development will be based on the market acceptance of his product to make sure that he does not bury himself in something that people don't like. His company is the landowner and would be the developer and the property management company after the units are occupied. His brochure shows his Sierra Sun project in Puyallup where about $2 million dollars was spent on the clubhouse with spectacular waterfalls and glass ceilings. It is recognized as the best garden -style community m the State and the best clubhouse m the entire country. His company is a small family company where everyone is very detail -oriented. Keith Basham is the project manager. He has lived in Yakima in the past. Since he has been with the company for 20 years, there is consistency m all their communities. (4) Rick Wehr: He is with PLSA Engineering & Surveying which will be the, surveying firm on this project and which has been m Yakima for 44 years doing projects such as this. The recommendation that all stormwater is to be retained on-site is incorrect. When Mr. Pearson had the property and granted a drainage easement for all the people to the west to get stormwater through his property in that easement, he reserved a right to be able to put stormwater into that piping system. The applicant wants to retain that right. All of the stormwater will not be put into the piping system because of the physical properties of the site. Some of it will be essentially retained on site through infiltration. The amount of stormwater that can be put into the piping system should be determined rather than require all of it to be retained on site. Regarding the recommendation as to the lead and arsenic, he has a copy of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for this site back in 1985. The lead and arsenic in this area is essentially in alkaline based soil where it becomes unleachable and Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 16 DOC. INDEX. RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIIVir, PLANNING DIV. therefore will not go into the water and stays encapsulated in the soil. Just about all the subdivisions west of 32nd Avenue have been built on former orchard property where this type of material was used for insecticides and fertilizers in the 1940s. Even though there is lead and arsenic on this property, the site is going to be graded and cut up closer to the canal and filled in down where the apartment complexes are going to go so that lead and arsenic will be encapsulated in the soil which is the preferred method of dealing with that. Once the buildings, grass, paving and sidewalks are in place, lead and arsenic will not be contaminating anything. In our area a 2 to 1 slope is considered a stable slope and that is going to be the maximum slope of anything on the site. There will be no excavation on the canal right- of-way. (5) Chad Hatfield: He is an attorney at the firm of Velikanje Halverson PC speaking on the behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill. This neighborhood is one of the nicer and most well-established and well-maintained neighborhoods in all of Yakima. There are high income homes in this neighborhood and a commitment and investment by the homeowners over the course of probably 30 to 40 years who have covenants and restrictions on their property and have maintained this neighborhood throughout this time. Under the definitional section of 15.02 of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, 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 for 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 Hearing 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. Chapter 15.03 regarding the zoning districts says that this higher density development shall be allowed only on those limited occasions when the reviewing official finds that the location and the site plan of the project is such that the higher density would be compatible with neighboring land uses. Introducing this high density use into this neighborhood is generally incompatible. A strip of R-2 exists along the mobile homes and the rest is R-1. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 17 DOC. INDEX # AA —I 0 • RECEIVED SEF 2 s" 2008 CITY OF YAKIND-. PLANNING DIV Another development was contested off of 46th and Englewood just south of these properties where an R-2 duplex development was denied because it was incompatible and where an R-1 development now exists. High-density residences are generally incompatible in this zoning and should not be introduced in this area unless they carry the burden of showing why it can be compatible. The applicant has not met this burden. Administrative Adjustments are requested, not because of the odd shape of a parcel, but to fit in higher-densityresidential units in this area. It is creating its own problems. Even if this were in the proper zone, it's still not meeting the basic design requirements without asking for concessions from the neighborhood. There is really no requirement that anything is built to the standards shown in the pictures. Newspaper articles at one point defined the project as high-income properties and then later as medium -income properties and now the applicant and the architect indicate that, despite best intentions, this is really a consideration of the market. So there. are no guarantees as to what will be built and what will not be built. As a practical matter, projects are not torn down because they are not exactly the level of high-income type properties that were explained or promised. So when evaluating whether the burden has been met, we only have to look at it at the base line bottom line of what could be the minimum standards of development. That is really all that is guaranteed here for these neighboring property owners. There are 16 individual homes on the Conestoga side of the property and 28 units are proposed on the other side. So you are almost doubling the amount of units from one side to the other. Issues of this incompatibility have been dealt with in Yakima on the Congdon property and in the Tri -Cities by requiring blending. Oftentimes when it is backyard to backyard, a mirror image is required. That means that the Conestoga residents should be able to see the same lot sizes and the same type of structures. Zoning is set up so the visual eye will see a blending, not a checkerboard. That is why the property is R-1 along the line now for R-1 single-family residences to mirror what is on the other side of the adjacent properties with maybe the next street being R-1 and then - after that some duplexes -- some kind of blending. It should be the applicant taking risks of lowering property values by keeping the blending from high-density residences to R-1 uses within their own property. That is traditionally how things have been handled and how they should be handled. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 18 DOC. INDEX # AA_ RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKINMA PLANNING DIV. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual for single- family housing in that strip along Conestoga estimates 9.57 trips per day for each of the 16 residences for over 153 per trips per day or 16.16 trips per hour. But 28 duplex units are 267 trips per day or 28 trips per hour. This is a 75% increase in traffic levels and you are looking at the stark contrast just from one property to the next and with that 75% increase in traffic levels you can assume also that 75% almost doubles the activity, noise, light and glare that will be generated from these properties from just one property to the adjacent property. And that is significant. Many of the environmental issues still have not been answered. The ambiguous requirement which is contrary to WAC 197-11-660 saying that all conditions must be able to be carried out as far as what amount of water must be retained on site. Even though there will be a greater slope than otherwise, there still has not been a soils stability and retention study done up front. SEPA requires environmental information up front so that proper land use determinations may be made. Without those soil retention or stability tests and without the arsenic and lead toxic testing, it is impossible to know whether or not they are able to cut in six feet in certain areas to comply with certain height restrictions. The proposal is based upon assumptions of positive results on these environmental tests. Toxins are a very important safety issue here. This is not a small excavation project. This is 90,000 cubic yards of dirt being moved around. When the wind blows, it will pick up and carry the dust up the hill and bring that lead into homes with children. With that much dirt being scattered around, there is the risk of children getting onto the site and playing in it and eating it. This is a lot of dirt and if it is not addressed now, it may never ever be adequately addressed. It is impossible to determine whether the ground can be cut or whether the contaminated dirt can be safely piled onto the contaminated dirt. It is impossible to make a land use determination until the results of toxic soil tests, soil retention tests and soil stability tests have been provided. Otherwise assumptions are being made that invite big problems in the future. Noise, light and glare are other issues that need to be addressed. This area is a little different than a lot of other areas because it is shaped like an amphitheater. It goes up the hill towards all the residences. This is not a normal place where a low fence will abate noise that amplifies and goes up the hill. The same is true of the light and glare. Minimum light screening standards are not going to block glare because of the angles. Despite the significant burden on the applicant to show that this proposal is compatible, the applicant says he does not want to put a solid fence barrier around the property. A Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 19 DOC. INDEX # AA -f • • Fi ECU VED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIM . PLANNING DIV. solid fence has view -obscuring effects and also helps mitigate some noise. Even level C might not be enough to mitigate these impacts, but certainly requesting a lower standard does nothing to help compatibility with the area. Although shielded lighting was mentioned, it presents the same issues and is not seen in the requirements anywhere. The applicant also has a burden to prove that this proposal is compatible and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There are provisions in the Comprehensive Plan relative to preserving existing established neighborhoods. The proposal is in direct contrast with that. Relative to those stated in the staff report, the proposal is not consistent with Policy G1.4 to ensure that the new development in the urban area enhances the quality of life and that any environmental problems are corrected. There are significant environmental problems that have not been addressed. The proposal would introduce a high level of density that is incompatible due to the increased noise, traffic and other effects on the quality of life. Policy G2.5 to maximize the retention of private property rights may be served here as to the property rights of the applicant, but is not served as to the property rights of neighboring property owners. Objective L2 to establish a pattern of development that supports a sense of community will not be served without a blending of uses. Without blending there will be a distinct contrast of neighborhoods; a checkerboard of different types of development that would be totally incompatible. Goal H1 to encourage diverse and affordable housing choices must be read in the context of the related policies such as Policy H1.6.1 to enforce zoning policies designed to ensure neighborhood integrity. It was never meant to provide for affordable housing to just dump different types of housing in different areas, just to set it anywhere. As it says in these policies, zoning policies are to be strictly enforced and designed to ensure the neighborhood integrity. Policy G2.1 to strive for an efficient and predictable development process would protect people who have purchased their homes and other people who have relied upon the fact that this property is zoned R-1. A lot of community process went into the original zoning of a stretch of R-2 and then R-1 property. Here someone comes in through a back door approach for a rezone which switches the R-1 to R-2 and the R-2 to R-3 and which really doesn't provide for any predictable development process. Lastly Policy G9.3 to encourage infill development with new construction that is compatible with the scale and density of the surrounding housing. There are no apartments in that area. There is nothing like that, only single-family residences. This proposal is really a rezone request to change from R-1 to R-2, and from R-2 to R-3 and certainly the standards of the rezone have not been met here. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 20 DOC. INDEX -f RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKiivi PLANNING DIV Going through the various reasons, SEPA environmental review requires studies and information up front which is not available and requires denial of the proposal at this time. Changing heights and other requirements to make this proposal compatible with the neighborhood would be a significant alteration requiring a new application. Duplexes bordering single-family residences do not provide the blending and buffering that has been historically required here and is needed for compatibility. The proposal would put something completely different in the middle of this neighborhood. Despite the drawings that have been presented, the standards and requirements of what could be done which are different and are controlled by the market could cause some real problems in this neighborhood. As it stands, this project is not compatible with the neighborhood and the application should be denied. (6) Ron Hatfield: He is Chad Hatfield's dad. Since Chad grew up in this neighborhood, he knows a lot about this neighborhood. Ron Hatfield lives at 829 Conestoga Boulevard. He appreciates very much the fact that Mr. Calhoun has been friendly and very available if he needed to talk to him. Any criticism of him is because of his job, not because he is disliked as a person by any means because he has been very good. When Mr. Hatfield first moved in, he knew that someday the orchard was going to go. He heard that they were trying to ask for a subdivision and they were going to put businesses down below, R-1 below us and the one little strip of R-2 down below to buffer that trailer court. We thought that was great and they had it in phases. Phase A was going to be the business and they started that. Phase 2 wasn't going to get quite to his house. He thought that when phase 3 got to his house he would lose the orchard. But as it turns out they tore the whole orchard out and it took a long time to get going down there and he didn't know what was going on until March when he got this deal that says that they want to turn two lots into four lots. He thought they were going to try to put small houses here. As it turns out, at one time there was a strip of R-2 down by the trailer court that now goes half way up to his house. The newspaper came out with an article that said there would be 100 apartments, 86 condominiums. It talked about how there would be duplexes and fourplexes. He thought that fourplexes did not fit anywhere and that duplexes would be going down below. Later they got a planned development and found out they were going to put duplexes all along the R-1 and down below it was not fourplexes anymore. He was never told to this day that there would be anything but fourplexes there -- not by the paper, by the City Planning Department or anywhere else. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 21 DOC. INDEX 0 0 • • EM.5C6cv ML,, SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKhv PLANNING DIY But if 96 apartments are divided by 15 buildings, they have to have 6 apartments apiece in them, to make 96 apartments in them, correct? He found out that they would be big apartment buildings which is unlike any kind of an R-2 zoning requirement. It seems to him to be kind of risky business for a gentleman to pay 1.85 million dollars for a piece of property that is zoned a certain way thinking that he can do everything totally different. He is turning R-1 to R-2 to R-3, plus he wants to put a business section and nursing homes in. That makes a good buy for 1.85 million dollars if he would have just used it as R-1. That's a buy on that piece of property. If he is going turn it into higher density that costs more money, he's making a real steal at 1.85 million dollars. Mr. Hatfield is concerned about the property now and what is going to happen in the future. If he gets this, then pretty soon that highrise senior housing thing and who knows what kind of liusinesses will be going on down there. There is already a business park. That is risky business on his part, but it should be his risk rather than the neighbors' risk when he did that. He assumes that nobody in the planning commission told him that that was a for sure thing, is that right? He just wanted to make sure of that because Mr. Benson said in the April Herald article that he did not expect the project to have any roadblocks in that same article. So Mr. Benson was pretty sure at that time that it would go through. Magnificent buildings were put up, but the proposal right now is a very greedy plan in this particular area here. A variance is requested on the percentage of the R-2 ground down there from 50 to 65%. That is 130% over the maximum 50%. That is 130% of 50%. So he is asking for a 30% increase of the total percentage to be increased. That is a lot of percentage. They could possibly meet the standard by eliminating the pool and the clubhouse or by taking some of the common area from Lot 2 for Lot 1, which would not be a simple thing to do. Since Mr. Hatfield would not be able to have a three -car rather than a two -car garage that exceeds his lot coverage limit merely to make his property more valuable, the applicant should not be allowed to exceed the lot coverage limit when it would be simple enough to comply with that by getting rid of a couple of apartment buildings. The trailer court is a senior citizen trailer court. The only noise that you ever hear over there is an ambulance . coming every once in awhile because someone's heart quit beating. They are putting all these noisy apartments that are louder than anything else next to the trailer court. Mr. Hatfield can guarantee that they are not compatible noise - wise with that trailer park. He does not like it either because the noise is going to run up Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM AD] #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 22 DOC. INDEX # AA — RECEIVED SEP 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIWitAk PLANNING DIV the hill. But he is willing to live with that because something has to go in there, and there could be worse things by far. The applicant should have had a neighborhood committee in the first place. A lot of builders go to neighborhood committees to find out what they want before they go through all this trouble. But he agrees with Chad right now that the proposal does not comply with the zoning right now. Apartments are totally out of question. You just don't see apartment buildings from 40t on up. The applicant wants to put something new m and probably should have found out ahead of time if he could or not. He probably needs to meet with the neighborhood, resubmit a new plan and go through this process again, but cut down to make sure he follows the rules and that the neighborhood will be happy enough with it. You want something down there, and what he has going looks like a nice project. The applicant just simply needs to pare it down and not be greedy -- pare it down to size so it fits on a piece of property and then we will talk about it again. (7) Tom Gasseling: He lives at 714 North 44th Avenue and has two lots off of 44th. He was involved in the discussion that was mentioned regarding the development on 46th Avenue. Before the gentlemen bought the property, he was warned that his plan to construct duplexes on the R-1 property would be opposed. The whole neighborhood successfully opposed that application on the basis that duplexes were not compatible with the neighborhood, which is the same situation that we have here. Mr. Gasseling indicated at the time and still indicates that he will likewise develop his fairly substantial piece of property there with R-1 uses rather than duplexes. Here this property is R-1 and R-2. The wonderful graphics have nothing to do with what we are here today for. You are being asked to put duplexes in R-1 where it should be single-family You are being asked to put apartments in an area where it should be duplexes. He hasn't paid a lot of attention until lately because of health problems, but he can guarantee that this project has changed at least 100% from when it was presented originally to all the neighborhood by Delmar Pearson. It was originally houses, then condominiums, and then in that little corner business park. So people bought into it and it's been that way all along. That was maybe 1998 or so. Mr. Gasseling has no problem with developing property, but what happened when they got the ruling was that the property stayed R-1 because there are plenty of duplexes and apartments in this City already. We have one little area, an island, m this part of Yakima where it's virtually all houses and that is how it should stay. Business complexes have now encroached up to 40th from the east and we have this area which is a very nice area, a very nice Envi7age Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 23 DOC. INDEX # AA -1 • RECEIVED SEP 2 2. 2D08 CITY OF YAKiitiit, PLANNING DIV neighborhood. Now we are trying to encroach into that neighborhood which is not fair for the people who live there or good for the community. The decision should be to leave this thing the way it is. People including himself bought their houses or their land based on the R-1 designation. You shouldn't be able to come into that area and change zoning through variances. This variance thing drives him absolutely nuts. He warned the City that houses could not be put on the lots m the 46th Avenue development referenced earlier the way the lots were designed. They were in such a configuration that you couldn't put a house on them and comply with setbacks. Yet they approved that development and Mr. Gasseling thinks there are at least four lots in that small development that had to have variances granted in order to build a house. If someone wanted to build a house ten feet wide and 80 feet long, they might build a house. But things are approved that are fine except that variances have to be given to them. This property is R-1 and R-2. That is what it should be. That is what the whole area is. That is why Mr.Gasseling bought the land. He spends money to upgrade his house and keeps his orchard. He doesn't feel that he has the right to come in and ask all his neighbors to let him get a variance to put condominiums in his orchard. That would probably make him more money if he did it, but he thinks that he has a responsibility, and the City and the Hearing Examiner have a responsibility, to make sure that these types of things that are not compatible don't happen. He has nothing against these gentlemen and is sure they do nice work. He has seen the project over in Puyallup because he has a son who was in the hospital. But that's not the issue. We should stay with the way it is. (8) John Puccinelli: He lives at 4102 Donald Drive and was a member of the City Council and Mayor of the City when Mr. Pearson's rezoning took place on this orchard land. He is very familiar with the meetings. The district that he represented happens to be in this area. He met with these neighbors many times during that zoning situation. He is here today to explain what was said at those meetings, what was agreed uponby the City Council of Yakima to these people and what was conveyed to these people. He believes it was in 1998 to 1999, in that time frame, but he could be wrong. He was on the Council from 1996 to 2004. He can assure me that what is here today was never envisioned by these people and would never have gotten past the Council at that time. This neighborhood made concessions to Mr. Pearson from the very onset. They wanted to be friendly with him. They wanted to protect their property rights, but understood that he also had property rights. Concessions were made on 40th Avenue to allow him to have B-1. There were people in the neighborhood who wanted that whole Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 24 DOC. INDEX # AA—I RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAt iiYir PLANNING DIV area at that time R-1, and not one thing else in there. You might say they were prophets because they said that if you allow anything else in there, you open the door and it will be a slippery slope until fmally there are apartments down there. The City Council assured the residents that there would never be apartments in that area. Mr. Puccinelli went to the meetings. The Council allowed for some duplexes. They allowed for some B-1 because they felt that putting residential right along 40th Avenue was not really fair to the property owner, Mr. Pearson. It would be very difficult to sell off a residential lot on 40th Avenue with such heavy traffic. So B-1 was a suggestion and the Council accepted that. It is a very small business -type of situation with law offices and banks which has worked out fine. The people on Conestoga were definitely assured that all of the property across that canal would be R-1. Mr. Puccinelli went to meetings. He is afraid he is one of the people who assured them of that. They were assured it would be R-1 usage rather than just R-1 zoning. They were to be single-family housing in there, and across the street from that single-family housing would also be single-family housing. The Council did allow some duplexes in there over the objections of many of the people, especially around the mobile home park, again feeling that R-1 was pretty restrictive. People really needed kind of a buffer between the mobile home park and the neighborhood. But at no time was there ever to be apartments there. This was not written up because the City Council was going by what their staff told them. At that time the assurance basically was don't worry about it -- if anybody tries to do it, it will never get past the City Council. Unfortunately, the City Council that were there are not there today. Mr. Puccinelli doesn't know if it would get : past the current City Council. He will lobby that City Council and he will make sure that other members of the Council that he sat on will object to this project totally. The density of this current project is way too high. The project doesn't affect Mr. Puccinelli's house very much because he is pretty high up on the hill. But he can hear the skate park across 40th Avenue when the kids are skating at night, if the conditions are proper. Not always, but most of the time, he can hear them skating in that park, so the noise does travel up that hill. The density of this magnitude will be incompatible to all the people on that hill, not just the people next to Conestoga. The standards that these people are preparing or presenting have excellent building standards. Mr. Puccinelli applauds them for that. Since he is currently chairman of the Yakima County Growth Management Board, he sits in on a lot of hearings and has to say that he has never had anybody come before him and say he really wants this zoning Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 25 DOC. INDEX # A4—i 0 • RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIIWii PLANNING DIV change because he is going to make a lot of money or that he really doesn't care about the neighbors and all he cares about is that he is going to make a lot of money and move out of town. It just doesn't happen. Everybody always has a beautiful project. Everybody always has these wonderful standards. But the fact of the matter is that once we grant them duplexes or apartments, they are in and how they are built only has to do with Code and nothing more than Code. He saw that when the applicant's representative was talking about roofs and stuff like that and was asked about covenants, they waffled real quick. They don't want those covenants. If this project goes through he thinks covenants are almost mandatory for the project. Mr. Puccinelli just doesn't feel that the project is compatible. The standards that he is setting do improve the situation, but if they are not written in the coyenants, they are just smoke and mirrors. He feels that these people have already given many concessions to this property. The City Council allowed the B-1, the duplexes that are on 40th Avenue right across from Fechter Road, again .feeling that R-1 was too restrictive. But the concessions, especially the height and the density of this new project, should not be given in any way, shape or form. He remembers many of the meetings that he attended. A lot .of things were said out in the hallway to people. He knows assurances were given to these people, especially the people on Conestoga, that there would be R-1 housing similar to what they had on the other side of the canal for two blocks -- them and across the street from them and he believes the backside of that. Then it went to duplexes. That is his recollection. He met with Mr. Pearson several times and he was a very nice man. Mr. Puccinelli does honestly believe this neighborhood -- knowing this neighborhood -- that this could be the next Wal-Mart if this goes through as it is today. His plans are really going to create a big stir. You think you have a big meeting today here -- let the rest of the neighbors up on that hill come. It is going to fire up. (9) Lee Clark: He lives at 817 Conestoga Boulevard and supports what has been said before but would like to bring up two other issues which are hopefully side issues at this point, but maybe not. Lots 3 and 4 are being isolated from their connected R-1 and R-2 respective areas. He doesn't know if the references in the plans that they presented about those lots were to be approved or would be binding. In those and in the traffic plan they refer to a 100 -unit senior housing development on Lot 3 which can't be anything but a multi -story apartment complex. That seems extremely incompatible with an R-1 zoning. And they even talk about retail businesses in Lot 4 which is not even a B-1, but more of a B-2 or B-3 whereas it is only zoned for R-2. So that is an additional concern Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 26 DOC. INDEX # AA -I RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMt PLANNING DIV. about approving the project as currently proposed. It leaves those two lots isolated with proposals for much higher density residential or nonresidential uses which are incompatible with the current zoning. It was not straightforward because it was included in the traffic analysis report and it was included in some of the environmental impact wording. [The Examiner assured Mr. Clark at this point that the development of Lots 3 and 4 was not being considered in this process]. Mr. Clark was a party to some of those discussions and 1997 and 1998 after they had a big go -around in 1993 when they proposed to put in a 334 -unit apartment complex on that orchard property that was eventually turned down and stopped. Then they had a series of discussions as to whether the property could be all R-1 since that whole orchard area was all brought into the City as R-1. But it was part of those agreements in the discussions starting in 1997. He thinks that the updated Urban Growth Plan was put in in 1998. It was kind of part of that process which got the B-1 down on the north side of Castlevale along 40th. At that time they agreed that they would maintain the R-1 all the way along the canal and the little R-2 section down below as a buffer around the mobile home park. Those discussions were with the City as part of the update of the Urban Growth Plan. (10) Charles Northrup: He lives at 802 North 40th Avenue, Space 19, and speaks for the people in the trailer court. He would like to point out that buffers have been discussed all around except here where it is going to be probably less than 20 feet from his back fence, by his back window, to the apartments. He objects to that. There is no buffer, no sound buffer, nothing planned there except an easement. The trailer court residents may be old and the ambulance may come once in awhile, but he has lived there since 1993 and always enjoyed having the orchard even though it was noisy at times. But he does not look forward to having multi-level, multi -family dwellings right behind his fence. (11) Gloria Hutchinson: She lives on 44th Avenue. She is not only a concerned citizen on this project, but is also a realtor. She was a little astonished to hear the comment made that there is no indication that this will affect property values. She is not saying that the finished project will definitely affect property values. It is already affecting property values now, mainly during the construction phase. There is going to be heavy equipment. There is already dust swirling around down there. They are starting to see it already that a lot of people who would normally be interested m looking up on Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 27 DOC. INDEX # A -A_1 • RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Scenic Drive or on Carriage Hill are concerned about what is going to be there. When they are told there will be apartments, many of them are already backing away. So she thinks that they are already being affected. She is also a little concerned about the construction hours -- 6 in the morning until 10 at night. When are people supposed to enjoy their patios? We are supposed to have wonderful weather m Yakima. Are people supposed to barbeque after 10 o'clock at night? These are too extensive hours. Yakima is known for having four wonderful seasons. She isn't usually out in her backyard entertaining that late at night. She is wondering how this is going to affect her family as well. (12) Bruce Crockett: He and his wife have lived at 713 North 46th Avenue since 1993. When the orchards started to come down and they put the businesses in, they could hear the noise from, the highway all the way to the far end of their property. Since they took the orchard out totally, the noise on 40th comes up to the edge of their property. They are on the far end of the property. Mr. Crockett really likes the idea of a gated community. He is assuming that they would want to have a covenant with an owner -occupied requirement for the townhouses. Due to the increase in the price of gas he thinks that there needs to be a commitment for anyone who is going to build there as to what they are going to build there and what types of material they are going to use. We as citizens should not assume the risk because of economic conditions as to what is going to be built there, or how it is going to be built. But the builder assumes that risk. Mr. Gasseling who is a neighbor of his is a tremendous asset to the community who owns a piece of property and committed to keep it R-1. If you were to change this zoning, there are 20 pieces of property around Mr. Gasseling's property that would come into the same difficulties that you are having here. R-1 is not a problem. But if you put in this type of thing on that piece of property Mr. Gasseling has, you have got 20 people surrounding that property that begin with the same issue. Mr. Crockett doesn't know why this is being considered. This is totally incompatible with the neighborhood. It has been since he moved here. Yakima needs to have certain standards within this County and City. Why are we changing downtown Yakima to beautify it? So it becomes more receptive to people. If they want to approve this project that looks like a coliseum, you might want to put in a doom community that would be the first one where they could regulate the air flow and the noise and all that, but it would be totally. incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 28 DOC. INDEX # M—/ RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY Of YAKIW PLANNING DIV (13) Macile Cowman: She lives at 921 Conestoga Boulevard and is a little concerned over putting in a senior housing development. No doubt that is going to be probably a couple of stories. Her house where she has lived for probably 15 years sits a little bit higher than most of the surrounding community. She had involvement with Lee Clark and John Puccinelli and some of the other neighborhood groups that were visiting with City Council and doing the Growth Management Act reviewing and trying to make something that was very compatible with their homes in this area. The last drawing that she had seen was that there were going to be homes along this canal area. That seemed to fit what was in the area and would be expected by the neighborhood. Then in the very center portion was a gated community of duplexes. So this has totally changed since the last time she saw it. She is real nervous about noise. She can hear the soccer field and, like Mr. Puccinelli said, the skate park from her house. It's kind of like an amphitheater that's going to draw noise up the hill and she is concerned about that. She bought her house so that it would be a really nice pleasant place to live with an increase in value. She believes by bringing in many duplexes and apartments, traffic flow will really increase in the area. Another big concern of hers is that Fechter was changed so that it was cut off. There are many people coming up and down this road that are speeding. If the whole congestion of this area is coming out of here, it is going to be terrible. Now she has to make sure that going out that way is going to be safe. It's just terrible. She is also a little bit concerned about all the parking in this kind of configuration. Anybody visiting these people means more traffic going in there. She believes that something like this with homes, apartments and duplexes does need covenants to secure what will be built in that area. The blending of the construction is really important. She strongly feels that the homes should be around this area, and previously there was 'another section of homes with duplexes in the center. This was agreed a long time ago, and they were assured that this would stay that way. (14) Mary Jane Craigen: She lives at 4508 Fechter Road. They built their home in 1976 and have -enjoyed this low density area for many, many years. A lot of promises have been made and she is afraid that they are not going to be kept. She is not going to repeat everything that has been said. She has other concerns to add, and one of them is how the road goes. During the winter when there is snow and ice it is a whole different ballgame than at this time of Envi7age Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 29 DOC. INDEX # ,4A -I • cimacivimu SEF 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIiviN: PLANNING DIV year. When you add say 96 apartments, that is a minimum of 192 cars and then you say 84 duplexes, well 84 and 84 is 168 times 2 cars that's 336, but then when you add the 192 to 336 you have at a minimum 528 vehicles coming in and out of this property. During the winter when cars travel up and down this slope, the snow gets compacted. It becomes 'very icy and it becomes slick. Someone coming off of 40th, coming up and turning is going to have problems with someone coming down. Back in the old days when Fechter Road used to come up the hill, they would be going hell bent for election and if a car was corning down they would have to stop and back down. Now if there is a car stopped waiting for a car to come' down, everyone will have to try and back down around that corner. It is going to create more of a hazard. The density with cars will increase the noise going up the hill. She lives near what she calls confusion corner. People below her have a pool and she has a pool. She can tell when her neighbors have a few friends over. She knows somebody is having a party because kids are having fun. But with the density here, you are going to have all those people that want to go to the pool, which is going to be a lot more people than a privately -owned pool. You are going to be picking up a lot more noise from that as well as from all of those vehicles and all those people. The other thing that she wanted to mention was about quality. She heard the word membrane when it came to a roof She is an insurance broker and to her a membrane roof is a warehouse roof. And when people look down they are going to see all of those white warehouse roofs. And this is supposed to be upscale? She doesn't think so. (15) Robert C. Martin: He lives at 4602 Phaeton Place. The district, of course as can be seen, _is based upon names of wagons. It is a very upscale development. Since they changed theorchard on 40th Avenue and changed the road, it is a very dangerous road with just the traffic that is on it. There are only two exits out of this area, one down to 40th Avenue and the other uphill either going up Fechter to 48th Avenue and going down to Englewood or cutting through on Conestoga through our neighborhood and of course there are a couple of corners and turns. The stop light: at 40th Avenue at the current time takes exactly two minutes to turn so you can go onto 40th Avenue to a left turn. From the top of the hill to that stop light takes 15 seconds. He, has timed it time and again. In that time you can put eight cars to that stop light. When the light turns, it is on for less than a minute because the traffic on 40th Avenue is so heavy. It is a very short light. You could possibly get six cars through that left hand turn light before it turns. Now you are going to see a caution light there that turns yellow and some people are going to try and go through it. You have people coming up 40th Avenue in a 35 mile an Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 30 DOC. INDEX RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIIvir PLANNING DIV. hour speed zone at 40 and 45 miles per hour constantly. So you are gaining two cars at that stop light every two minutes. As she said, over 300 cars. If the people come to work at 7:30 to 8:15, you are going to have cars backed up all the way to Conestoga Boulevard at 8:15 because they - cannot get through that light. Now that is not a perfect traffic pattern. And then people are going to try and sneak around and go up Fechter and down 48th to Englewood. Englewood is becoming busier and busier with the buildings out past 66th and so forth. The other problem that Mr. Martin sees is that most of the 180 families in that area are going to be young families with children that use the pools and etc. But have we taken into consideration the schools? You have Castlevale and Gilbert. Every family has approximately 1.5 children. Most of them will be grade school probably, because these will be younger families living inthese areas because they can't afford to buy a house. Can our school district take them? Both of those schools are overcrowded and under - built now. So this type of high-density product down the road is going to cause more problems than you can see right now. Both traffic, schools, upkeep and ownership. He really questions if these are going to be condos and not turn into rental duplexes because of the financial situation right now which would make upkeep terrible. He doesn't know how .the gate for the gated community will get 300 cars out in 45 minutes. He doesn't think it will happen. He thinks that the project should stay as it was -- R-1 for two blocks and duplexes in the area that is required. (16) Sonny Cooper: He lives at 905 Conestoga Boulevard. His main concern involves the discussion about -minimum standards. The covenanted property in Conestoga and Carriage Hill is anything but minimum standards. To stay consistent with what's in the neighborhood, we shouldn't be looking at minimum standards. And even going beyond those with a 15% variance on coverage. We should be way above the minimum standards. IX. Other Evidence. Besides the letters submitted prior to the hearing that were mostly opposed to the proposal and the documents submitted with the application and staff reports, the Examiner read all of the letters and documents, listened to all the audio tapes and viewed all the video tapes submitted to him after the hearing. Several aspects of his Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 31 DOC. INDEX # 44-1 0 0 • • RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIWih PLANNING DIV. review of this evidence will be discussed in order to assist interested parties in deciding whether there is any interest in exploring and discussing among themselves the possibility and mechanism of resolving compatibility issues in this matter through means other than a final decision in this matter. Those aspects of the evidence are: (1) The first audio tape submitted was of a joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners public hearing of June 11, 1996 regarding citizens' requests for changes to the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan categorizes Residential designations as either Low Density, Medium Density or High Density. At that meeting, landowner Delmar Pearson was presenting a request for Comprehensive Plan changes to allow for business uses on the west side of 40th Avenue north of the trailer court and on the east side of 40th Avenue. The presentation by Mr. Pearson and his representative Bill Huibregtse assured the City Council that the Carriage Hill neighborhood would continue to be protected. Mr. Huibregtse first indicated that the subject property west of 40th Avenue was currently zoned R-1 and R-2 and the proposed Land Use Plan at that point showed some "low density" to the west side of the property with some "medium density" to the easterly side of that property. He described the proposal as: "...low density or R-1 housing along the entire west side perimeter of the property bordering the canalwhich would protect, we believe, the residents to the west in the Carriage Hill area. Then some medium density, perhaps condominium development, approximately in the center of the property and proposed professional business or B-1 uses along 40th Avenue." Thereafter Mr. Pearson indicated that "the way the contour of the land is, the noise actually gets magnified" and said the proposal: "... solves the problem of Carriage Hill. We have a border of single -dwelling houses and then in the center there next to the trailer court where people wouldn't want to have single -dwelling houses, we have created an area where we intend to put in a gated condo area for senior citizens." (2) The video tape of the June 25, 1996 combined City Council/County Commission meeting contains a presentation by Lee Clark indicating that the map needs correction and speaking of meetings since 1994 and a petition with 300 signatures. He opposed changing the property north of the, trailer court from a residential to a business Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 32 DOC. INDEX RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIivie PLANNING DIV designation. Later Delmar Pearson presented his proposal. He described the areas pertinent to this matter as follows: "Carriage Hill only occupies about 30 acres. Furthermore, they don't have any view rights over my property, at least they haven't paid for them. But there is a thing what I'd like to do, we do have a division. Along the Congdon Ditch there is a 60 -foot right-of-way that divides their property from mine. In addition to that, I have gone to considerable planning in providing, as you will see if you will open to the map that I have given you, that the area immediately east of Carriage Hill we have tried to make low-density. But no one wants to build low-density next to a trailer court, so we have provided there a transition to medium -density housing with the intent of making it a gated area for condos and apartments. To repeat, we have a transition from Carriage Hill to 40th and from 40th east to Fruitvale. This is compatible with and keeps the current integrity of 40th and also the Growth Management Plan." Then the Pearsons' representative, Bill Huibregtse, indicated that the property was currently zoned R-1 and R-2 and described their proposal in greater detail as follows: "There has been concerns expressed by the Carriage Hill area to the west of the Pearsons' property. I'd just like to make sure that Council and Commissioners understand that the band of property along the west edge of the Pearsons' property. adjacent to the canal is proposed to stay low-density. And that band, although it's obviously just a narrow strip of colored map, the proposal that the Pearsons have and have submitted in very preliminary concept form, is for that strip to be 300 feet wide plus the width of the canal right-of-way. So the depth of that band of low-density would be essentially longer than a football field. So it's not one very narrow strip. It's actually a block in depth. So I think in terms of protection of properties to the west and consideration of their neighbors to the west, it's responsible. The property that is shown as medium -density would be a transition buffer between low-density and the existing mobile home court, and then professional office south of Fechter and immediately west of 40th Avenue in consideration of the traffic on 40th Avenue." Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 33 DOC. INDEX • t RECEIVED SEF 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMVir PLANNING DIV. (3) The audio tape of the July 16, 1996 City Council meeting contains a vote approving or preliminarily approving the Pearson' proposal. (4) Former Hearing Examiner Philip Lamb's decision referenced in the testimony, particularly the testimony of Tom Gasseling, which denied an application for four duplexes in an R-1 zone near this site to the south is in the record (City of Yakima No. CL (3) #6-99 dated September 28, 1999). The decision stated at page 9: "The clear language of both the Plan and the Zoning Ordinance indicate that duplexes may be scattered throughout the R-1 zone, but not placed in a concentrated fashion which is far more dense than seven units per acre." Mr. Lamb and this Hearing Examiner have also required blending of duplex or common wall developments with adjacent uses by requiring single -story single-family residences to be constructed on the lots adjacent to single-family residences to promote compatibility (Plat of Cottonwood Grove, County No. SUB 99-109, June, 2000; Plat of KIMCO South, County No. PRJ.2003-038, August 9, 2005). (5) There is reference in the testimony, particularly the testimony of Paul Casey, to the difference between Class (2) uses such as the proposed duplexes (generally permitted in the R-1 zoning district) and Class (3) uses such as apartments exceeding a density of 12 units per net acre (not generallypermitted in the R-1 zoning district). There is also a reference in the record by Chad Hatfield to Section 15.04.020 of the zoning ordinance to the effect that when two or more uses are proposed in the same project, the entire project will be subject to the level of review required by the highest classified use. This Examiner and former Examiner Philip Lamb have consistently held that the provisions in the zoning ordinance requiring a higher level of review than normal for a type of use does not change the nature of the use itself or the presumption attributed to it, only the type of review (CLC Associates, City of Yakima No. CL (2) #16-05, July 10, 2006). The purpose of Section 15.04.020 is to avoid bifurcating a single project into different review processes without changing the classifications of the respective uses involved in the review process. Under Table 4-1 of Chapter 15.04 of the zoning ordinance, the proposed apartments would likewise become a Class (2) use that is generally permitted in the R-1 zoning district if their density were reduced from 14.6 to 12 , dwelling units per net residential acre. The duplexes having a density of 5.67 dwelling units per net residential are low-density residential uses which are Class (2) uses Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 34 DOC. INDEX # AA -1 RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 Ut- PLANNING DIV in the R-1 zoning district under Table 4-1 even though they are included in the Class (3) review process for the apartments. (6) Since this is an unusual situation which could conceivably result in greater incompatibility by way of Class (1) development of 35 -foot -high single-family residences upon a denial of this application than would result from conditioned approval of the application, the Examiner believes that the affected propertyowners should have the opportunity to determine whether other alternatives are preferable to continuing to argue for denial of the application. If the decision is to have the Examiner issue a final decision within ten days of the reconvened hearing date, the Examiner will need the recommendation of Mr. Calhoun regarding the conditions in his staff report that were questioned at the hearing by the applicant. Those would include the number of stories and height of any units on the west and south side of the property, the type of fence and pool screening and the condition to retain all stormwater on site. The Examiner would also request the applicant's and Mr. Calhoun's position on the assertion of Duane Knittle and Dorothy Brodrick by letter dated August 18, 2008 (H-25) to the effect that the applicant's view analysis is incorrect, the request for shorter construction hours by several citizens and the arguments for further soils studies for toxins, stability and retention for SEPA purposes by Mr. Hatfield. X. Interim Decision to Reconvene the Hearing. The Examiner will reconvene the hearing in this matter on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the Yakima City Council Chambers, City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington for the limited purpose of learning from interested parties and/or their representative(s) whether there is any interest in exploring and discussing among themselves the possibility and mechanism for resolving the compatibility issues in this matter through a development agreement and/or covenants rather than by issuance of a final decision in this matter. . DATED this 22nd day of September, 2008. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run CL(3) #7-08; CL(2) #20-08; ADM ADJ #16-08; EC #19-08; SEPA APPEAL #4-08 35 Gary M. Chillier, Hearing Examiner DOC. INDEX # AA -1 TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER A Staff Report EXH UMENT s %` A-1 Staff Report: Appeal of Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance 08/14/08 A-2 Staff Report 08/14/08 A-3 Staff Report — Reconvened Hearing 10/21/08 City of Yakima, Washington Division of Environmental Planning Hearing Examiner Reconvened Public Hearing October 21, 2008 Reconvened Hearing of the Class (2) & Class (3) Review and Administrative Adjustment for the construction of a 96 - unit apartment complex and 84 duplex units. UAZO CL (3) #7-08 CL (2) #20-08 Adm Adj #16-08 Staff Contact: Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner (509) 575-6162 REQUEST In his "Interim Decision Reconvening Hearing" dated September 22, 2008, the Hearing Examiner set the date of October 21, 2008 to reconvene the hearing on the Toscanna proposal. Should the Examiner issue a final decision, a recommendation is needed from City Planning regarding selected conditions of the Staff Report, presented during the August 14, 2008 hearing. The Hearing Examiner also requested staff position on issues brought forth by citizens. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this application for Class (3) and Class (2) land uses and Administrative Adjustment to lot coverage and setback standards be approved subject to conditions. FINDINGS APPLICANT: Envizage Development Group; 200 Galloway Drive; Yakima WA, 98908 LOCATION:Vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run PARCEL NO: 181315-31011, 181315-34037 BACKGROUND The Hearing Examiner held an open record public hearing on August 14, 2008. The record was Left open for an additional week to submit additional information related to testimony presented during the hearing "as to the intent 'of the Yakima City Council and the representations made to neighboring property owners as to the type of development that would be compatible and allowed on the subject property". An additional time extension was granted until September 8, 2008 to thoroughly research and provide the requested information. The examiner issued his interim decision to reconvene the hearing on September 22, 2008. ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL ISSUES EXPRESSED DURING THE AUGUST 14, 2008 HEARING Number of stories/building height along the canal: The view analysis completed and submitted by the applicant notwithstanding, staff's position remains the same as recommended (condition # 3, or the Staff Report dated August 14, 2008) to DOC. INDEX Tasrnnnn LLC CL (2) #20-08: CL (3) #7-08 Arlin Adj #/6-08 1 restrict those duplexes along the canal to single story. Two-story duplexes, if still desired by the applicant, will need to be located at least one "row" away from the canal. Staff is in agreement with an 18 -foot height restriction for single -story duplexes and a 25 -foot height restriction for two-story duplexes, as is documented on page 14 of the Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision to Reconvene the Hearing, and as was discussed during the August_ 14, 2008 Hearing. Sitescreening: Staff initially recommended sitescreening standard "C" to be installed the length of the property line bordering the canal. According to Table 7-1 of YMC Ch. 15.07, sitescreening standard "A" is required along the canal property line. Staff would support the proposed 6 -foot black chain- link fence with an additional 6 -feet of landscaped buffer with trees at 20 to 30 foot centers, shrubs and groundcover, on the development side of the fence. Sitescreening standard "A" is a 10 -foot landscaped buffer with a combination of trees at 20 to 30 -foot centers, shrubs, and groundcover. Standard "C" is a six-foot view obscuring fence. A 6 -foot chain-link fence along with a 6 -foot landscaped buffer is a fair compromise given the_topography of the land adjacent to the canal and the location of the sitescreening. Swimming pools are required to have a minimum 4 -foot tall fence around them (YMC § 15.04.080). Staff initially recommended sitescreening standard "C" to be placed around the recreation and pool facilities. Based on the testimony of the applicant as to the design and location of the swimming pools and recreation facilities, the proposed 6 -foot wrought iron fence will be appropriate. In addition to the wrought iron fence, a minimum 3 -foot landscaped buffer consisting of trees, shrubs and groundcover, shall be installed around the outside of the pool/rec facilities. The applicant shall submit a complete sitescreening plan showing the location, height, size, and type of all plantings and fences (YMC § 15.07.090). All sitescreening shall be installed prior. to occupancy, unless a delay is requested if compliance is not possible because of seasonal planting limitations. Should delay be necessary, no permanent Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until all sitescreening is completed (YMC § 15.07.100). Stormwater: Testimony was given' during the August 14, 2008 hearing by Rick Wehr (PLSA) regarding stormwater retention. According to Randy Meloy, City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer, in a letter dated August 18, 2008: The proposed Toscanna development near 40th Ave. and Kern Road has an existing stone drain line running through the property that eventually empties into the Powerhouse Canal in the vicinity of Powerhouse Road and 38`x' Ave. Rick Wehr of PLSA brought to my attention that the parcel in question has a storm sewer easement and agreement with the City of Yakima, dated December 1, 1975, that grants the owner of the parcel the right to connect to the existing storm drain line. Having obtained a copy of the easement and agreement, I believe the document is valid and that the parcel owner does have a right to connect to the storm drain line. The City also has a policy in place that requires developers of property to retain all of the stormwater that falls on the property up to the 25 year storm (1.0 inches of rainfall over a three hour period). Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08, CL (3) #7-08 Arlin Arj #/6-08 DOC. INDEX # A-3 • • The City's policy and the rights granted in the easement agreement conflict with each other, so a compromise solution has been found that protects the quality of water going into the Powerhouse Canal and gives the property owner the right to tie into the City's storm drain line. The property owner shall be required to retain and treat runoff on site for up to the 6 month, 24-hour storm (0.65 inches of rainfall over a 24-hour period). Any runoff over this amount can be discharged into the existing City storm drain system without treatment. The 6 month, 24-hour storm is also known as the water quality stone and is used in the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SMMEW) as a guideline for how much stormwater must be treated. The manual then allows runoff amounts greater than the water quality storm to be discharged directly into receiving water bodies without treatment. By requiring the property owner to retain and treat the water quality storm, the City will meet the guidelines in the SMMEW while allowing them to discharge excess runoff from larger storm events into the storm drain line. I believe this compromise is in the best interests of the City of Yakima. Water quality is maintained and the property owner is allowed to use the City's storm drain line, to which they have a valid easement and agreement. Based on the letter submitted by Randy Meloy, staff will require that the property owner retain on-site and treat runoff for up to the 6 month, 24-hour stone (0.65 inches of rainfall over a 24- hour period). Request for Shorter Construction Hours: Construction hours are exempted from the City of Yakima's Public Disturbance Noise ordinance (YMC § 6.04.180), provided that the hours of six a.m. to ten p.m. weekdays and from eight a.m. to ten p.m. Sundays and legal holidays are observed. Subsection A of YMC § 6.04.180 contains the Findings and Declaration of Necessity for the noise ordinance. Contained within subsection A is the following statement: "it is further declared that the provisions, controls and prohibitions of this section are in pursuance of and for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity and the peace and quiet of the city of Yakima and its inhabitants". In light of the purpose of the noise ordinance and the times granted for exemption, it is staff's position that the slated hours of six a.m. to ten p.m. weekdays and from eight a.m. to ten p.m. Sundays and legal holidays, provide for and "promote the public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity and the peace and quiet of the city of Yakima and its inhabitants". The same hours were required for the recently built bank at the corner of 40th and Castlevale, and were also a mitigation measure for a recently approved detennination under SEPA for a new professional office building directly across the street from the proposed Toscanna development. Project EC #33-08 was approved on July 18, 2008. No appeals were filed and no comments were received during the comment period related to the exempted construction hours. Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08,; CL (3) #7-08 Adm Ad/ #16-08 3 DOC. INDEX # A_3 Request for further soils studies for toxins, stability and retention: Toxins: A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared in July 2003 by PLSA Engineering and Surveying for a portion of the then "Pearson Property". The report is signed and stamped by Bradley Card, professional engineer. The United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) publication entitled Soil Survey of Yakima County Area, Washington, classifies the soils present as "Ritzville Silt Loam". The same soil type is found on the subject Toscanna property, and the past use of the entire portion of the "Pearson Property" was orchard use. According to the Phase 1 site assessment: The Study Site was used as orchard. Before 1950, orchards used lead and arsenic solution for pest control. PLSA's considerable experience with the fate of the metallic residue from this type of pest control in the Yakima Valley has found that the material has long since converted 'into a non -leachable form which passes the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. Metals passing this test designate as solid waste in accordance with WAC 173- 303-090(8)(c) and are not considered hazardous or dangerous. State law does not regulate solid waste accumulations of less than 2,000 pounds. Metals from pest control activity have never been found to be sufficiently concentrated to accumulate 2,000 pounds over an area the size of the study premises. WAC 173-340-740 Method A does not distinguish between leachable and non -leachable metals and lists cleanup levels for lead and arsenic at 250 and 20 mg/kg, respectively. The WAC further states that exceeding these levels does not necessarily trigger requirements for cleanup action. Lead and arsenic concentrations in orchard land in the Yakima Valley which was in production before 1950 frequently have lead concentrations as high as 600 mg/kg. There has been no regulatory action to date requiring cleanup of these former orchards. There is no other documented uses of the Study Site other than orchard use. There are no former owners or lessors who could be considered likely to have been engaged in the production, storage or commercial use of hazardous materials. There were no reportable quantities of released hazardous materials found on the Study Site. No further action is recommended. (Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, July 2003, Pp. 5-6) Testimony from Rick Wehr during the August 14, 2008 hearing indicated that "once the buildings, grass, paving and sidewalks are in place, lead and arsenic will not be contaminating anything". Based on Testimony from Mr. Wehr and the July 2003 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, staff concludes that existing lead and arsenic on the property will not pose an environmental problem. Stability and retention: The following was submitted in a letter dated August 14, 2008 from Bradley Card: Soils in the proposed Toscanna development west of 40`'' Avenue and north of Englewood Avenue are cohesion less and non -plastic. Such soils are stable on slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. Toscanna LLC CL ( 2) #20-08; CL (3) #7-08 Adm Adj #16-08 4 • DOC. INDEX # A-3 • Testimony from Rick Wehr during the August 14, 2008 hearing indicated that the maximum slope on the project would be a 2:1 slope. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Wehr, and the letter from Mr. Card, staff recommends that the project be conditioned to allow a maximum of a 2:1 slope. PUBLIC NOTICE AND REVIEW All parties of recordwere mailed a Notice of the Hearing Examiner's "Interim Decision Reconvening Hearing" on September 25, 2008. The notice specified the date, time, place and purpose of the reconvened hearing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested Class (3) and Class (2) land uses and Administrative Adjustment for the construction of a 96 -unit apartment complex in the R-2 zoning district and 84 duplex units in the R-1 zoning district, subject to the following additional conditions: Sitescreening in the form of a 6 -foot black chain-link fence with a 6 -foot landscaped buffer consisting of trees at 20 to 30 -foot centers, shrubs, and groundcover shall be. installed along the property line adjacent to the canal (west and south property lines). 2. Sitescreening in the form of a 6 -foot wrought iron fence and a minimum 3 -foot landscaped buffer shall be installed around the proposed swimming pools. 3. The applicant shall submit a sitescreening plan showing the location, height, size and type of all plantings and fences. 4. The proposed duplexes adjacent to the canal shall be restricted to single story structures. 5. Single -story duplexes shall have a maximum building height of 18 -feet. 6. Two-story duplexes shall have a maximum building height of 25 -feet. 7. The applicant shall retain and treat runoff for up to the 6 month, 24-hour storm (0.65 inches of rainfall over a 24-hour period). Any remaining stormwater runoff can be directed to the storm drain line, which the property owner has a legal right to use. 8. The maximum allowed slope on the property shall be a 2:1 slope. Toscniuui LLC Cl. (2) #20-08; CL (3) #7-08 Adm Ad j #I6-08 5 DOC. INDEX City of Yakima, Washington Division of Environmental Planning Staff Report Hearing Examiner Public Hearing August 14, 2008 Class (2) and (3) Review and Administrative Adjustment for the construction of a 96 -unit apartment complex and 84 duplex units. UAZO CL (3) #7-08 UAZO CL (2) #20-08 UAZO Adm Adj #16-08 Staff Contact: Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner (509) 575-6162 REQUEST The proposed development is a mixture of duplex and apartment units in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. There are 84 duplex units proposed for the R-1 zoned lot, and 96 apartment units proposed_for th? R -2 zoned lot. Based on loth.- • _ , ' e • _ - Class (2) review is required for the duplexes and a Class (3) review is required for the apartments. Also proposed is an Administrative Adjustment to the rear -yard setback and lot coverage standards on the R-2 zoned lot. SEPA environmental review is required for the number of proposed dwelling units. The subject property is in the vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this application for Class (3) and Class (2) land uses and Administrative Adjustment to lot coverage and setback standards be approved subject to conditions. FINDINGS APPLICANT: Envizage Development Group 200 Galloway Drive Yakima WA, 98908 LOCATION: Vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run. PARCEL NO: 181315-31011, 181315-34037 BACKGROUND On April 17, 2008 the Department of Community & Economic Development received Class (3) and Class (2) land use, Administrative Adjustment, and SEPA Environmental Review applications from Toscanna LLC. ZONING AND LAND USE The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1), and Two -Family Residential (R- 2). The property was previously used as an orchard and contains a single family home and accessory buildings which are to be demolished. Adjacent properties have the following characteristics: Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08: CL (3) #7-08 Adm Adj #16-08 1 DOC. INDEX A'(2.- • • • Location Zoning Land Use North R -1/B-1 Residential/Vacant Land South R -1/R-2 Residential West R-1 Residential East R -1/R-3 Residential/Mobile Home Park ZONING ORDINANCE Duplexes: The proposed 84 duplex units lie within the R-1 zoning district. The R-1 zoning district is intended to 1.) Establish and preserve residential neighborhoods for detached single-family dwellings free from other uses except those which are compatible with, and serve the residents of, the district; and 2) Locate moderate -density residential development, up to seven (7) dwelling units per net residential acre (DU/NRA), in areas served by public water and sewer. Development exceeding seven (7) dwelling units per net residential acre may be allowed in accordance with Table 4-1. This higher -density development shall be allowed only in those limited occasions when the reviewing official finds that the location and site plan of the project is such that the higher density would be compatible with neighboring land uses and the level of public services, and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (YUACP). (YMC § 15.03.030(2)). The 84 proposed duplex units (at 5.67 DU/NRA) in the R-1 zoning district require Class (2) review. A Class (2) land use is defined as "those uses set forth 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." (YMC § 15.02.020). Compatibility is defined as "the characteristics of different uses or development that permit them to be located near each other in harmony" (YMC,§ 15.02.020). Multi -Family Units: The proposed 96 multi -family dwelling units lie within the R-2 zoning district. The R-2 zoning district is intended to 1) Establish and preserve residential neighborhoods for detached single- family dwellings, duplexes and other uses compatible with the intent of this district; and 2) Locate residentialdevelopment with densities up to twelve (12) dwelling units per net residential acre in areas receiving a full range of public services including public water and sewer service, and police and fire protection. The district is characterized by up to 50% lot coverage, access via local access streets and collectors, one and two story buildings, some clustering of units, and large front, rear, and side yard setbacks. Typical uses in this district are single-family dwellings and duplexes. The density in this district generally ranges from seven (7) to twelve (12) DU/NRA; however, development up to 18 dwelling units per net residential acre may be allowed in accordance with Table 4-1. This higher density development shall be allowed only on those limited occasions when the reviewing official finds that the location and site plan of the project is such that the higher density would be compatible with neighboring land uses and the level of public services, and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the YUACP. (YMC § 15.03.030(3)). Toscanna LLC CL (2)#20-08: CL (3)#7-08 Adm Adj #16-08 2 DOC. INDEX # The 96 proposed multi -family units (at 14.6 DU/NRA) in the R-2 zoning district require Class (3) review. A Class (3) land use is defined as "those uses set forth and defined in the text and tables of Chapter 15.04 of this title and are generally incompatible because of their size, emissions, traffic generation or for 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 hearing 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." (YMC § 15.02.020) Site Design and Improvement Standards: YMC Ch. 15.05 is designed to establish certain basic development requirements. These are the minimum criteria that must be met to assure land use compatibility and promote the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed development meets the requirements of this chapter as follows: Maximum Lot Coverage: In the R-1 district, this standard is intended to protect the open character of the district. The intent in the R-2 district is to provide areas . for landscaping and recreation (YMC § 15.05.020(C)). As proposed, the lot coverage in the R-1 district will be 36.9%, the standard in the R-1 zone is 45%. The proposed lot coverage in the R-2 district will be 65%, the standard in the R-2 zone is 50%. An Administrative Adjustment has been requested to allow the 15% increase in the R-2 zone. Structure Setbacks: In the residential districts, structure setbacks are intended to provide light, air and emergency access. Setbacks along easements and rights-of-way are intended to minimize the impacts from traffic on adjoining property owners (YMC § 15.05.020(D)). The proposed development meets all applicable setback standards, except the 15 -foot rear yard setback in the R-2 zone, where the proposed setback is five -feet. An Administrative Adjustment has been requested to allow a ten -foot decrease to the setback standard in the R-2 zone. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height in both the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts is 35 -feet (YMC Ch. 5, Table 5-1). The tallest proposed building is 35 -feet, which meets the standard. Sitescreening: The purpose of YMC Ch. 15.07 is to: establish sitescreening standards to provide a visual buffer between uses of different intensity, streets, and structures; reduce erosion and stormwater runoff; protect property values; and eliminate potential land use conflicts by mitigating adverse impacts from dust, odor, litter, noise, glare, lights, signs, buildings or parking areas. According to Table 7-1, Sitescreening Standard "A" is required along the west and south property lines, due to adjacent residential uses. Standard "A" is a ten -foot wide landscaped planting strip with trees at twenty -feet to thirty-foot centers, shrubs, and groundcover. Based on comments received from adjoining property owners, staff recommends sitescreening standard "C" to .be installed along the entire property line adjacent to the canal, and around the Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08: CL (3) #7-08 Adm Adj #16-08 3 DOC. INDEX • • proposed recreation/pool facilities. Standard "C" is a six -foot -high, view -obscuring fence, made of wood, masonry block, or slatted chain link. • ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT: YMC § 15.10.020 authorizes the Administrative Official to administratively adjust certain standards of the zoning ordinance. A particular standard may be reduced or modified so long as the reviewing official determines that the adjustment and/or reduction is consistent with the purpose of this title, the intent and purpose of the standard, and will accomplish one or more of the following objectives: 1. Siting for solar access: Does not apply; solar access is not a consideration in this request. 2. Zero Lot Line construction: Does not apply; no zero lot line construction is proposed. 3. Coordinate site features with surrounding land uses: Does not apply. 4. Permit flexibility in the design and placement of structures and other site improvements: Approval of the requested rear yard setback adjustment in the R-2 zoning district would permit flexibility in the design and placement of structures. Approval of the requested five- foot setback would not be detrimental to the purpose of the setback standard in the R-2 zone. The property line corresponds with the R -1/R-2 zoning district boundary. On the R- 1 side of the property line (Lot 2), the closest structure to the rear property line of the R-2 lot (Lot 1) is 90 -feet. The majority of the land adjacent to the rear lot -line of Lot 1 is proposed to be open space, parking area, and roadway. Approval of the requested lot coverage adjustment in the R-2 zoning district would also permit flexibility in the design and placement of structures. The 1-5% request, when looked at in the context of Lot 1 only, appears to be a large request. However, when looking at the 15% request as a part of the whole development, the request is minimal. The proposed 65% lot coverage of Lot I and 36.9% lot coverage of Lot 2 average to 51%, which is 1% greater than the R-2 standard, and 6% greater than the R-1 standard. The proposed open space and common recreation areas should adequately mitigate the increase in lot coverage on Lot 1. The purpose of the lot coverage standard in the R-2 zoning district is to provide areas for landscaping and recreation. Based on the site plan, there will be sufficient areas for both landscaping and recreation facilities on Lot 1. 5. Consistency with sub -area plans: Does not apply; no sub -area plans exist for this area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The 1997 Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use for this area as a mixture of low-density and medium -density residential. The low-density residential future land use designation is characterized as primarily single family, detached residences. Net residential DOC. INDEX Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08: CL (3) #7-08 • Adm Adj #16-08 4 density before considering roads and right-of-way is less than 7.0 dwelling units per acre, which is considered the lowest residential density to efficiently support public services. The medium - density residential future land use designation is characterized by a mixture of single family detached residences and duplexes, with a variety of other housing types at a residential density ranging between 7.0 and 11 dwelling units per acre. Figure II1-2 of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan shows levels of compatibility between existing and proposed uses. Even though the subject property is vacant and was previously used for orchard, the future land use designations of low density and medium density residential can be considered to be the existing uses, for the purposes of the table. The proposed uses of medium density residential in the R-1 zone and high density residential in the R-2 zone both are listed as being `generally compatible' with the existing uses. This figure is "intended to be used as a general guide for land use compatibility issues" and "[d]evelopment regulations, including current zoning, Hearing Examiner deliberations, and public comments play a further role in the process". (Page II1-7 1997 Comp Plan). The Zoning Ordinance addresses the level of compatibility via the Class (2) and (3) review processes. The proposed development is compatible with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy 61.4: Ensure that new development in the urban area enhances the "quality of life" within the urban area and that any environmental problems that arise from such development are corrected by the developer through the enforcement of subdivision controls and regulations. Policy G2.5: Regulations shall allow flexibility to maximize retention of individual private property rights. Objective G5: Recognize the transitional nature of agricultural uses within the urban growth area. Policy G8.4: Encourage major commercial, industrial and multi -family developments to locate inside city limits. Objective L1: Permit only those land developments and activities that are within the sustainable limits of the land and services. Objective L2: Establish a pattern of development that supports a sense of community. Goal H1: Encourage diverse and affordable housing choices. Policy H1.2: Facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single family lots, condominiums, clustering and other options which increase the supply of affordable homeownership options. Objective El: Encourage development in areas with few environmental hazards to minimize the loss of natural resources due to urbanization: Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08: CL (3) #7-08 Adm Adj #16-08 5 DOC. INDEX DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM (DST) A DST meeting was ,held for this project on May 28, 2008. The following comments were received from public agencies and private companies with an interest in the development herein being reviewed. Code Administration: Fire Department Access Road -2006 IFC Appendix D Section D102 D102.1 Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. Dimensions -2006 IFC Chapter 5 Section 503.2.1 (amended) Fire apparatus access .roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6 andan unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Fire Apparatus Access Roads -2006 IFC Appendix D Section D103.5 Fire Department Access Gates gates securing the fire department access roads shall comply with all of the following: 1. The minimum gate width shall be 20 -feet. 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and repaired and replaced when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a keybox containing the key(s) to the lock are installed at the gate -location. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official Electric Gates Opening Devices: The electronic opening device on a fire apparatus access road shall include the components on a Knox Box rapid Entry system or Opticom system, which will be approved by the fire code official Section D103.6 Signs Where required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08; CL (3) #7-08 Adm Adj #16-08 6 DOC. INDEX reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire department access road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2 Department of Ecology: The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the limitations of its water rights. If the proposal's actions are different than the existing water right (source, purpose, the place of use, or period of use), then it is subject to approval from the Department of Ecology pursuant to Sections 90.03.380 RCW and 90.44.100 RCW. If water is used for dust suppression, it must be obtained legally. A water right permit is required for all surface water diversions and for any water from a well that will exceed 5,000 gallons per day. Project Greater — Than 1 Acre with Potential to Discharge Off -Site: An NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology is required if there is a potential for stormwater discharge from a construction site with more than one acre of disturbed ground. This permit requires that SEPA checklist fully disclose anticipated activities including building, road construction and utility placement. Obtaining a permit is a minimum of a 38 day process and may take up to 60 days if the original SEPA does not disclose all proposed activities. The permit requires that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) is prepared and implemented for all permitted construction sites. These control pleasures must be able to prevent soil from being .carried into surface water (this includes storm drains) by stormwater runoff. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. Based upon the historical agricultural use of this land, there is a possibility the soil contains residual concentrations of pesticides. Ecology recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found at concentrations above the MTCA clean up levels Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence. Engineering: The frontage improvements on Castlevale Road need to be required. These improvements require curb, gutter and 5' sidewalks along the southerly and westerly edge of this roadway. In review of the City Engineer and staff, we are requiring Kern Road to be used as a fire access road along with a local access road. Kern Road will be built to universal fire code standards for fire apparatus. A minimum of 20' of paved surface will be. required. Title 12 requires water and sewer extensions for all properties to have separate connections to utilities. Streets will be built to city standards with curb, gutter and 5 -foot sidewalks. Public easements will be recorded as needed. Two accesses will be provided along with approved fire truck turnarounds where needed. Street lighting will also apply to this development. Stormwater: Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. UIC Registration — Stormwater: In accordance with Chapter 2 Section 2.4 of the December 2006 edition of the Department of Ecology's Guidance for UIC Wells that Manage Stormwater Publication Number 05-10-067, Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells constructed on or after February 3, 2006 are considered new and must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) prior to construction. Therefore, if UIC wells are used in the drainage design, DOC. INDEX A - c Toscamm LLC CL (2) #20-08; CL (3) #7-08 Adm Adj #76-08 7 • • • • the UIC wells must be registered with DOE and a copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and the DOE issued UIC well registration number for each well shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer before final plat approval shall be granted. The existing storm drain line is to be removed and relocated. Have they figured out where it is going to be relocated to yet? There is a note that says "connect stone drainage to existing off-site storm facility". Current City standards require that all of their storm drainage be retained on site. I am aware that this property has a drainage easement allowing them to discharge some amount of runoff into the City storm drain lines. The applicant should not assume they can put all of their runoff into the City lines. The easement language is not specific as to how much and my interpretation would be that the applicant should retain at least a significant amount of runoff on site and then -use the city lines as an overflow. Traffic Engineering: The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (dated February 2008 by Heath & Associates) that examined the projected traffic impacts` from the proposed 186 housing units, as well as additional phases not currently subject to review. A future phase of 100 Senior Living Units has not been submitted to the City of Yakima at this time, but was included in the Traffic Analysis. The study analyzed the level of service and operational impacts on the Arterial street system and traffic signal system from the site -generated traffic. The study concluded that traffic impacts from the proposed development will not have a significant impact to the street system. All intersections will operate at acceptable Level of Service except 40th' Avenue and Summitview. The intersection of North 40th Avenue and Summitview is expected to operate at a poor Level of Service with or without the Toscana project. The Toscana project will contribute 1.5 percent of the total trips through the intersection. The signalized intersection of North 40th Avenue and Castlevale Avenue has reserve capacity and will operate at acceptable Level of Service with the addition of project traffic. Wastewater: In accordance with Title 12 Section 12.03.020 of the YMC, sewer is to be extended along the east edge of the propertyto provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer pipe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly finger of the development to provide gravity sewer to existing residences on the west and south sides of Congdon canal. By doing so, allows the City to eventually decommission the Carriage Hill lift - station. Consideration for waivers to wastewater connection fees will be provided. We will need a lay out of the utilities for this project in order to provide further comments. Water and Irrigation: • Existing looped 12" and 8" waterline in Castlevale Rd. Two existing 8" waterline stubs to site off of Castlevale Rd. Existing dead-end .12" waterline Kern Way. .There are no existing water services to the site. Site is located in the Mid Level Pressure Zone. Static pressure approx. 68 - 75psi. • Public waterlines. will be required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall connect to the existing waterline in Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependant on the required fireflow for the buildings. Waterlines shall be placed within the street. Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08; CL (3) #7-08 Adin Adj #16-08 DOC. INDEX • There is one existing fire hydrant off of the looped 8" waterline in Castlevale Rd. There is one existing fire hydrant off of the dead-end 12" waterline at the end of Kern Way. All new fire hydrants/locations and new fire sprinkler services to be determined by Codes and Fire Dept. • All new public waterline on private property shall be located in a 16' waterline easement. • Available fire flow from 'looped 8 waterline - 2,875gpm. Available fire flow from dead- end 12" waterline - 3,100gpm • No City irrigation. Irrigation service may be available from Yakima Valley Canal Company. Contact Robert Smoot, 966-2300 for more info. • Specific site requirements will be provided at time of civil plan submittal and review. Each lot shall have a separate water service and meter. Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA): Prior to demolishing any structures, an asbestos survey must be done by a certified asbestos building inspector. Any asbestos found must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition. A notification for the demolition must be filled with YRCAA and the appropriate fee should be paid. Contractors doing demolition, excavation, clearing, construction, or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with YRCAA. Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. The proponent must address air emission impacts, in particular, PM2.5. Air emissions from such a large development (180 units), if and when using solid fuel devices (i.e. fireplaces, woodstoves) during the winter season at any one time, may violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the 24 hours average. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY ORDINANCE This application was reviewed and approved under the Traffic Concurrency Ordinance on July 3, 2008. It was determined that reserve capacity is available on all impacted streets. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City of Yakima has conducted a SEPA Environmental review for the proposed development (EC #19-08). A Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS) was issued on July 14, 2008 which included eighteen (18) mitigation measures. The MDNS was appealed on July 28, 2008 by the adjoining property owners. The mitigation measures are listed below: 1. No development permit shall be issued prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning review. 2. Contractors doing clearing, grading, paving, construction or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA). Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. 3. The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the limitations of its water rights. A water right permit is required for all surface water diversions and for any water from a well that will exceed 5,000 gallons per day. 4. A NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Washington State Dept. of Ecology is required. The permit requires that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) is prepared and implemented for all permitted Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08: CL (3) #7-08 Adm Adj #16-08 9 DOC. INDEX • • • • construction sites. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima's Engineering Division prior to construction. 5. The Yakima Valley Canal Company (YVCC) will not allow any excavation or construction within their right-of-way. Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way. 6. Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. If Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are used in the drainage design, the UIC wells must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and a copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and registration number(s) shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer. 7. Ecology recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found at concentrations above MTCA clean up levels, Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence. 8 Public waterlines are required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall be placed in the street connect to the existing waterline in Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependent on the required fireflow for the buildings. 9. In accordance with YMC § 12.03.020, sewer is to be extended along the east edge of the property to provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer pipe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly finger of the development to provide gravity sewer to existing residences on the west and south sides of the canal. 10. All public utility lines on private property shall be located in a minimum 16 -foot easement. 11. Fire Department Access Roads shall be installed and designed to the standards of the 2006 International Fire Code (IFC). 12. The proposed gates shall comply with the 2006 IFC standards and be equipped with a Knox Box rapid entry system or Opticom system which will be approved by the fire code official. 13. Where required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6 of the 1FC. 14. Kern Road shall be maintained at a minimum of twenty -feet of paved surface. 15. During project construction, all contractors shall adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. These hours are 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends and holidays. 16. Title 12 development standards shall be applied to this project including streets built to city. standards with curb, gutter, five-foot sidewalks and streetlights. Five-foot sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed along the Castlevale frontage. Public easements will be recorded where needed. 17. Parking and street lighting shall adhere to the standards of YMC § 15.06.100. Lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties. 18. Sitescreening Standard '`A" shall be installed along the west and south property lines due to adjacent single-family residential land uses. A higher standard may be substituted. PUBLIC NOTICE AND REVIEW This application was subject to a requirement for public notification followed by twenty (20) days of review. -Notice of this request was mailed to adjoining--property-owners on- J-une- 1-3, DOC. INDEX S Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08: CL (3) #7 -OS Adm Adj #I6-08 10 2008; the last day for public comment on SEPA was July 3, 2008. During the comment period any person had the right to comment upon this request and to become a party of record to the application. Multiple comment letters were submitted in opposition to the proposed project. The major issues brought, forth in the letters are listed below, in order of frequency (staff response in italics): 1. Views from houses along the canal will be altered: The narrative application and SEPA checklist both indicate that the tallest buildings will be 25 -feet (duplex) to 35 feet high (apartment). The: proposed duplexes will consist of primarily single story units with some two-story units. The proposed apartment units will be two - .stories, and the recreation buildings will be one to two stories. The maximum building height in both the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts is 35 feet. As proposed, the buildings heights will meet that standard. In order to promote compatibility between the duplexes along the canal and the single family homes on the other side, staff is recommending the condition to restrict those duplexes along the canal to single story. 2. Proposed densities are too high for the subject property: The proposed densities for both the duplex -and apartment units are permitted land uses, requiring Class .(2) and (3) review, respectively. (YMC Ch. 4, Table 4-1). 3. Traffic increase: This project was reviewed and approved for Traffic Concurrency on July 3, 2008. It was determined that adequate capacity exists on all impacted streets. 4. Property values of surrounding homes will decrease: No evidence or documentation was submitted supporting the assumption that property values will decrease due to the construction of this proposed development. 5. Proposed use is not compatible with current zoning district or the surrounding neighborhood: This proposal could be considered to be compatible, following Class (2) and (3) review. Since a Class (3) review is required, all aspects of the project will be decided by the Hearing Examiner at an open record public hearing (YMC § 15.11.110). The proposed land uses are permitted uses in the R-1 and R-2 districts, subject to Class (2) and (3) review. It is staff's position that the proposed development can be considered to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, provided that certain conditions are met. 6. Noise from recreation facility, proposed pool and traffic will be detrimental to neighborhood: The proposed connnon open space and landscaping should help mitigate adverse noise impacts from the recreation/pool facilities. In addition, staff is recommending sitescreening standard "C" be placed around not only the outside of the development, but also around the recreation/pool facilities. 7. Toxins are likely present from past orchard use: Based on submitted comments and on issues raised in the SEPA Appeal #4-08, staff is recommending that this project be conditioned to require that a soil study be completed, and Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08; CL (3) #7-08 Adm Adj #16-08 11 DOC. INDEX • • • • appropriate mitigation measures be taken if toxics are found, prior to the issuance of permits. 8. Possible safety issues with the canal: The Yakima Valley Canal Company does not permit trespassing onto their property. In addition, staff is recommending that site screening standard "C" is installed around the . entire length of the property which borders the -canal right-of-way. 9. .Adjustments should not be allowed: The proposed adjustments meet the criteria of YMC § 15.10.020, as documented previously in the staff report. 10. Smog/air quality issues: The developer is required to submit a dust control plan to the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority prior to construction. 11. Proposed interior streets do not meet standards: The proposed street width and layout has been. reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Complete civil engineered drawings will be required to be submitted for review prior to any construction. 12. Lighting should be directed away from homes uphill: SEPA Mitigation Measure #17 states "Parking and street lighting shall adhere to the standards of YMC § 15.06.100. Lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties." CONCLUSIONS 1. During Project review, it has been determined that this request is in compliance with YMC § 16.06.020(A) for making a Determination of Consistency as follows: a. Is a Class (3) land use in the R-2 zoning district, and a Class (2) land use in the R-1 zoning district; b. The density of the development is the basis for the above listed levels of review; c. Adequate public facilities are available to serve this site; and d. The proposed duplex and apartment units meet all applicable development standards, excepting the rear setback and lot coverage standards in the R-2 zoning district. An Administrative Adjustment was requested, and the proposal has been found to be in compliance with adjustment standards of YMC § 15.10.020. The proposed development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and the applicable standards of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. 3. The requested adjustments to the rear setback and lot coverage standards in the R-2 zoning district meets one of the necessary conditions for an adjustment of YMC § 15.10.020. 4. This project was reviewed and approved under the Transportation Concurrency Ordinance on July 3, 2008 Toscanna LLC CL (2)#20-08: CL (3) #7-08 Adm Adj #16-08 12 DOC. INDEX 5. This project was subject to SEPA Environmental Review. The MDNS dated July 14, 2008 was appealed on July 28, 2008. The Hearing Examiner is authorized to issue a determination on the appeal in conjunction with this open record public hearing decision. 6. Public comments were reviewed and implemented into the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested Class (3) and Class (2) land uses and Administrative Adjustment for the construction of a 96 -unit apartment complex in the R-2 zoning district and 84 duplex units in the R-1 zoning district, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to demolishing any structures, an asbestos survey must be done by a certified asbestos building inspector. Any asbestos found must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition. 2. Sitescreening Standard "C" shall be installed along the property line adjacent to the canal (west and south property lines) and around the proposed recreation/pool facilities. 3. The proposed duplexes adjacent to the canal shall be restricted to single story structures. 4. All conditions of the SEPA MDNS dated July 14, 2008 (File EC#19-08), shall be complied with. 5. The applicant shall conduct a soil surveyto determine if any toxic substances are present from past orchard use, prior to the issuance of permits. Appropriate mitigation measures shall be taken if toxics are found. 6. All proposed construction is subject to plan review, inspections, and building permits. Toscanna LLC CL (2) #20-08: CL (3) #7-08 Adm Adj #16-08 13 DOC. INDEX STAFF REPORT FOR APPEAL OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE SEPA APPEAL#4-08 SUBMITTED BY, CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CARRIAGE HILL WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT APPEAL OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON August 14, 2008 APPEAL DESCRIPTION: The City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development received an appeal of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for Toscanna LLC (File No. EC #19-08) on July 28, 2008. The reasons for appeal are documented below. APPELLANT: Carriage Hill Concerned Citizens LOCATION: Vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run PARCEL NUMBER: 181315-31011, 181315-34037 LEAD AGENCY: City of Yakima, Washington FILE NUMBER: SEPA APPEAL #4-08 FINDINGS: The City of Yakima is required by YMC § 6.88.170 and RCW 43.21C.075 to provide a record that consists of: 1. Findings and conclusions; 2. Testimony under oath; and, 3. A taped or written transcript. According to YMC § 6.88.170, "The SEPA determination of the responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight, and the appellant shall bear the burden to establisha violation of SEPA, the SEPA rules, or the provisions of this chapter." For proposals which may only be approved by an open record public hearing, an appeal shall be filed within fourteen days following the last day of any comment period, and shall be heard and decided in the open record public hearing in conjunction with the decision on the underlying proposal. The decision of the hearing examiner on the SEPA appeal shall be final and not subject to further administrative appeal. (YMC § 6.88.170) Nature of MDNS Conditions Imposed upon the applicant: The MDNS for this application imposes the following eighteen conditions upon the applicant: No development permit shall be issued prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning review. SEPA Appeal #4-08 1 DOC. INDEX # A_( 2. Contractors doing clearing, grading, paving, construction or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA). Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. 3. The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the limitations of its water rights. A water right permit is required for all surface water diversions and for any water from a well that will exceed 5,000 gallons per day. 4. A NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Washington State Dept. of Ecology is required. The permit requires that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) is prepared and implemented for all permitted construction sites. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima's Engineering Division prior to construction. 5. The Yakima Valley Canal Company (YVCC) will not allow any excavation or construction within their right-of-way. Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way. 6. Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. If Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are used in the drainage design, the UIC wells must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and a • copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and registration number(s) shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer. 7. Ecology recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found .at concentrations above MTCA clean up levels, Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence. 8. Public waterlines are required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall be placed in the street connect to the existing waterline in Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependent on the required fireflow for the buildings. 9. In accordance with YMC § 12.03.020, sewer is to be extended along the east edge of the property to provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer pipe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly finger of the development to provide gravity sewer to existing residences on the west and south sides of the canal. 10. All public utility lines on private property shall be located in a minimum 16 -foot easement. 11. Fire Department Access Roads shall be installed and designed to the standards of the 2006 International Fire Code (IFC). 12. The proposed gates shall comply with the 2006 IFC standards and be equipped with a Knox Box rapid entry system or Opticom system which will be approved by the fire code official. 13. Where required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6 of the IFC. 14. Kern Road shall be maintained at a minimum of twenty -feet of paved surface. 15. During project construction, all contractors shall adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. These hours are 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends and holidays. fib, 16. Title 12 development standards shall be applied to this project including streets built to city standards with curb, gutter, five-foot sidewalks and streetlights. Five-foot sidewalks and SEPA Appeal #9-08 DOC. INDEX # A -t streetlights shall be installed along the Castlevale frontage. Public easements will be recorded where needed. 17. Parking and street lighting shall adhere to the standards of YMC § 15.06.100. Lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties. 18. Sitescreening Standard "A" shall be installed along the west and south property lines due to adjacent single-family residential land uses. A higher standard may be substituted. Appellant's Arguments Regarding Inadequacy of the MDNS: The Appellant argues that the mitigation requirements are insufficient to mitigate environmental impacts below a level of significance and that probable significant adverse impacts exist that require an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposal. Furthermore, the appellant argues that one or more of the findings or mitigation requirements set forth in the MDNS inappropriately defer studies and information that is needed to make a proper environmental analysis; one or more of the findings or mitigation requirements inappropriately set forth requirements in general terms that cannot be reasonably accomplished or ascertained. Examples brought forth by the appellant are as follows (staff response in italics): 1. Water Resources. (Finding G and Mitigation Requirement 5). "Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way." Such a "requirement" is ambiguous and so completely subjective as to be unenforceable. Absolute setbacks from the canal should be set forth. Studies related to soil stability and retention need to be performed up front in order to make a proper determination. The language of Finding G and Mitigation Requirement 5 is based 011 a comment received from the Yakima. Valley Canal Company on May 22, 2008. The project site plan shows a minimum twenty -foot setback from the canal right-of-way. In addition, the applicant will • be required to submit a grading plan to be reviewed by City Engineering prior to the issuance of any permits. Water Quality. (Finding C and Mitigation Requirement 3). Water rights need to be determined in advance and not left up to future speculation. The language of Finding C and Mitigation Requirement 3 is based on a comment received from the Department of Ecology on June 30, 2008, and is 'standard language from DOE. A water right permit is only required IF surface water is being diverted or if water is drawn from a well in excess of 5,000 gallons per day. The SEPA Checklist indicates that no surface water diversions or withdrawals will occur and that no ground water will be withdrawn. 3. Storm Water Management. Due to the large excavation proposed for this .site, a full Stormwater Prevention Plan should be required in advance of environmental review determinations. Furthermore, it is stated that "The applicant should not assume they can put all of their runoff into the City lines." There needs to be requirements of what can and cannot be allowed to quantify what amount of run-off, if any, can be transferred off-site. SEPA Appeal #4-08 3 DOC. INDEX # A_t • • • The applicant is required to submit complete stormwater design plans to the City Surface Water Engineer prior to any construction or the issuance of permits. All stormwater- shall be retained on site. In addition, the applicant is required to obtain an NPDES stormwater general permit from the Department of Ecology. 4. Toxics. (Finding G and Mitigation Requirement 7). No actual "requirement" is set forth. It is merely stated that soil testing is recommended. Soil sampling for lead, arsenic, and other toxins must be required.. Staff is recommending the condition that a soil survey be completed and appropriate. mitigation take place, if necessary, prior to the issuance of any permits. ' 5. Transportation. Traffic studies need to be required up front. Presently, there is insufficient information to make an appropriate determination. The applicant did submit a Traffic -Study on March 18, 2008. In addition; this project was subject to Traffic Concurrency Review. A review was completed on July 3, 2008. It was determined that adequate capacity exists on all impacted streets. 6. Noise. The proposed project is adjacent to a residential community. Construction hours need to be appropriately limited. Construction hours are regulated by YMC § 6.04.180(15) which specifically states that "Sounds created by construction or lawn and garden equipment from six a.m. to ten p.ni. weekdays and from eight a.m. to ten p.m. Sundays and legal holidays" are exempt noise activities. In addition, staff is recommending site screening standard "C" to be placed around both proposed recreation/pool facilities as part of the recommended conditions for this project. Light and Glare. Additional consideration of all impacts needs to be considered. For example, no reference is made regarding glare from the swimming pool or what type of lights may be used. The recommended sitescreening standard "C" around the proposed recreation/pool facilities should mitigate any adverse impacts of glare from the swimming pool. Specific light types are not required in the zoning ordinance or building codes. Any and all outdoor lighting is required to reflect downward and away from adjacent property owners. 8. Aesthetics. Higher standards are required to preserve the adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed project meets or is below most applicable zoning ordinance standards. The maximum building height in both the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts is 35 feet. Building placement meets or exceeds all applicable setbacks, excluding the rear setback on the R-2 lot .where a request for an Administrative Adjustment has been submitted. The lot coverage for the R-1 lot is proposed to be 36.9%, where 45% is allowed. The proposed R-2 lot SEPA Appeal #4-08 DOC. INDEX #-I coverage is 65%, which is above the 50% standard; however, an Adjustment .has been requested for this as well. 9. Sitescreening. The proposal is for medium and high densities to be built adjacent to low density neighborhoods. Higher sitescreening standards than standard "C" are appropriate. The statement that '`the developer may substitute a higher sitescreening standard..." is meaningless. A higher standard must be made a requirement. Sitescreening standard "C" is the highest standard of the zoning ordinance. Based on Table 7-1 of YAC Ch, 15.07, Standard "A" is required between duplex and single ,family home land uses. It is standard language of the zoning ordinance that "the developer may substitute a higher sitescreening standard". It is staff's recommendation to require standard "C" on the property line adjacent to the canal and around the recreation/pool facilities as a project condition. 10. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan for the following non -exhaustive reasons: it does not preserve existing established neighborhoods; it detracts from the quality of life and sense of community within the area; and it provides for higher densities than designated by the future land use plan. The future land .use designations for the subject property are low density residential and medium density residential for the R=1 and R-2 zoning districts. Figure 111-2 of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan shows levels of compatibility between existing and proposed uses. Even though the subject property is vacant and was previously used for orchard, the future land use designations of low density and medium density residential can be considered to be the existing uses, for the purposes of the table. The proposed uses of medium density residential in the R-1 zone and high density residential in the R-2 zone both are listed as being `generally compatible' with the existing uses. This figure is "intended to be used as a general guide for land use compatibility issues" and "fdjevelopment regulations, including current zoning, Hearing Examiner deliberations, and public continents play a further role in the process ". (Page 111-7 1997 Comp Plan). The Zoning Ordinance addresses the level of compatibility via the Class (2) and (3) review processes, which this development is subject to. The proposed project can be considered to be in compliance With the following goals, policies, and objectives of the 1997 Urban Area Comprehensive Plan: Policy G1.4: Ensure that new development in the urban area 'enhances the "quality of life" within the urban area and that any environmental problems that arise from such development are corrected by the developer through the enforcement of subdivision controls and. regulations. Policy G2.5: Regulations shall allow flexibility to maximize retention of individual private property rights: Objective G5: Recognize the transitional nature of agricultural uses within the urban growth area. SEPA Appeal #4-08 5 DOC. INDEX # A_1 o Policy G8.4: Encourage major commercial, industrial and multi family developments to locate inside city limits. Objective Ll: Permit only those .land developments and activities that are within the sustainable limits of the land and services. Objective L2: Establish a pattern of development that supports a sense of community. Goal Hl: Encourage diverse and affordable housing choices. Policy H1.2: Facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single family lots, condominiums, clustering and other options which increase the supply of affordable homeownership options. Objective El: Encourage development in areas with few environmental hazards to minimize the loss .of natural resources due to urbanization. In review of the Appellant's argument, and the above Findings, staff makes the following: Conclusions: 1. The City of Yakima is required, under YMC § 6.88.170, to present Findings and Conclusions; Testimony under oath; and a Taped or Written Transcript. 2. The SEPA MDNS dated July 14, 2008, file number EC #19-08, holds substantial weight. The burden to establish a violation of SEPA, SEPA .rules, or YMC Ch. 6.88, is on the appellant. 3. The decision of the hearing examiner on this SEPA Appeal shall be final and not subject to further administrative appeal. 4. The Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance issued on July 14, 2008 contained eighteen mitigation measures. A Notice of Application was sent to adjoining property owners within 500 feet of the subject property on June 13, 2008. The twenty day comment period for SEPA ended on July 3, 2008. The Notice of Application contained twelve probable mitigation measures. No comments were received during the SEPA comment period which identified substantial issues with the twelve listed probable mitigation requirements, or that were not mitigated for with additional measures in the MDNS. Based upon the above listed conclusions, staff recommends that the MDNS, dated July 14, 2008, be upheld. The eighteen mitigation measures adequately ensure that adverse environmental impacts will be mitigated, and no significant impacts were identified which would require the applicant to submit an Environmental Impact Statement. Additional land use concerns, which. are not a part of the MDNS, should be brought forward during the hearing on the land use portion of the project. SEPA Appeal #4-08 6 DOC. INDEX # A-1 • TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER B Maps EXHIBIT DOCUMENT R DATE B-1 Maps 4/17/08 DONALD DR immomp #14hPA4 , 41 it; •MEW ,IPRe# Tilb 111 Surrey Ln Conenoge Blvd Wod.eto Wy MEI NON IN neer iNE WS PLACE eIMOEnLY PLACE • Madera Wy Garden Pork Wy • ad 44. I Karn Road Elam Ct EN. Cr CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON - VICINITY MAP FILE NO: UAZO CL(2)#20-08, EC#19-08, Adm Adj#16-08 iroEPPLICANT: Toscanna Development QUEST: Construct 96 apartments and 84 duplexes, Permit 2 family dweelings in R-1 zone and Multi family in R-2 LOCATION: Castlevale and Seattle Slew O .110 le 41 Subject Property . y Yakima City Limits Scale-1in=400ft 0 zoo toecanna 04/17/08 tBLt E > "/,'244611 32514 ",";;;31409; Cas CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON FILE NO: UAZO CL(2)#20-08, EC#19-08, Adm Adj#16-08 APPLICANT: Toscanna Development REQUEST: Construct 96 apartments and 84 duplexes, Permit 2 family dweelings in R-1 zone and Multi family in R-2 LOCATION: Castlevale and Seattle Slew PARCEL NUMBER(S):18131531011 18131534037 Property Notices Subject Site Scale —lin = 400ft164)ti0` 9° �sDOC. 200 400nna 04/17/08 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON Information Services - GIS FILE NO: UAZO CL(2)#20-08, EC#19-08, Adm Adj#16-08 IKEPPLICANT: Toscanna Development QUEST: Construct 96 apartments and 84 duplexes, Permit 2 family dweelings in R-1 zone and Multi family in R-2 LOCATION: Castlevale and Seattle Slew Scale —1 in = 400h 0 200 400 Alf Subject Property Yakima City Limits DOC. INDEX toscanna 04/17/08 UAZO CL(2)#20-08, EC#19-08, Adm #' 98 I I SR Suburban Res al To41iscanna Development I IRI SinglelamilyResidentwl 1 R-2 Two -Family Residential nstruct 96 apartments and 84 duplexes, Permit R-3 Multi Family Residential B -I Professional Business amily dweelings in R-1 zone and Multi family irk 22 Local Business Castlevale and Seattle Slew HB Historical Business ® SCC Small Convenience Center ♦ * Subject Property ® City Limits MI LCC Large Convenience Center MO CBD Central Business District CBDS CBD Support M-1 Light Industrial M-2 Heavy Industrial - cc O. EV-OYo OR DONALD DR Scale —lin = 400ft 0 200 toscanna 400 S�N A City of Yakima, Washington April 17, 2008 DOC. INDEX UAZO CL(2)#20-08, EC#19-08, Adm Adj#16-08 ,ck,‘, o(4' 44P. scOs O� 0 <4, - s --SURREYLN - CARRIAGE HILL OR F1 OQ Q _DO 14 —FETCHE-R-R D CONESTOGA BLVD st - - Z----_ N. _ MATTHEWS_PL - KIMBERLY Pe MADERA WAY ESTEE COURT -FET HE-R-RD— SURREY LN GOP , 5� of G� CONESTOGABLV D MATTHEWS PL KIMBERLY Pk w RDfN PARK WAY MADERA WAY ESTEE COURT 2 Current Zoning CURRENT ZONLNG SR Suburban Residential R -I Single -Family Residential R-2 Two -Family Residential R-3 Multi -Family Residential B-1 Professional Business ■ B-2 Local Business ■ HB Historical Business SCC Small Convenience Center • LCC Large Convenience Center ■ CBD Central Business District CBDS CBD Support M-1 Light Industrial M-2 Heavy Industrial NSubject Site Future Land Use FUTURE LAND USE Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential ■ High Density Residential Professional Office . Neighborhood Commercial ■ Large Convenience Center Arterial Commercial ■ CBD Core Commercial Industrial Urban Reserve • Subject Site o- '1 I a 8 p-4 0 2 e ° - e cc Q b�[IONu° • 1. ,e Izln — ° • f ° 00 ! 4 NES UGA BLV r I mi z 01001 010 0D Yakima Water & Sewer Water Lines Sewer Lines Irrigation Main FILE NO: UAZO CL121#20-08, ECp1B-011, Adm Adj#1! APPLICANT: To:manna Development Digital Orthophoto Mosaic of Digital Orthophotography flown 08/01/2002 ivSubject Property CITY OF YAKIMA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPEMENT 129 North Second Stre�tOC" Yakima, Washington IG/�LL1lcv Phone: (509)575-6113 Fax: (509)575-6105 1 -1 - — All maps shown at 1" = 600ft One page Atlas: toscanna Created: April 17, 2008 • TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER C Site Plan c-1 Site Plan 5/14/08 1GHMNG KEY + 2' M. LUNT -. + loHI. STREET ADDITIONAL LIGHT. BILL BE PRONDED . FRC. PORCHES, 5, ENTRY GATE PILLARS .4 MAIL FACILITIES PROPERTY SIDE SETBACK .LOT 3 ACCESS EASEMENT FOR LOT I L54I SF. 673 OPERABLE 1; GA E5 ACCESS ACCESS EASEMENT 3454 6F. 'as) 7 EXIST. FRE HYDR4N1 A ARTEAALL ASSET UMED) (COLLECTOR 50•FR0N] SETBACK WALK CN EAC IDE SHARED RECREATION 4Ed bONfJLOT fE mi] REFUSE 4 RECTO,. STORAGE • EACH DUPLEX DEDICATION TOO.1.1115.1& 5F. 355 484£5) ERIA PRCT.ECT ari]A a' ',NB, UV GRO ° HORSED L.HTSG 50 CLEAR 815111 TRIANGLE CARINAL WALW:AY /UTILITY EASEYENT MAY BE RECIIRED —" LOT ,4 REFUSE / RECTCLUG DROP-OFF 4BatBLEFER LO BANDAR,' \ UTILITY10. PUBLIC EASEMENT PER ` AEN. 1254440 Existing Conditions Plan SCALE I" 200' U 0 1¢80¢4.200' 4100' TTP. DRY UTILITY COORTOOR EXISTS. STORM DRAW EASEMENT PER AFH 244441 SO BE REMOVED 4m RELOCATED RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV Vicinity Map 7.,1401= ,108 58=5400 (m•PROnOew LOT I BUIDTNG TYPES m' TTP. DRY UTILITY CPDRIDO5 ON LOT (5121 S) ...RED1 RECREATION AREA .4'WIDE DRIVE LANE EXIS15. m' f1BLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER ADJACENT R3 AF.N. 12.400 5' WALK EdDN SIDE - ttP, (MOBILE HOMES/ R SCREENING PER ZONING SNARED DRIVE FOR LOTS 1 / 2 • GATES FOR Loi ESM 935F. 8_21 APPROX. LOCATION OF EXIST. RIONE VAST EXIST. NT1,�A4:]E06NNSI/N K ERN RD. REGLESTED 5' REAR SETBACK BY ADMINISTRATIVE LDXST1ENT ACCESS EASEMENT FOR ADJACENT PARCEL m' TTP. DRY U11uTY CCORIDPR 20 MR REAR SETBACK TYR 512T'STALLS ADJACENT RI SIDE SETBACK Op FRONDED/ N EXIST.. FIRE HYDRANT Preliminary Site Plan SCALE 1' = 80' u 0 40' 80' 160' Statistics APPLICANT: 51TE ADDRESS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: TOSCANA DE (PROPERTY CELL 253-405 FAX 253-445-8 ATTN: KEITH BASH 3419 11250. 51. E. 703 P214LLUP, WA 98314 OFFICE PH. 253-445-8365 ON CASTLEVALE ROAD, ACROSS FROM THE SEATTLE SLEW RUN INTERSECTION LOT 1 - 801 SEATTLE SLEW RN LOT 2 - 800 SEATTLE SLEW RUN LOT 3 - 810 SEATTLE SLEW RAN LOT 4 - 811 SEATTLE SLEW RN 21.15 TOTAL ACRES THAT 15 BEING SUBDIVIDED PER UAZO PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT 2.08 NOTE: PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT APPLICATION TO BE AMENDED A5 REQUIRED PER CURRENT SITE PLAN CURRENT PARCEL 110: 181315-31011 4 131315-34031 PROPOSED LOT USES, LOT 1, 96 UNIT APARTMENT GROSS AREA, 326,434 5F. 1149 ACRES) IME3 MINUS ACCESS EASEMENT: 3,464 5F. MINUS 24' DRIVE LONE: 31331 5F NET AREA: 285639 51. (655 ACRES) PROPOSED DENSITY. 96 UNITS/65S ACRES , 146 UNITS/ACRE GLASS 3 REVIEW REQUIRED LOT 2: 84 DUPLEX WIT5 GROSS AREA: 131085 SF. (169 ACRES) MINUS ACCE55 EASEMENT: 3394 SF, MINUS 24' DRIVE LANE: 18245 5F, NET AREA: 641,446 5F. (148 ACRES) PROPOSED DENSITY: 84 UNITS/148 ACRES V 561 UN1TS/ACRE (1 MAX) • LOT 3: 810 AC6E5 PROBABLE FUTURE SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITH FUTURE CLASS 111 RENEW LOT 4: 128 ACRES PROBABLE REUSE RETAIL/OFFICE DEVELOPMENT WITH MERE RE -ZONE APPLICATION 10 REZONE LOT TO BI OR 02 ZONING PROPOSED PARKIFG: LOT 1: 2 GARAGE STALLS PER APARTMENT WAIT AND 51 UNASSIGNED STALLS • LOT 2: 2 GARAGE STALLS PER DUPLEX ABMT AND 80 UNASSIGNED STALLS PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS, LOT I: R-2 ZONE • BUILDINGS: 104050 55. (31051 DRIVES/PARKING/WALKS: 101,404 5F (32.95) LOT 2. 311,454 5F. (6415) R -I ZONE BUILDINGS: 89,102 5F. (12.15) DRIVES/PARKIIGN)4LK5: 182,952 5F (2485) 212054 5P (36,95) GROSS LOT AREA 611814RY, LOT I: LOT 2: LOT 3: LOT 4: STREET DEDICATION 1.49 4CRE5 16.9 ACRES (10 ACRES 128 ACRES 038 4CRE5 21.15 40625 a a a DOC. INDEX o G—I Casev Groun Architects Architecture And Planninv (1 1(l T • • TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08; UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER D DST (Development Services Team) 'all III, F3 D-1 D-1 Request for Comments 5/16/08 D-2 DST Distribution List 5/16/08 D-3 Comments from Robert Smoot, Yakima Valley Canal Company 5/22/08 D-4 Comments from Hasan Tahat, Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority 5/22/08 D-5 Comments from Scott Schafer, Wastewater Division 5/23/08 D-6 Comments from Mike Antijunti, Engineering Division 5/27/08 D-7 Comments from Mike Shane, Water/Irrigation Division 5/28/08 D-8 Comments from Randy Meloy, Engineering Division 5/28/08 D-9 Comments from Sandy Cox, Plans Examiner II 6/09/08 D-10 Comments from Joe Caruso, Code Administration 6/11/08 D-11 Comments from Hasan Tahat, Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority 6/27/08 D-12 Comments from Mike Antijunti, Engineering Division 6/27/08 D-13 Comments from Gwen Clear, Department of Ecology 7/02/08 D-14 Transportation Concurrency Analysis 7/03/08 D-15 Preliminary Addressing 7/09/08 D-16 Comments from Mike Antijunti, Engineering Division 7/11/08 D-17 Comments from Joan Davenport, Traffic Engineering 7/31/08 D-18 Comments from Hasan Tahat, Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority 8/06/08 D-19 Comments from Brett Sheffield, Engineering Division 08/13/08 D-20 Comments from Randy Meloy, Engineering Division 0818/08 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT William R. Cook, Director Engineering Division 129 North Second Street Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone: (509) 575-6111 • Fax (509) 576-6305 August 18, 2008 Mr. Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner City of Yakima RE: TOSCANNA STORM DRAINAGE Dear Mr. Calhoun, The proposed Toscanna development near 40th Ave. and Kern Road has an existing City storm drain line running through the property that eventually empties into the Powerhouse Canal in the vicinity of Powerhouse Road and 38th Avenue. Rick Wehr of PLSA Engineering brought to my attention that the parcel in question has a storm sewer easement and agreement with the City of Yakima, dated December 1, 1975 that grants the owner of said parcel the right to connect to the storm drain line. Having obtained a copy of the easement and agreement, I believe the document is valid and that the parcel owner does have a right to connect to the storm drain line. The City also has a policy in place that requires developers of property to retain all of the stormwater that falls on the property up to the 25 -year storm (1.0 inches of rainfall over a three hour period). The City's policy and the rights granted in the easement and agreement conflict with each other, so a compromise solution has been found that protects the quality of water going into the Powerhouse Canal and gives the property owner the right to tie into the City's storm drain line. The property owner shall be required to retain and treat runoff on site up to the 6 month, 24-hour storm (0.65 inches of rainfall over a 24-hour period). Any runoff over this amount can be discharged into the existing City storm drain system without treatment. The 6 month,. 24-hour storm is also known as the water quality storm and is used in the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SMMEW) as a guideline for how much stormwater must be treated. The manual then allows runoff amounts greater than the water quality storm to be discharged directly into receiving water bodies without treatment. By requiring the property owner to retain and treat the water quality storm, the City will meet the guidelines in the SMMEW while allowing them to discharge excess runoff from larger storm events into the storm drain line. DOC. INDEX # 0--C) 1 I believe this compromise is in the best interests of the City of Yakima. Water quality is maintained and the property owner is allowed to use the City's storm drain line, to which they have a valid easement and agreement. If you have any questions or need more information please contact me. Sincerely, Randy Meloy Surface Water Engineer City of Yakima DOC. INDEX # 2 • I STORM• SEWER EASE-"1ENT AND AGREEMENT v irr. A»A7is CATTLE: CC 1PANY, a corporation, and i pEtmiiB L. PEARSON and $LLEN B. PEARSON ' , husband and wife, • Grantors, owner of,.the property described hereinbelaw,.for valuable consideration received; hereby grant to the City of Yakima, Washington, a municipal.carpora.tion; a.perpetual ease- neat -and right -of -.way through and across the following described real property situatts.in Yakima County, Washington, to wit:' Ate easement 10 feet } dth, 5 feet on each side of.the following descr' • • Beginningthe northeast corner of the southwest quay- terx £ , 4-14i` 5 -tttE nsu`fipx' 3'*tIot1?4,ARalege „16,-:-E.sV;.iC.: (refer nce bearing -the north .line of said sbuthwest quarter, nart 89°38east) ' thence north $9°38' east 261.06 feet, thence south 40.'23'30" west 50.93 feet•tp the. -true point of. • beginning, thence south 65°36'19" wast 85.091 feet, thence south 26°23'-59." west 192.472.feet, thence south 41°04'40" •west'.547.116:feet, thence south 89434`27" west 353.555 feet, theoce south 1°15.'00 " east 219.784 feet, thence south • 67°35'37",west 262;524 feet, thence south.5.3°03'43" vest` 83:017 feet, thence south 78°11159" nest 267.695 feet,'the ce south -67623'36" west 213,197 feet, thence south 33'14'06" west 271.464 fee, thence south 46`41655" west'296;626•feet (said easement ending at the east right-of-way line of the • Yakima Valley Canal) thence south 89°39100" ueSt 237.790 feet, thence south 0°49'00" east.183.500 feet, thence south 89"40'00" west 588,000 feet, thence south 0°49.' east 890.00 feet• to the southwest Corner of said southwest quartet of .Section 15; for the ptiirpase of installing, operating and -maintaining a.storm, drain, including the right of ingress and egress thereto across grantor's. adjacent property to inspect, repair, make connections .thereto, and to otherwise operate and maintain the storm drain. The.Grantors reserve the'right to install within the above described easement a frost.control system and/or a.wind machine, and appurtenances thereto, together with.oil lines, water 'lines and orchard roads,•all in conjunction with the operation by grantors of an orchard business on the property.which is,subject.to the NOT SUD.J2CT Tu Q'� "zxG1Sg TAX) DDC; INDEX # above cLeyscribed easement; provided„any 1:3* soado by grant.oro of the property which it subject to theabovedescribed easement shall riot.interfere lith the installation, operation enc m tenant& of thestorm dtatn system for. whiOt this easement giaZit2d. The granters reserve the right to connect to the to di to be installed withinthe above described tZSemcnt fo erzlnage conerbi of sat -face water, ror.-off, or excessive ar waste water; provided, that any ch !uturl connections shall be made at:nc, expenseto the City, after notice'to the. City tngineer, 4,n4.4shell be constructedin oceo:rdenoe with.plans and specifications approved by the City Egineer. The grentora farther reserve the right to relocate thE storm drain if required sta later date, each relocation to be accomplishee: at no expense' to theCity after notice co the City Engineer and in accordance with a'schedule of werk,plans,end specifiCations approved bythe City 'Engineer. /n the eVent of such relocation, a new easement, acceptable to the City I.ngineer, shell be granted to the City for the. realignmor4 C'e. the storm drain - 77 the aeceptanceof this easement, the City agrees to bold the grantors harmless from any damage to their existing water lines and oil linewithin t::e easement, if sach damage results fwom Pte ex,±rise by the City-.sf its ripts s.,:rsaent to the esso- ment hereby .granted. This grant and.agreement sh.11.1 inure to thehenefit of, and shall he binding-on,the to this agreethent;thair assigns, heirs and auccessOre in Interest. . . . . SEXLIC VOL, 9 7 8 DEC 3 675 bsted this '/ riay of MT. ? D S CATTLE Cob p AtrI By Presideizr gY r Cis, i/ • i • Secretary x,JJJ,' MNT.4 .' or WASHINGTON) .County of,Yakima ) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) : ss County . o f Yakima ) GRANTORS On this day personally appeared before me 1334.Lbtkil L. PARSON and ELLEN B. PEARSON , tc� sae .known ro be the individuals 'described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they si,sned the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for. the uses and purposes therein mentioned. ;nriq ,,GIVEN}ander • my 'hand and ,1975. official Sga:.thist • 1 day of < 477../e, Notary •Public in 'and for the State pf Washington, residing, at Yakima. On this day personally appeared before me DE:MAR.L. PEARSON and ELLEN B. PEARSON to snE known to be the President and Secretary .respectively of the corporation that executed.the foregoing instrument, and' acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed. of said Corporation, for 'the uses and' purposes therein mentioned,:and or, oath stated that they are • authorized to'exeeute said instrument *and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. GIVENnder my hand ar•off g seal this I day of r 1975. i Notary Public in aria .for tae State of Washington, residing at Yakima. YAKI=:A COUNTY, WASH. Fl m EY 3 3 37 P C.W. HATFIELD AUDITOR MEMORANDUM Date: August 13, 2008 To: File From: Brett Sheffield, PE, Acting City Engineer Re: Toscanna Residential Development RECEIVED AUG 1 3 Z008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIM City of Yakima Title 12 Development Standards Acceptance of Submitted Standards The City of Yakima Engineering Division supports and accepts the proposed interior drive layout of the Toscanna development. Title 12 states "the city engineer, at his discretion, is authorized to adjust these standards as necessary to facilitate the construction of new streets and improvement of existing streets" (YMC § 12.06.030). The Title 12 requirement to provide 5 -foot sidewalks along both sides of the streets shall stand. The portions where sidewalk is absent on the current site plan shall be modified to include sidewalks. Doc. INDEX # 0--tci • akima Regional Clean Air Authority Ac1/4_c3 3 Mr. William Cook, CED Director City of Yakima 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, WA 98901 RE: EC #19-08 — Toscanna LLC. Dear Mr. Cook: Six So. Second St., Suite 1016, Yakima, WA 98901 Phone: (509) 834-2050, Fax: (509) 834-2060 http://www.yaltimacleanair.org Thank you for providing the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA) the opportunity to review and comment on Toscanna LLC. — SEPA appeal #4-08 for the proposal to construct a 96 -unit residential apartment community and an 84 -unit duplex community. Following review, and in addition to our previous comments, YRCAA offer the following additional comments: • 1. The proponent/developer must address the air emission impacts, in particular PM2_5 prior. Air emissions from such a large development (180 units), if and when using solid fuel devices (i.e., fireplaces, woodstoves) during the winter season at one time, may violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the 24 hours average; 2. Contractors doing demolition, excavation, clearing, construction, or landscaping work must file a Dust Control Plan with YRCAA; 3. Prior to demolishing any structures, if any, an asbestos survey must be done by a certified asbestos building inspector; 4. Any asbestos found must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition; and 5. A notification for the demolition must be filed with YRCAA and the appropriate fee should be paid. Thank you for the opportunity to .; onnect with the city's continued support- in -protecting the air quality in Yakima County. Best regards, Hasan M. Tahat, 'h.D. Engineering and Planning Division Supervisor Cc: Proponent and File INDEX I —lS Calhoun, Joseph From: Davenport, Joan Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:37 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: Traffic Impacts of Toscana Traffic Impacts from the proposed Toscana Development RECEIVED • JUL 3 1 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (dated February 2008 by Heath & Associates) that examined the projected traffic impacts from the proposed 186 housing units, as well as additional phases not currently subject to review. A future phase of 100 Senior Living Units has not been submitted to the City of Yakima at this time, but was included in the Traffic Analysis. The study analyzed the level of service and operational impacts on the Arterial street system and traffic signal system from the site -generated traffic. The study concluded that traffic impacts from the proposed development will not have a significant impact to the street system. All intersections will operate at acceptable Level of Service except 40th Avenue and Summitview. The intersection of North 40th Avenue and Summitview is expected to operate at a poor Level of Service with or without the Toscana project. The Toscana.project will contribute 1.5.percent of the total trips through the intersection. The signalized intersection of North 40th Avenue and Castlevale Avenue has reserve capacity and will operate at acceptable Level of Service with the addition of project traffic. Joan Davenport, AICP Supervising Traffic Engineer City of Yakima Dept. of Public Works 2301 Fruitvale Blvd Yakima, WA 98902 (509)576-6417 jdavenpo @ci.yakima.wa.us DOC, INDEX # D -l.1 • • • Memorandum Page 1 of 1 Calhoun, Joseph From: Antijunti, Mike Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:59 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: en0081.2.doc RECEIVED JUL .1 1 2008 CITY (W YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. City of Yakima Engineering Memorandum Date: July 11, 2008, 2008 To: Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner From: Mike Antijunti, Development Engineer Subject: Project # EN0081 Toscanna Development The frontage improvements on Castlevale Road need to be required. These improvements require curb, gutter and 5' sidewalks along the southerly and westerly edge of this roadway. Mike Antijunti Development Engineer City of Yakima (509) 576-6608 7/1 1 /')MR DOCL. INDEX 7/9/2008 Preliminary Addressing 9:29 AM REVISED 1 Toscanna Dev. Referred to on Plat as: LOT 2 Unit numbers as follows: 700-702 Seattle Slew Run Referred to on Plat as: LOT 1 Unit numbers as follows: 801 Seattle Slew Run Bldg A Bldg 1 Bldg C 704-706 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 2 802 Seattle Slew Run Bldg E 708-710 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 3 803 Seattle Slew Run Bldg G 712-714 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 4 804 Seattle Slew Run Bldg J 716-718 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 5 805 Seattle Slew Run Bldg L 720-722 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 6 806 Seattle Slew Run Bldg N 724-726 Seattle Slew Run Bidg 7 807 Seattle Slew Run Bldg P 728-730 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 8 808 Seattle Slew Run Bldg R 732-734 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 9 809 Seattle Slew Run Bldg T 736-738 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 10 810 Seattle Slew Run Bldg U 727-279 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 11 811 Seattle Slew Run Bldg V 740-742 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 12 812 Seattle Slew Run Bldg W 731-733 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 13 813 Seattle Slew Run Bldg X 744-746 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 14 814 Seattle Slew Run Bldg Y 748-750 Seattle Slew Run Bldg 15 815 Seattle Slew Run Bldg Z 752-754 Seattle Slew Run Bldg AA 756-758 Seattle Slew Run 100 series numbers should be used Bldg BB 760-762 Seattle Slew Run for 1st floor units; 200 series Bldg CC 735-737 Seattle Slew Run numbers should be used for 2nd Bldg DO 764-766 Seattle Slew Run floor units, etc. Bldg EE 739-741 Seattle Slew Run Bidg FF 743.746 Seattle Slew Run No duplication in numbering should Bldg OG 768-770 Seattle Slew Run occur, to reduce the Iiklihood Bldg JJ 772-774 Seattle Slew. Run of confusion with mail delivery Bldg LL 776-778 Seattle Slew Run Bldg MM 780-782 Seattle Slew Run , Bldg NN 747-749 Seattle Slew Run Bldg PP 751-753 Seattle Slew Run Bldg KK 784-786 Seattle Slew Run Bldg HH 788-790 Seattle Slew Run Bldg QQ 755-757 Seattle Slew Run Bldg RR 759-761 Seattle Slew Run Bldg S 792-794 Seattle Slew Run Bldg SS 763-765 Seattle Slew Run Bldg Q 796-798 Seattle Slew Run Bldg TT 767-769 Seattle Slew Run Bldg M 723-725 Seattle Slew Run Bldg K 719-721 Seattle Slew Run Bldg H 715-717 Seattle Slew Run Sildg F 711-713 Seattle Slew Run Bidg D 707-709 Seattle Slew Run 'Idg B 703-705 Seattle Slew Run '00 Z -t r- m rn O O 0 a VD m L, D R o mco 010 • • • City of Yakima, Washington Traffic Division of Public Works Department Transportation Concurrency Analysis RECEIVED A 3 2008 KIMA PLANNING DIV Date of Review: July 3, 2008 Review Prepared by: Joan Davenport, Supervising Traffic Engineer (576-6417) Proposed Development: Toscana Subject Address: 4200 Castlevale Road ITE Land Use: LU #230, 84 Condos (0.52 PM Trips* 84 units = 43.68 PM Trips) LU #220, 96 Apartments (0.62 PM Trips*96 Units = 59.5 PM Trips) Expected Net PM Peak Hour Trip Generation: 103 PM Peak Hour trips Summary of Impact: The applicant proposes to construct 96 apartments and 84 duplex condominiums units in the vicinity of 4200 Castlevale Road, within the city of Yakima, Washington. All traffic from this new development will enter the Arterial Street system on North 40th Avenue: City of Yakima Administrative procedures for Concurrency Analysis use the PM Peak hour trip of the adjacent street for the selected land use category. The site -generated traffic is distributed to the Arterial street sections noted below, based upon the City policy to assess impacts for two Arterial street segments. Estimated distribution of the site -generated tripsis shown on the table below. Based upon actual data, City of Yakima Traffic Volumes for PM Peak Hour is assessed as 8.7% of total Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Peak hour reserve capacity includes any vehicle trips previously assigned under the Concurrency Ordinance. City of Yakima Transportation Concurrency assesses arterial street segment capacity only and does not address intersection capacity. Seg # Street Segment Total ADT PM PK Hr ADT PK HR Reserve Cap. New Dev. PM PK HR Impact Total COII _ c PS y TrCapacity Resulting Pm Pk Hr V/C LOS 67 40th.Ave: Fruitvale to River 24,050 2,092 1,108 48 286- 1,060 0.74 C 68 40th Ave: River to Castlevale 28,400 2,471 729 56 203 673 0.84 D 69 40th Ave: Castlevale to Englewood 26,600 2,314 886 56 204 830 0.79 C 70 40th Ave: Englewood - Lincoln 26,300 2,288 912 20 184 892 0.77 C 85 Fruitvale: 40th to 34th Ave 10,525 916 2,284 17 110 2,267 0.32 A 86 Fruitvale: 34th Ave toCastlevale 10,050 874 2,326 17 120 2,309 0.31 A 91 River Rd: Fruitvale to 20th Ave 2,200 191 1,409 11 86 1,398 0.17 A 98 W. Powerhouse Rd: 40th Peck's Cyn Rd 6,330 551 1,049 50 84 999 0.40 A 97 WCPowerhouse Rd: Pecks Cyn Rd - L 3,780 329 1,271 22 28 1,249 0.22 A Summary of Impact to City of Yakima Arterial Streets: This application has been reviewed and approved for consistency with YMC 12.08 Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance. This development will not exceed the PM peak hour capacity of the City Arterial street system and reserve capacity exists on all impacted streets. This review does not include any site development or safety issues which maybe discussed at the project level or SEPA review. The review does not address intersection level of service. Transportation Capacity Analysis Page 1 of 1 DOC. INDEX City of Yakima, Washington TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY ANALYSIS RECEIVED MAR 1 g 2008 CITY OF YA KIMA • PLANNING DIV. The Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070) requires all new development to be consistent with the existing or planned street system capacities. The City of Yakima adopted Yakima Municipal Code Section 12.03 to implement this local requirement. The information you provide with this application will be used to estimate the impact of your development upon the PM Peak Hour traffic on the City of Yakima arterial streets. APPLICATION INFORMATION Applicant Name: Contact Person: Mailing Address: Project Address: Parcel Number: FEE: $250 (Receipt # Envizaqe Development Group (��f�'� 69Sti Wn _ Z53--yv5-0Y'-(L 20() Galloway Drive Yakima, WA 98908 on Castlevale Road across from the Seattle Slew Run Intersection 18131531011 & 34037 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL Number of Units 286 Describe Neighborhood Describe Commercial Uses 100 Apartment 100 Senior Retail/Office Housing Type: 86 Duplex Gross Floor Area: 18,000 Gross Floor Area: (single family, Apartment, condo, MHP) INDUSTRIAL Special Population: Nail Services Parking Spaces: 7B31 Parking Spaces: (Assisted Living, Nursing Home, etc) (Required/Provided) (Required/Provided) Other: Number of Employees '112) Number of Employees (Day Care, Church, etc) Project Description: 1 00 Unit Apartment and 86 duplexes to be built initially. The Senior Housing and Retail / Office to be built as permits and market conditions allow. *****PLEASE ATTACH A SITE PLAN***** Submit this form , attachments and fee to the City Permit Center, Yakima City Hall, 129 North Second Street, Yakima, Washington, 98901. You will receive a Notice of Decision explaining the Findings of this analysis. Please review the Decision when it is sent to you, as there is a limited time period for Request for Reconsideration or Appeal. Questions? Contact the City of Yakima Public Works Traffic Division 2301 Fruitvale Boulevard, Yakima, WA 98902 Phone: 509/575-6005 DOC. INDEX # 0-1 _._ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 15 West Yakima Avenue, Suite 200 a Yakima, Washington 98902-3452 ® (509) 575-2490 RECEIVED JUL 0.2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. June 30, 2008 Joseph Calhoun City of Yakima Public Services Planning Division 128 North 2"d Street Yakima, WA 98901 Dear Mr. Calhoun: Thank you for the opportunity to comment during the optional determination of nonsignificance process for construction of 84 duplex and 96 apartment units, proposed by Toscanna Inc. [UAZO CL 3 7-08, CL 2 22-08, EC 19-08]. We have reviewed the documents and have the following comments. Water Resources The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the limitations of its water rights. If the proposal's actions are different than the existing water right (source, purpose, the place of use, or period of use), then it is subject to approval from the Department of Ecology pursuant to Sections 90.03.380 RCW and 90.44.100 RCW. Information for the applicant: If you plan to use water for dust suppression at your site, be sure that you have a legal right. A water right permit is required for all surface water diversions and for any water from a well that will exceed 5,000 gallons per day. (Chapter 90.03 RCW Surface Water Code and Chapter 90.44 RCW Regulation of Public Ground Waters) If in doubt, check with the Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program. Temporary permits may be obtainable in a short time -period. The concern of Water Resources is for existing water rights. In some instances water may need to be obtained from a different area and hauled in or from an existing water right holder. If you have any questions concerning the Water Resources comments, please contact Breean Zimmerman at (509) 454-7647. Doc. INDEX #,�-t3 Mr. Calhoun June 30, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Water Quality RECEIvED JUL 0 2 201110 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Project Greater -Than 1 Acre with Potential to Discharge Off -Site An NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology is required if there is a potential for stormwater discharge from a construction site with more than one acre of disturbed ground. This permit requires that the SEPA checklist fully disclose anticipated activities including building, road construction and utility placements. Obtaining a permit is a minimum of a 38 day process and may take up to 60 days if the original SEPA does not disclose all proposed activities. The permit requires that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) is prepared and implemented for all permitted construction sites. These control measures must be able to prevent soil from being carried into surface water (this includes storm drains) by stormwater runoff. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading or construction. More information on the stormwater program may be found on Ecology's stormwater website at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/ . Please submit an application or contact Bryan Neet at the Dept. of Ecology, (509) 575-2808, with questions about this permit. Sincerely, Gwen Clear Environmental Review Coordinator. Central Regional Office (509) 575-2012 `9996 DJC. INDEX # D-13 r • Memorandum Calhoun, Joseph From: Antijunti, Mike Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 8:14 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph; Sheffield, Brett Subject: en0081.1.doc City of Yakima Engineering Memorandum Date: June 27, 2008 To: Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner From:. Mike Antijunti, Development Engineer Subject: Project # EN0081 Toscanna Development Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED JUN 2 7 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. In review of the City Engineer and staff, we are requiring Kern Road to be used as a fire access road along with a local access road. Kern Road will be built to universal fire code standards for fire apparatus. A minimum of 20' of paved surface will be required. Mike Antijunti Development Engineer City of Yakima (509) 576-6608 I hni')nno DOC, INDEX # �_�� akima Regional Clean Air Authority June 25, 2008 Mr. William Cook, CED Director City of Yakima 129 North Second Street, 2' Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Six So. Second St., Suite 1016, Yakima, WA 9890 Phone: (509) 834-2050, Fax: (509) 834-2060 http://www.co.yakima.wa.us/cleanair 2008 lJt r'"4 f r"4 RE:. UAZO CL (3)#7-08, CL (2)#22-08, Adm Adj #16-08 & EC #19-08 — Toscanna LLC. Dear Mr. Cook: Thank you for providing the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA) the opportunity to review and comment on Toscanna LLC. - Proposal to construct a 96 -unit residential apartment community and an 84 -unit duplex community. Following review, and in addition to our previous comments (attached), YRCAA offer the following additional comments: 1. Prior to demolishing any structures an asbestos survey must be done by a certified asbestos building inspector; 2. Any asbestos found must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition; and 3. A notification for the demolition must be filed with YRCAA and the appropriate fee should be paid. Thank you for the opportunity to connect with the city's continued support -in -protecting the air quality in Yakima County. Best re•a Hasan M. Tahat, Ph.D. Engineering and Planning Division Supervisor Cc: Proponent and File DOC. INDEX # a _I( • Page 1 of 2 Caruso, Joe From: Caruso, Joe Sent: Wednesday, June 11,2008 9:48 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: Toscana Development Joe, For the Toscana project, the issues that I feel that have to be covered are in the 2006 International Fire Code. Fire Department Access Road -2006 IFC Appendix D Section D102 D102.1 Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessable to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. Dimensions -2006 IFC Chapter 5 Section 503.2.1 (amended) Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6 and an unobstructed verticle clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Fire Apparatus Access Roads -2006 IFC Appendix D Section D103.5 Fire Department Access Gates gates securing the fire department access roads shall comply with all of the following: 1. The minimum gate width shall be 20 feet 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and repaired and replaced when defective 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain unless they are capable of being opened by means of forceable entry tools or when a keybox containing the key(s) to the lock installed at the gate location. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official Electric Gates Opening Devices The electronic opening device on a fire apparatus access road shall inculde the components on a Knox Box rapid Entry system or Opticom system, which will be approved by the fire code official Section D103.6 Signs- Where required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with 6/11/2008 DOC. INDEX ' Page 2 of 2 permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire department access road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2 Joe Caruso Acting Code Administration Manager Deputy Fire Marshal City of Yakima C.-: ruso, Joe Acting Code Administration Manager,'Deputy Fire marshal/Supervising Code Inspector jcaruso@ci.yakima.wa.us City of Yakima City of Yakima 129 N. 2nd Street Yakima, V✓A. 98901 tel: 509-575-6257 IS fax: 509-576-6576 mobile: 509-728-3191 10 Want to always have my latest info? 6/11/2008 Want a signature like this? DOC. INDEX # _Jo • • Calhoun, Joseph From: Cox, Sandy Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 3:20 PM To: Calhoun, Joseph Cc: Melcher, Ron Subject: RE: Toscanna Development Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2008 CITY of YAKIMA PLANNING DIV, Thank you, Joseph. I have no major issues with this development. Placement of hydrants shall be addressed during the plan review phase of the project. From: Calhoun, Joseph Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 3:17 PM To: Melcher, Ron; Cox, Sandy; Caruso, Joe; Davenport, Joan Subject: Toscanna Development I am currently working on the notice of application for this project. I would like to get the notice mailed out by Friday, which means I have to get it to the newspaper for publishing by Wednesday at the latest. Please submit any comments, especially related to access issues, as soon as possible so I can incorporate any probable mitigation measures into the notice. Thanks JOSEPH CALHOUN ASSISTANT PLANNER CITY OF YAK/MA (509) 575-6162 JCALHOUN@C/. YAK/MA. WA. US 1iai-nn2 DOC. INDEX # _q Calhoun, Joseph From: Meloy, Randy Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:17 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: FW: Toscana Development Joe Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED MAY 2 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. A couple more questions/comments for Toscana: • The existing storm drain line is to be removed and relocated. Have they figured out where it is going to be relocated to yet? • There is a note that says "connect storm drainage to existing-off-sitestorm facility". Current City standards require that all of their storm drainage be retained on site. I am aware that this property has a drainage easement allowing them to discharge some amount of runoff into the City storm drain lines. The applicant should not assume they can put all of their runoff into the City lines. The easement language is not specific as to how much and my interpretation would be that the applicant should retain at least a significant amount of runoff on site and then use the city lines as an overflow. Randy Meloy, PE Surface Water Engineer City of Yakima 509 576-6606 rmeloy@ci.yakima.wa.us From: Meloy, Randy Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 7:45 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: Toscana Development The applicant states that the drainage system has not yet been designed. Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control"measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. UIC Registration - Stormwater In accordance with Chapter 2 Section 2.4 of the December 2006 edition of the Department of Ecology's Guidance for UIC Wells that Manage Stormwater Publication Number 05-10-067, Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells constructed on or after February 3, 2006 are considered new and must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) prior to construction. Therefore, if UIC wells are used in the drainage design, the UIC wells must be registered with DOE and a copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and the DOE issued UIC well registration number for each well shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer before final plat approval shall be granted. Randy Meloy, PE Surface Water Engineer City of Yakima 509 576-6606 rmeloy@ci.yakima.wa.us • DOC. INDEX # p_g Water/Irrigation mments Applicant:Wanna, Location: Parcel Date: 1= 2= w primary secondary #: review review S v LLC Comments Submit!It:. Mike Shane, Water/Irrigation Engineer - 576-6480 4200 Castlevaile Rd 181315-31011 & 34037 Division: Water/Irrigation Division 5/28/2008 RECEIVED m 2) E_ , MAY 2 8 2008 Development Description: UAZO CL (2)#20-08, CL (3)#7-08, UAZO Adm Adj #16-08, EC #19.08 - Proposed �, YAKINIA mixed use development of duplex and apartments in the R-1 and R-2 zoning. PLANNING DIV. WATER & IRRIGATION 1 2 existing water location, size, etc. Existing looped 12" and 8" waterline in Castlevale Rd. Two existing 8" waterline stubs to site off of Castlevale Rd. Existing dead-end 12" waterline Kern Way. There are no existing water services to the site. Site is located in the Mid Level Pressure Zone. Static pressure approx. 68 - 75psi. 1 2 water extension necessary, size Public waterlines will be required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall connect to the existing waterline in Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependant on the required fireflow for the buildings. Waterlines shall be placed within the street. 1 . 2 2 fire hydrant There is one existing fire hydrant off of the looped 8" waterline in Castlevale Rd. There is one existing fire hydrant off of the dead-end 12" waterline at the end of Kern Way. All new fire hyrants/locations and new fire sprinkler services to be determined by Codes and Fire Dept. 2 1 new public easements All new public waterline on private property shall be located in a 16' waterline easement. 1 2 LID/connection charges To be determined at time of site development and dependent on required meter sizes. 2 1 service installation charges To be determined at time 'of site development and dependent on required water services and meter sizes. City of Yakima will make all connections to existing waterlines and install all domestic water services and meters. Contact James Dean, Water Distribution Supervisor (575-6.196) for costs and to coordinate work 11 - publidprivate system Public ®8 FFireflow 2 2 calculations Available fire flow from looped 8" waterline - 2,875gpm. Available fire flow from dead-end 12" waterline - 3,100gpm WeIlHead Protection Area No 2 Irrigation System No City irrigation. Irrigation service may be available from Yakima Valley Canal Company. Contact Robert Smoot, 966-2300 for more info. Specific site requirements will be provided at time of civil plan submittal and review. Each lot shall have a separate water service and meter. 2 1 I Misc. Comments ti Mike Shane 5/23/2008 CITY OF YAKIMA t\ VEST FOR COMMENTS • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM May 16, 2008 TO: City of Yakima Development Services Team FROM: Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: .UAZO CL (2)420-08; CL (3)47-08 UAZO Adm Adj 416-08 EC #19-08 . Mike Antijunti Engineering RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2008 CITY OF YAiu w, PLANNING DIY. PROPOSAL: The proposed development is a mixture of duplex and apartment units in the R-1 and R-2 zoning district. There are 84 duplex- units proposed for the R-1 zoned lot, and 96 apartment units proposed for the R-2 zoned lot. Based on lot density calculations, a Class (2) review is required for the duplexes and a Class- (3) review is required for the apartments. Also proposed is an administrative adjustment of the rear -yard setback and lot coverage standards on- the R-2 zoned lot. SEPA environmental review is required for the number of proposed dwelling units. LOCATION: 4200 Castlevale Road PARCEL. NUMBERS: 181315-31011 and 181315-34037 Please review the attached site plan and prepare .any written comments you might have regarding this proposal. This project will come up for discussion at the weekly DST meeting to be held Mav 28th, at 9:30 a.m. As always, should you have comments, but find you are unable to attend, please submit your comments prior to the meeting. My e-mail address is jcalhoun@ci.yakima.wa.us and the Planning Department's fax number is (509) 575-6105. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at (509) 575-6162. COMMENTS: • Contact Department l Agency DOC. INDEX # n—(v DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROPOSAL:. LOCATION: Wastewater Division DST Comments May 23, 2008 Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner Scott Schafer, Assistant Wastewater Manager UAZO CL (2)#20-08; CL (3)#7-08 UAZO Adm Adj #16-08 EC #19-08 2220 E. Viola Yakima, WA 98901 RECEIVED MAY 2 3 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. The proposed development is a mixture of duplex and apartment units in the R-1 and R-2 zoning district. There are 84 duplex units proposed for the R-1 zoned lot, and 96 apartment units proposed for the R-2 zoned lot. Based on lot density calculations, a Class (2) review is required for the duplexes and a Class (3) review is required for the apartments. Also proposed is an administrative adjustment of the rear -yard setback and lotcoveragestandards on the R-2 zoned lot. SEPA environmental review is required for the number of proposed dwelling units. 4200 Castlevale Road PARCEL NUMBER(S): 181315-3101.1 and 181315-34037 COMMENTS: In accordance with Title 12 Section 12.03.020 of the YMC, sewer is to be extended along the east edge of the property to provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer pipe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly finger of the development to provide gravity sewer to existing residences on the west and south sides of Congdon canal. By doing so, allows the City to eventually decommission the Carriage Hill lift -station. Consideration for waivers to wastewater connection fees will be provided. We will need a lay out of the utilities for this project in order to provide further comments. DOC. INDEX akima Regional Clean Air Authority May 22, 2008 Mr. Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planning Manager Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Six So. Second St., Suite 1016, Yakima, WA 989 Phone: (509) 834-2050, Fax: (509) 834-2060 http://www.co.yakima.wa.us/cleanair RECEIVED MAY 2 2 �. cm imILINIA PLANKING DM RE: UAZO Adm Adj #16-08 and EC #19-08 — Proposed development at 4200 Castlevale Road. Dear Mr. Calhoun: Thank you for providing the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA) the opportunity to review and comment on UAZO Adm Adj # 16-08 and EC # 19-08 — Proposed development at Castlevale Road. Following review, YRCAA has the following comment(s): 1. The proponent/developer must address the air emission impact, in particular PM25 prior to any SEPA approval. Air emission from such a large development (180 residences and additional 100 unit senior housing), if using solid fuel devices (i.e., fireplaces, woodstoves) during the winter season at one time, may violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the 24 hours average; and 2. Contractors doing demolition, excavation, clearing, construction, or landscaping work must file a Dust Control Plan with YRCAA; and 3. Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. Thank you for the opportunity to connect with the city's continued support -in -protecting the air quality in Yakima County. Best regards Hasan M. Ta a , Ph.D. Engineering and Planning Division Supervisor Cc: File DOC. INDEX • REQUEST FOR COMMENTS TO: City of Yakima Development Services Team Attn: Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner FROM:. Yakima Valley Canal Company DATE: May 20, 2008 SUBJECT: UAZO CL (2)#20-08; CL (3)#7-08 UAZO Adm Adj #16-08 EC #19-08 CITY OF YAKIMA CODE AD?+GIIN,DIVISION: MAY 2 2 2008 0 REC°V0 FAXED ■ PAID FYI _. R PROPOSAL: The proposed development is a mixture of duplex and apartment units in the R-1 and R-2. zoning district. There are 84 duplex units proposed for the R-1 .zoned lot, and 96 apartment units proposed for the R-2 zoned lot. Based on lot density calculations, a Class (2) review is required for the duplexes and a Class (3) review is required for the apartments. Also proposed is an administrative adjustment of the rear -yard setback and lot coverage standards on the R-2 zoned lot. SEPA environmental review is required for the number of proposed dwelling units. LOCATION: 4200 Castlevale Road PARCEL NO:181315-3101 1 and 181315-34037 COMMENTS: Yakima City Council, Please be advised that Yakima Valley Canal Company operates an irrigation canal. along the hillside above the subject property. We have a 60 foot right of way along this stretch of canal which is measured on a horizontal plane 30 feet in each direction from the centerline of the canal. We will allow no excavation or construction on our right of way. Additionally, we believe great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to our right of way. If excavation occurs off our right of way, that adversely. effects the integrity of the steep slope on our right of way, the result may well be 45 cubic feet per second of Naches river water pouring down the hill. Provided there are no changes to our canal or right of way, either directly or indirectly, we have no objections to the development of this property. Comments: Yakima Valley Canal Company Subject: UAZO CL (2)#20-08; CL (3)#7-08 UAZO Adm Adj #16-08 EC #19-08 Page 1 DOC. INDEX RECEIVED MAY222008 CITY OF YAKIM. Also please be advised that the subject property is within Yakima Valley E'1NG DI Company's service area. Yakima Valley Canal Company's Bylaws clearly state in "Article XXVI" the following: Article XXVI: Company Participation in Subdivision of Tracts Subject to Water Rights Whenever tracts of land that have appurtenant thereto one or more shares of water are to be platted or subdivided into smaller tracts, the Company shall, to the fullest extent of its rights under any federal, state or municipal law then in effect, require advance submission of plans therefore by the persons or entities proposing such platting or, subdivision. Such plans shall include irrigation water rights-of-way and irrigation distribution facilities necessary to ensure supply of water to all affected tracts. To the extent allowed by any federal, state, or municipal law then in effect, approval by the Company of such plans shall be a prerequisite to government approval of theproposed platting or subdivision. Resolution No.'2005-01 Yakima Valley Canal Company also states: RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL COMPANY Yakima County, Washington No. 2005-01 Requiring .provision for irrigation water rights of way for land within the Company and for completed irrigation water distnbution facilities for lands having Company shares within the Company boundaries. WHEREAS, RCW 58.17.310 provides that the legislative authority of any city, town, or county shall not approve a short plat or final plat for any subdivision, short subdivision, lot, tract, parcel. or site which lies in whole or in part in an Irrigation District organized pursuant to RCW 87.03 unless there has been provided an irrigation water right of way for each parcel of land in such District; and, WHEREAS, RCW 58.17.310 further provides that if the subdivision, short subdivision, lot, tract, parcel, or site lies within land within the District, completed irrigation water distribution facilities for such land may be required by the Irrigation District by resolution as a condition for approval of the short plat or final plat by the legislative authority of the city, town, or county; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company deem it necessary and in the best interest of the Company that the installation of completed irrigation wat Comments: Yakima Valley Canal Company " Page 2 Subject: UAZO CL (2)#20-08; CL (3)#7-08 UAZO Adm Adj #16-08 DOC. EC #19-08 INDEX # -.3 RECEIVtL MAY 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. distribution facilities be a condition of the Company for approval by the Company of any short plat or final plat of land within the Company similar to the requirements of Irrigation Districts; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Yakima Valley Canal Company of Yakima County. Washington, as follows: 1. That the manager or assistant manager of the Company, each duly appointed by its Board of Directors, be and hereby are each authorized to approve short plats or final plats for any subdivision, short subdivision, lot, tract, parcel, or site which lies in whole or in part within the Company, provided that such a short plat or final plat provides for irrigation rights of way for each parcel of land within the Company at least 15 feet in width. • 2. That with regard to land which lies in whole or in part within the company to which shares of water of the Company are appurtenant, the manager or assistant manager of the Company, each duly appointed by the Board of Directors, be and hereby are each authorized to approve short plats or final plats for any subdivision, short subdivision, lot, tract, parcel, or site which lies in whole or in part within the Company, provided the conditions of paragraph 1 above are satisfied and provided fiuther that either of the following conditions have also been met: a. The owner, developer and a registered professional engineer or a registered contractor for commerciaUresidential irrigation systems, jointly and severally certify under oath that completed irrigation water -distribution facilities. including individual deliveries for each parcel, have. been installed for such lands to which shares of water of the Yakima Valley Canal Company (the Company) are appurtenant and that such facilities provide for the full and equitable distribution of water of the Company to each parcel; or, b. The short plat or final plat for such land contains the following covenant and agreement of the owner and developer: COVENANT AND AGREEMENT OF OWNER AND DEVELOPER The undersigned owner and developerof the plat shown on the face hereof hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of any future owner or owners of a parcel or parcels within this plat, that prior to the sale of any parcel within the plat, the owner and developer shall provide the Yakima Valley Canal Company (the Company) and shall record with the Yakima County Auditor a certificate of the owner, developer and a registered professional engineer or a registered contractor for commercial/residential irrigation systems, jointly and severally certifying under oath that completed irrigation water distribution facilities, including individual turnouts for each parcel, have been. installed for all lands within the plat to which water shares of the Company are appurtenant and further certifying that such facilities provide for the full and equitable distribution of the water of the Company to each parcel. The undersigned furthermore agrees that this covenant and agreement shall run with the land and shall be enforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction by specific performance, restraining order, injunction or any other appropriate remedy sought by any future owner or owners of a parcel or parcels within the plat, and that the prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to recovery of its reasonable attorney's fees and all costs. Neither the Company Comments: Yakima Valley Canal Company Page 3 Subject: UAZO CL (2)#20-08; CL (3)#7-08 UAZO Adm Adj #16-08 DOC. EC #19-08 INDEX RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA nor its directors, officers or employees shall have any responsibilitPLANNING heerr Iwi� respect to the enforcement of this covenant and agreement of the undersigned owner and developer. (acknowledgment of owner and developer) 3. In place of individual turnouts for each parcel, the owner and developer may install a system of individual deliveries for each parcel, provided a joint use agreement or water association agreement encumbering such land has been properly executed and recorded. Such Joint use agreement or water association agreement shall be on a form approved by the manager or assistant manager. Such water association agreement shall provide for the consolidation of all billings for such lands into a single account and for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the irrigation facilities for such land including the reimbursement to the Company for the cost of installing a turnout if required. No more than six (6) parcels shall be permitted to use a single turnout pursuant to a joint use agreement. If a joint use agreement is used, the owner and developer will be required to reimburse the Company for the cost of the Company's installing a multi-user turnout and appurtenance to provide for individual deliveries to each parcel, which permits the Company to shut off any or all deliveries for nonpayment of assessments, rates or tolls and charges. The multi-user turnout and appurtenances shall be installed by the Company at the cost of the owner and developer prior to the approval by the Company of the short plat or final plat, or if the owner and developer covenants and agrees to install the facilities in the future, prior to the sale of any parcel within the plat. The turnout and appurtenances shall be the property of the Company the United States. If either a jointuse agreement or water association agreement i approved by the manager or assistant manager, the certificate by the owner, developer, and a . registered professional engineer or a registered contractor for commercial/residential irrigation systems, or a covenant and agreement of the owner and developer, shall provide that the irrigation water distribution facilities for such lands include individual deliveries for each parcel; and in the case of a point use agreement, the covenant and agreement shall further provide that prior to any sale of any parcel within the plat, the owner and developer shall have caused the Company to install a turnout for individual deliveries and will have paid the Company for the cost thereof. 4. Prior to the approval of any short plat or final plat, the manager or assistant manager shall collect fees as set by the Board of Directors to defray the Company's costs of examining each short plat or final plat . and any agreements and inspections required by this resolution, and shall also collect the costs of any work performed by the Company The cost of any work to be performed by the Company in the future shall also be paid in advance of the performance of such work. 5. That a duplicate of this RESOLUTION be provided to the County of Yakima and City of Yakima and that hereafter compliance with this RESOLUTION be a condition to approval of any short plat or final plat by the legislative authorities of such governmental entities, until appropriate amendment by the Company or State legislation. Upon final consideration of the aforementioned RESOLUTION it was du 0 Comments: Yakima Valley Canal Company Subject: UAZO CL (2)#20-08; CL (3)#7-08 UAZO Adm Adj #16-08 EC #19-08 Page 4 DOC. INDEX moved and seconded that said RESOLUTION be adopted. The motion was then put to a vote of the directors and the RESOLUTION was declared adopted this 17 day of October, 2005. RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Yakima Valley Canal Company has no objection to this development as long as developers follow Bylaws and Resolutions as stated above. Contact person if there are additional questions or concerns. Robert Smoot Yakima Valley Canal Company 1640 Garretson Lane Yakima, WA 98908 (509) 966-2300 Comments: Yakima Valley Canal Company Page 5 Subject: UAZO CL (2)#20-08; CL (3)#7-08 UAZO Adm Adj # 16-08 DOC. EC #19-08 INDEX # z DS stribution List Cit Applicant: File Number: Date of DST Meeting: Assigned Planner: I os (4 Vila-- LLC Cu e> tizo -- ) , 7 o 4 / 1 M Aj Z- , 2,00 )k),/^ of L 0 '-- of Yakima Divisions and Yakima County Public Services Codes Joe Caruso Traffic En ineerin oan Davenport Parks and Recreation Denise Nichols Transit Gary Pira Stormwater En • ineer Randy Meloy Police De artment Greg Copeland Wastewater Wastewater Yakima Count Public Svcs" Vern Redifer Fire Department Other A encies Ron Melcher 24 , Committee Mana er - CDY Sean Hawkins P.O. Box 881, Yakima 98901 26 Nob Hill Water Preston Shepherd 6111 Tieton Drive, Yakima 98908 WA State De artment of Ecolo Gwen Clear 15 W Yakima Ave Ste #200, Yakima 9890 Pacific Power and Li•ht Co. 3:2 Cascade Natural Gas Co. Mike Paulson - Sheila Ross 35 West Valle School District #208 Clean Air Author] Peter Ansingh Gary Pruitt 39 Yakima Greenway Foundation Al Brown 500 N. Keys Rd, Yakima 98901 • M1 XeI 1;3041Y rairai 701 South 1st Ave, Yakima 98902 8902 Zier Rd, Yakima 98908 6 South 2nd Street Rm1016, Yakima 98901 111 South 18th Street, Yakima 98901 41 Yakima County 911 Wayne Wantland YPD 43 Department of Wildlife 1701 South 24th Ave, Yakima 98902 45 WSDOT (Dept of Transportation) 47 Yakama Indian Nation 51 WSDOT, Aviation Division Salah Al-Tamimi Bill Beckley Paul Edmondson John Shambaugh 2809 Rudkin Rd, Union Gap 98903 P.O. Box 151, To 313 North 3rd Street, Yakima 98901 3704172nd St NE Ste#K-2, Arlington WA 98223 53 Ahtanum Irrigation District Beth Ann Brulotte PO Box 563, Yakima, WA. 98907 Updated as of 2/22/08 C:\Documents and Settings\jcalhoun\Desktop\Planning Stuff\DST Packets Distribution List_template new.doc DOC. INDEX • CITY OF YAKIMA REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM May 16, 2008 TO: City of Yakima Development Services Team FROM: Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: UAZO CL (2)#20-08; CL (3)#7-08 UAZO Adm Adj #16-08 EC #19-08 PROPOSAL: The proposed development is a mixture of duplex and apartment units in the R-1 and R-2 zoning district. There are 84 duplex units proposed for the R-1 zoned lot, and 96 apartment units proposed for the R-2 zoned lot. Based on lot density calculations, a Class (2) review is required for the duplexes and a Class (3) review is required for the apartments. Also proposed is an administrative adjustment of the rear -yard setback and lot coverage standards on the R-2 zoned lot. SEPA environmental review is required for the number of proposed dwelling units. LOCATION: 4200 Castlevale Road PARCEL NUMBERS: 181315-31011 and 181315-34037 Please review the attached site plan and prepare any written comments you might have regarding this proposal. This project will come up for discussion at the weekly DST meeting to be held Mav 28th, at 9:30 a.m. As always, should. you have comments, but find you_ are unable to attend, please submit your comments prior to the meeting. My e-mail address is jcalhoun@ci.yakima.wa.us and the Planning Department's fax number is (509) 575-6105. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at (509) 575-6162. COMMENTS: Contact Department / Agency DOC. INDEX • TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER E SEPA Review EXHIBIT ', DOCUMENT DATE E-1 SEPA Checklist 5/14/08 225.00 REQUIRED ATTACHMEIv T: �. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISPECEIVED '�1 ' I "q , , ;{ .' '� STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPIAY 11.4 ) OC ,=% (AS TARN FROM WAC 197-11-960) E,v,.., . CITY OF YA K I M A 44 00-- PLANNING DIV. CHAPTER 6.88, YAKIMA MUNICIPAL CODE (YMC) PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.2 IC RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply".' Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can: If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. 1The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or n different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. • USE OF,CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS , Complete this checklist for non-projectproposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words s "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION (To be completed by the.applicant,) : ; I. NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT (if applicable) Toscanna Duplex and Apartments 2. APPLICANT'S NAME & PHONE Envizage Development Group 509 966 841 5 3. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 200 Galloway Drive, Yakima, WA 98908 4. CONTACT PERSON &PHONE Dave Sjule 509 966 8415 5. AGENCY REQUESTING CHECKLIST City of Yakima 6. DATE TI -LE CHECKL1STWAS PREPARED 3/11/2008 Revised 05/12/2008 IPROPOSED TIMING OR SCHEDULE (including phasing, if applicable) Apartments to s tart Summer 2.008', Duplex portion of site to start either summer _2008 or Spring 2_009 Revised 8-04 - .,G,,,,, page 1 of 10 I vv"J. INDEX BACKGROUND QUESTIOI\IS (Attach if Lengthy) Revis 2008 MAY 1 6 2008 1. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connectedcf trfi i MA a:.:, If yes, explain. PLANNING DI 100 Unit Senior Housing and commercial area after appropriate Short . Plat and Land Use approvals for these uses are obtained. 2. List any environmental information yon know about that has been prepared, or will he prepared, directly related to this proposal. None known 3. Do you know whether applications are.pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Short Plat 4. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.: Class 2 Review for du—plex portion of site, Class 3 Review for Apartment portion of the site, Building and related permits, NPDES and related site development permits. 5. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Q6 Unit Apartment Development on 7-.49 acre proposed Lot .1 and 84 residential condominium duplexs on16.90 acre' proposed Lot 2 6. T ocation nfthe proposal. Rive sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro- posed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Parcel No's: 181315.31011 and 34037, approximately 27.8 acre site on Castlevale Road, across from the Seattle Slew run intersection. • D®C. pA e 2 of 10 INDEX Revised 05/12/2UU8 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (To be completed by the applicant) , Earth a. General description of the site (/ one): ❑ flat ❑ rolling ® hilly. ❑ steep slopes ❑ mountainous ❑ other N/A What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 15a c., What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Not known d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None visable e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not know at this time but probably up to 90,000 cu. yd f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use'? If so, generally describe. Yes, typical for a project of this type on hilly land About what percent 'of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 40 to 65% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: State of the art erosion control measures will be used as required by the controlling jurisdictions Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e:, dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction period dust and equipment emissions and long term vehicle emissions typical for res den._ia develoments, • b. Are there anyo s► a sources'o emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None c, Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Construction phase dust control as required by controlling jurisdictions. Space Reserved for Agency Comments RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2008 CITY4 4 YAKIMA PLA 119DJ of 10 #. E_I . Water a. Surface: Space Reserved for Vnents MAR 1 8 200E' 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including CITY OF YAKIMA year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, PLANNING DIV. describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Man made irrigation canal adjacent to high portion of property. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? if yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, grading and construction within development property 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or re moved from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material None 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not known 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Not anticipated. Surfacedrainage will be routed to water quality and detention facilities as required by the controlling jurisdictions. b. Ground: L . Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No water will be withdrawn. If soil percolation is used for storm water control, then water quality 2. ) esFAe wasfe r4arteriar Ni 1l1Eggisaiarg s.intoliR% gan iom"e ep c tan or em other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Septic system will not be used c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water from roofs and paved surfaces will be routed to water quality and detention facilities as required by rnntrnlling jur; rt c §corm water control system not yet designed. • DOC. ticEy page 4 of 10 # -) 2. Could waste materials enL,..; ground or surface waters? If so, generally .. scribe. Not anticipated d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Use of state of the art storm water control system as required by the controlling jurisdictions. 4. Plants: a. Check (V) types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: ❑ alder ❑ maple ❑ aspen ❑ other evergreen green: ❑ fir n cedar n pine ❑ other n shrubs 0 grass ❑ pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: ❑ cattail ❑ buttercup ❑ bullrush ❑ skunk cabbage ❑ other water plants: ❑ water lily ❑ eelgrass ❑ milfoil ❑ other other types of vegetation: What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All on site . List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Site will be relandscaped to meet City requirements. Animals: a. Check (✓) any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: 1) birds: ❑ hawk ❑ heron ❑ eagle ® songbirds ❑ other 2) mammals: ❑. deer ❑ bear ❑ elk ❑ beaver ❑ other 3) fish: ❑ bass ❑ salmon ❑ trout ❑ herring ❑ shellfish ❑ other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. None anticipated d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Site will be relandscaped to meet City requirements. Space Reserved for Agclivieb MAR 1 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. page 5 of 10 INDEX # 1=_ I Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric and/or natural gas heating b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Buildings will conform to Washington State Energy Code . Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None known 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Typical police, fire and paramedic services for a resedential development of this size. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Project will be designed to Building and Fire Codes. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area, which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Minimal traffic noise 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a Long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Typical construction noise and residential occupant related noise after development is completed and occupied. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Provision of required buffers based on proposed uses and adjacent land uses. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Undeveloped b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Yes, fruit tree crop c. Describe any structures on the site. Two single family residences and barns d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All on site e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R2 / R1 Space Reserved for Agency Comments RECEIVE MAR 1 8 200 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDF)age 6 of 10 # E-1 Reviser' 08112./2008: . f What is the current compreh ,nsive plan designation of the site? Not known g. If applicable, what is the.current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so specify. Not known i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 500 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, if two existing houses are vacant k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Use of residential scaled buildings and materials 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 1 8 0 middle income b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None if two existing houses are vacant • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structures, not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building materials proposed? Approximate 25 feet at duplex buildings and 35 feet at apartments. Stucco lool siding and tile or shingle look roofing b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Homes uphill of site will have views altered. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Use of typical residential scaled building materials IL Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Night time security and vehicle lights b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not anticipated c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Use of shielded light fixtures and perimeter buffer planting. Space Reserved for. Agency Comments RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2008 CITY OF Y.AKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. page 7 of l0 INDEX # 12. Recreation a. What designated and infonnal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None known b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Project development includes recreation building, swimming pools, open lawn areas and trails. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural important known to be on or next to the site. None observed c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Castlevale Road and Kern Road b. Is site currently serviced by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yakima Transit Service along 40th Avenue - 300' c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Minimum two garage stalls per unit with guest stalls provided along drives d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). See submitted Traffic Impact Analysis e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See submitted Traffic Impact Analysis g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See submitted Impact Traffic Analysis Space Reserved for Agencai kq,q nts D 41 MAR 1 8 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV Doc. INDtX page 8 of 10 15. Public Services Space Reserved for Agency Comments RECE1VEC MAR 1 8 200 CITY OF YAKIN PLANNING DI' a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: 111Yes typical for apartment projects b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. Local police, fire & paramedic services. Electric, — Pacific Power - Phone — Qwest Water/Sewer — City of Yakima Refuse — City of Yakima 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currentl available at the site: MD, natural gas water t►s erv►c�, hon , anitary sewer septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. Electricity — Pacific Power Phone — Qwest 110 Water/Sewer — City of Yakima Refuse — City of Yakima C. SIGNATURE (To be completed by the applicant.) The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead then to make its decision. agency is relying on 7//ilag Signature �� i,mosio."- Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENT SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (To be completed by the applicant.).. (Do not use the following for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? II Space Reserved for Agency Comments DOC. page 9 of 10 • TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER F Application EXHIBIT , DOCUMENT ` r�. DAVE F-1 Application 4/17/08 RECEIVED CITY OF YAKIMA LAND USE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET; 2ND FLOOR YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902 VOICE: (509) 575-6183 FAX: (509) 575-6105 APR 1 7 2G08 CITY OF YAK MA PLANNING CIV. INSTRUCTIONS — PLEASE READ FIRST Pleased ,type or print your.°answers clearly. • Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this forth or the application process call, come in person or refer to the accompanying instructions. This application consists of four parts. PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV - CERTIFICATION are on this page. PART II and III contain additional information specific to your proposal and MUST be attached to this page to complete the application. 'Remember to bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted. The Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid. Filing fees are not refundable. PART 1— GENERAL INFORMATION 1.. APPLICANT . APPLICANT ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER . APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY NAME Tos STREET 1 241 canna Development.. 4 1J2nci StE NN10� STATE WA Keith Basham ZIP 98374 PHONE 445 8369 . PROPERTY OWNER (IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT) CHECK n ONE ❑ OWNER CONTRACT PURCHASER CITY pia tT MESSAGE ( ) ❑ OWNER REPRESETATIVE 0 OTHER . PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS AND PHONE (IF OTHER TITAN APPLICANT) NAME STREET )n) )J l cv eITY STATE iu /j ZIP j,Cr S� HONE ( FOR SUB CT PROPERTY: �)���7 ����/'� . ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER . EXISTING ZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: R1 / R2 1/114 SAGE ( ) 181 31533011 & 34037 ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: On Castlevale Road across from the Seattle Slew Run Intersection TYPE OF APPLICATION: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) gg---et i*se— _g Class (3) Use ❑ Rezone O Variance ❑ Home Occupation Administrative Adjustment O Environmental Checklist (SEPA) ❑ Modification to Approved Class (2) & (3) Uses ❑ Appeal O Non -Conforming Structure/Use ❑ Preliminary Subdivision ❑ Short Plat Right -of -Way Vacation Short Plat Exemption Shoreline Utility Easement Release Interpretation by Hearing Examiner Other PART II`- SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION AND PART HI'- REQUIREDATTACHMENTS 10. SEE ATTACHED SHEETS PART IV — CERT1 I TION 1 I . I certify that the informa ised 8-0 PROPE'TY p ication and the required attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. '6 DATE A e. SyUl. ERS SIGNATURE L-1DIA11710 E ( I Na FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY n FILE No. ,.,--gA.53Te___• 1 g.T 1 .J 1 HEARING DATE i[ } CY INDEX ST TPPI .FMENTAL APPLICATION FOR: CLASS (2) REVIEW D CLASS (3) REVTEWEcEIv MAY 1.6 200 � ai CHAPTER 15.14 AND 15.15, YAKIMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANC� 1. PROPOSED LAND USE TYPE (Important: Must be taken From Table 4-1, of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance) Multi -Family (13+ U/Ac) 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (Attach if lengthy) S _ A tarhpd A 5. S1'I'E PLAN REQUIRED: (Please use the City of Yakima Site Plan Checklist) 6. A WRITTEN NARRATIVE: (Please answer the following questions in the narrative) A. Fully describe the proposed development, including number of housing units and parking spaces. If the proposal is for a business describe hours of operation, days per week and all other pertinent information related to business operations. B. How is the proposal compatible to neighboring properties? What mitigation measures are proposed to , promote compatibility? C. Is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property; and, Is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? D. Is your proposal in the best interest of the community? 7. AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: (If required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)) Note: If you have any questions about his process please come in person to the Planning Division,129 North 2nd St. Yakima, WA or call the Planning Division at (509) 575-6183, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY For Class (2) Applications, the proposed development requires Class (2) Review for the following reasons: ❑ Listed as a Class (2) use in Table 4-1; or, ❑ Structural or other physical site improvements are proposed or required by this title, and the use has frontage on a designated collector or arterial road (single-family dwellings, duplexes, and their accessory structures are exempt from this provision); or ❑ All or part of the parcel proposed for development is in the Flood Plain, Airport, or Greenway Overlay Districts; or, ❑ The proposed use includes hazardous materials; or, ❑ A mobile or manufactured home listed as a Class (2) use in Section 15.04120. DOC. Revised 9-98 INDEX F-1 Project: Toscanna Development L...,:: 5/16/2008 RECEIVED Lot 1 Apartment portion of Development MAY 1 6 2008 CITY OF YAKIMIA PLANNING DIV. A. Project Description: The proposed development is a 96 unit residential Apartment community located on Lot 1 and in the R2 Zone portion of the property. Lot 2 is a Duplex Community and is being reviewed separately under a.Class 2 Review. Lot 3 is being reserved for future development probably as a senior housing community. Lot 4 is being reserved for future development, probably as a neighborhood retail and office use. Oroject Narrative This residential community is designed around a traditional private drive streetscape that features parallel parking, sidewalks, street trees and lighting. This community features buildings that locate their garages at the side and or rear of the buildings with pedestrian oriented front porch and patio areas facing the private drives. The apartment buildings will be two stories. The Recreation Buildings will be one to two stories. The apartment community will share the common open space with the duplex community. B. Compatible'to Neighboring Properties: The proposed residential buildings will be scaled to their uses and will have low sloping roofs and residentially scaled materials. The anticipated architectural theme of both buildings will be that of_Tuscanny with a southwestern flair compatible the Yakima environment. C. Consistent with current zoning: This residential use is allowed in the underlying zone classifications with a Class 3 review process. D. Development is in the best interest of the community: The proposed residential apartment community will provide diversity of housing types to the city. The proposal is regarded as an infill development in an area with adequate city services as encouraged by the Growth Management Act. In addition, the proposal will provide new customers that should patronize the neighborhood shopping areas located nearby. DOC. 2008/misc/07122/NarrativeN D EX SImPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR: a CLASS (2) REVIEW 0 CLASS (3) REV CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. RECEIVED 111 6 2008 CHAPTER 15.14 AND 15.15, YAKIMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE (UAZO) 17.342 #fliW. 1. PROPOSED LAND USE TYPE (Important: Must be taken Frorn Table 4-1, of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance) 41 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (Attach if lengthy) Sep Att-achpd 5. SITE PLAN REQUIRED: (Please use the City of Yakima Site Plan Checklist) 6. A WRITTEN NARRATIVE: (Please answer the following questions in the narrative) A. Fully describe the proposed development, including number of housing units and parking spaces. If the • proposal is for a business describe hours of operation, days per week and all other pertinent information related to business operations. B. How is the proposal compatible to neighboring properties? What mitigation measures are proposed to promote compatibility? C. Is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property; and, Is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? D. Is your proposal in the best interest of the community? 7. AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: (If required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (EPA)) Note: If you have any questions about this process please come in person to the Planning Division, 129 North 2nd St. Yakima, WA or call the Planning Division at (509) 575-6183, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. v FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY For Class (2) Applications, the proposed development requires Class (2) Review for the following reasons: ❑ Listed as a Class (2) use in Table 4-1; or, ❑ Structural or other physical site improvements are proposed or required by this title, and the use has frontage on a designated collector or arterial road (single-family dwellings, duplexes, and their accessory structures are exempt from this provision); or ❑ All or part of the parcel proposed for development is in the Flood Plain, Airport, or Greenway Overlay Districts; or, ❑ The proposed use includes hazardous materials; or, ❑ A mobile or manufactured home listed as a Class (2) use in Section 15.04.120. DOC. INDEX Revised 9-98 Project: Toscanna Development L"_.e: 5/16/2008 Lot 2 Duplex portion of Development likroject Narrative CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. A. Project Description: The proposed -development is a Duplex Community located on Lot 2. 84 Units are planned. The residential duplex community is located in the R1 Zoned portion of the property with each duplex unit offered for sale. Lot 1 is an Apartment Community and is being reviewed separately under a Class 3 Review. Lot 3 is being reserved for future development, probably as a senior housing community. Lot 4 is being reserved for future development, probably as a neighborhood retail and office use. RECEIVED MAY 1 6 2008 This residential community is designed around a traditional private drive streetscape that features parallel parking, sidewalks, street trees and lighting. This community features buildings that locate their garages at the side and or rear of the buildings with pedestrian oriented front porch and patio areas facing the private drives. The duplex buildings will be primarily single story with some two story units. This community will have access to the Recreation Building on Lot 1. The buildings have been located and designed to optimize the easterly territorial views. Each duplex unit has two dedicated. garage parking stalls with additional parking located along the internal private drives. The duplex community will share the common open space with the Apartment Community. B. Compatible to Neighboring Properties: The proposed residential buildings will be scaled to their uses and will have low sloping roofs and residentially scaled materials. The anticipated architectural theme of both buildings will be that of Tuscanny with a southwestern flair compatible the Yakima environment. C. Consistent with current zoning: This residential use is allowed in the underlying zone classifications with a Class 3 review process. D. Development is in the best interest of the community: The proposed residential duplex community will provide diversity of housing types to the city. The proposal is regarded as an infill development in an area with adequate city services as encouraged by the Growth Management Act. In addition, the proposal will provide new customers that should patronize the neighborhood shopping areas located nearby. DOC. 200 8/m isc/07122/NarrativeI N DEX SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT RECEIVED MAY 1 4.71r8 CITY OF YAKIMA CHAPTER 15,10, YAKIMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE gktit4t9NG DW 1.E OF DMEM WVE. A_D 1 TSTMENT F•OUSTED ( ' / at least one): O SETBACKS Front Side © FENCES ❑ PARKNG ❑ SITESCREENING CI SIGNS: Height Size f 7 LOT COVERAGE Lot 1 O OTHER 2, AMOUNT OP ADJUII NT: . Rear 50 + tip, - 15% Zoning ordinance requirement Proposed standard Adjustment requested 3. PROPOSED USE: (Important: Must be taken From. Table 4-1, of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance) Multifamily Dwellings •13+ DU per NRA- _. 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TI ST.D3 ECT PRQPERTY;_(Attach if lengthy) See attached !� f���u aR�fl"ll 5 e.�' T3. � �,�`�G ° F'i`t 71 •�. ;;, �+. %��� .✓ �: Win%,- 545 �a `� A'. •- aY�.. 5. SITE PLAN REQUIREf: (Please use the City of Yakima Site Plan Checklist) i ` 6. A WRITTEN NARRATIVE: (Please submit a written response to the following items: A. How would the strict enforcement of the current standard affect your project? Why is the adjustment requested? B. How is the proposal compatible with neighboring properties? Have other adjustments been granted nearby? C, Is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property; and, Is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? D. Is your proposal in the best interest of the community? 7. AN ENVII .ON1YIENTAT� CHECKLIST (If required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEP Note: If you have any questions about this process please come in person to the Planning Division, 129 North -2nd St. Yakima, WA or call the Planning Division at (509) 575-6183, Monday through Friday 8 a.m..zn Revised 9-98 avam 17nn Gb i RG7 'oM YNd r --I luawdoJ Aan WW 1c'Ffl RaARflI lr-n-t In Project: TOSCANNA Date 5/12/2008 likEQUESTED ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT: (as allowed by Chapter 5.10) Adjustment to Development Standards listed in Chapter 15.05, Table 5-1, 50% maximum lot coverage in R2 Zone. The requested lot coverage for Lot 1 is 65% The intent of the maximum lot coverage amounts is to provide areas for landscaping and recreation. Narrative Discussion • A. How would the strict enforcement of the current standard affect your project? Why is the adjustment requested? Strict enforcement of the lot coverage maximum would require: • Adjustment of the proposed property line off of the current zone change • line separating the R1 and R2 zones to include more of the common recreation area shared by both Lots 1 and 2 (about 60,000 S.F.). • Removal of the Recreation Building and swimming pool/spa deck because these are paved areas and instead provide an open lawn area. • Removal of 2n4 pedestrian walkway along internal private drive. The current drive design has pedestrian walkways along both sides of the drive that creates a more formal and pleasing streetscape than a walkway on only one side. The following calculation illustrates how the above site plan adjustments would allow the site planning to meet the 50% lot coverage requirement (see attached partial site plan): Current site area: Adjust the property line between Lot 1 and 2 to include the 60,022 S.F. common recreation area: Adjusted Lot 1 area: Lot Coverage area per Sheet G101 Remove Recreation Building and pool/spa deck Remove secondary streetscape sidewalk Adjusted Lot Coverage area: Adjusted Lot Coverage 190,423/386,456 = 326,434 S.F. 60,022 386,456 S.F. 211,254 S.F. 15,266 5,765 190,423 S.F. 49% The adjustment is requested because it is the developer's desire that the property line separating Lots 1 and 2 match the zone change line as much as possible. In addition the developer wants to build a Recreation Building and pool/spa area and develop a pleasing streetscape. RECEIVED MAY 1 4 ?Oil CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. 08/misc/07.122AdminAdj4 D EX Project: TOSCANNA Date 5/12/2008 The above discussion about moving the lot line between Lots 1 and 2 also assumes that 60,000 S.F. would be removed from Lot 2. The current lot coverage area on Lot 2 is about 37%, with 60,000 S.F. removed from Lot 2 the lot coverage area increases to about 40%. 45% lot coverage is allowed in the R1 zone. B. How is the proposal compatible with neighboring properties? Have other adjustments been granted nearby? The proposal is compatible with the neighboring properties. Based on our review of the aerial photograph of the development area, the existing mobile home park to the east and many of the single family homes located to the north and south of Lot 1 appear to have Lot coverage in excess of 50%. The applicant is not aware of previous lot coverage adjustments in the area. C. Is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property; and, is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? The proposal is consistent with the current zoning and uses on neighboring properties if some of the common recreation area located on the adjacent Lot 2 is included in the Lot 1 area, the Recreation Building and swimming pool/spa deck is removed and the 2nd pedestrian walkway along internal private is removed. D. Is your proposal in the best interest of the community? We believe so. Some of the reasons the proposed lot coverage is greater than allowed are identified above. Additional specific community benefits are outlined below which also have increased the proposed lot coverage: • Apartment buildings have additional garage access ways so garage doors do not face the private access drives creating a more pleasing streetscape. • Apartments have 2 car garages that have an area greater than two parking stalls located in a parking lot of typical apartment developments. The proposed development preserves the intended landscape and recreation areas by: • Providing significant indoor recreation facilities for the apartment and du- plex development. • Providing exterior swimming pool and spa areas for the apartment and du- plex development . • Providing linear jogging and walking trail through the core of the site. The trail will provide formal exercise stations surrounded by open space. • Providing critically located landscape areas easily accessible to residents. RECEIVED MAY 1 4 7008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. • 2. 08/misc/07.122AdminAd4NDEX # r-_ COMMON RECREATION AREA: &0,022 S.F. REC. BLDG. d POOL AREA: 15,2&& S.F. RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. SECONDARI' STREETSCAPE SIDEWALK: 5,-16,5 S.F. Impervious Area Adjustment Request ooc. 5-12-08 INDEX t.1 , — Ac,,-CEN7 S1NC,LE , .AT -11L• III FESIPEN,AL 1 1w1GA,,,,, 01,,,, .11,11LE," 01,11-er CANAL —, F:J I ,-- EX151,1NC, Ce - 12(2C \ Pi • X .... - ,20C C) Z Sac Section A -A ....... -----..1 (I .:'1 .-- ADJACENT SINGLE // F allL, 1..ZIGATICN RESIDENTIAL ' I CI,LE, OLIFLEz UFLEX 4.4.7,1ENT AFARTNEN" AFA12,1ENT CANAL - , ll . Ey15ilnIC, \ '61 \ GRACE 'i. \ .1v151 -1E0 , 1240 - - - - -- Zall o•r4 — - 1 3 FF .1208 r. , ,1208, T - - - E=E7-14- \ / ----;...--e-----------'-----"\--- 1230 i 220 r <,t -I - - _ -- - -- - - — Site Section B-13 ; . - , ::„ tl.S-, • .• . / '' ,i.ja • V tio am* • 44: ' i:t 4P41 / 44* . 't•.._ ' et ''' . 'a 41 I • ‘ - Toscana Development Yakima. 1Vaihi [Won / / ite, , / • iip 41/4 .` hill • • MU a 2_4_ ' fit,* • Lii. ---------, _ _ 1 Far , b,'- _ ' 4 • .11111111 - ,_ ,.._ - -,•,f 71. '--- - , - '•-, In •ACCiV (r'iii A rehitpetc A 1,4titnotnra And Plannina , i; 1 (y) t.1 bUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATJON FOR: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT CHAPTER 15,10, YAKIMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE (UAZO) 1. TYPE OFA STRATTVF ADJSTMFNT OTrE (v' at least one): EI SETBACKS: Front __Side . Rear X (Lot 1 ) ❑ FENCES ❑ PARKING ❑ SITESCREENING ❑ SIGNS: Height Size ❑ LOT COVERAGE ❑ OTHER 2. AMOLINTDP ADJUSTMENT: 15' Zoning ordinance requirement ± 5' Proposed standard RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Adjustment requested 3. PROPOSED USE: (Important: Must be taken From Table 4-1, of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance) 1111 1Multifamily Dwellings 13+ DU per NR 4. LF.G T_ DFS WrION S2F ,,_,gT BTEt T PR,Q RTY_(Attach if lengthy) See attached - 4it.05. /", :�' r nR r '�' �-;?�-•C. ...`_'CYy wil "CI'...rt1Y.r.�y'� 5. SITE PLAN R1 QUIREI�: (Please use the City of Yakima Site Plan Checklist) 6. A WRITTEN NARRATIVE: (Please submit a. written response to the following items: A. How would the strict enforcement of the current standard affect your project? Why is the adjustment requested? B. How is the proposal compatible with neighboring properties? Have other adjustments been granted nearby? C. Is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property; and, Is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? D. Is your proposal in the best interest of the community? AN EN EONMF.NTAT . C ,;IT: (If required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEEA)) Note: If you have any questions about this process please conte iu person to the Planning Division, 129 North 2nd St. Yakima, WA or call the Planning Division at (509) 575-6183, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 pan.. Revised 9-98 b00 'd v988 85Z 'ON Xdd luawdolanafl a�ztnu� INDEX Wd LG Ffl (1..M/R(1(1Z/l.n/ANW Project: TOSCANNA Date 5/12/2008 REQUESTED ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT: (as allowed by Chapter 5.10) Adjustment to Development Standards listed in Chapter 15.05, Table 5-1, 15 foot rear setback in R2 Zone. The requested setback is 5 feet along the south boundary of Lot 1 in the area south of Buildings 6, 7 and 15 as shown on the Site Plan. The intent of the 15 setback in residential districts is to provide privacy, light, air and emergency access. Narrative Discussion A. How would the strict enforcement of the current standard affect your project? Why is the adjustment requested? Strict enforcement of the setback would require all of the buildings to be shifted in a northerly direction by 10'. This would reduce the available recreation area at the north end of the property. The adjustment is requested since the area on the adjacent property to the south is a large landscape area and also used as a shared pedestrian walkway and driveway for both Lots 1 and 2. This area provides the needed building setback and buffer between the developments on Lots 1 and 2. B. How is the proposal compatible with neighboring properties? Have other adjustments been granted nearby? The existing mobile home park east of Lot 1 has a small setback/buffer along the shared property line with Lot 1. This setback width is probably less than five feet. Therefore the reduced setback is compatible with this adjacent property. Other properties surrounding the Toscanna Development have a variety of setbacks and buffers depending if the properties have commercial or residential use. Please note that the proposed setback reduction is between Lots 1 and 2 is within the Toscanna Development and does not affect the surrounding properties. The applicant is not aware of previous setback adjustments in the area. C. Is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property; and, is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? The proposal is consistent with the current zoning and uses on neighboring properties if the area on both sides of the property line is considered as discussed in "A" above. D. Is your proposal in the best interest of the community? We believe so. The requested set back is in an area where the reduced setback will not reduce the intended benefits of the required setback because the adjacent property contains landscape areas, a pedestrian walkway and shared internal • RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 08/misc/07.122AdminAdjuP OC. INDEX Project: TOSCANNA Date 5/12/2008 project drive. These areas insure the protection of the intended privacy, light, air and emergency access typically provided by the required setback. 2. RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 08/rnisc/07.122AdminAdDOC'EX' 1 `D r I 13 - / - ,9 INDEX ifiLu229'(mil" CITY OF YAKIMA R 8 2008 LAND USE APPLICATION A CITY �yO�yF'yyYA?CIIWA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELUPCENT _G DIV. 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2NDFLOOR YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902 VOICE: (509) 575-6183 FAX: (509) 575-6105 • ' '' -�....... ��� r, ; s V-"•' .�' . tq ,-0i/ ,,,.p vo %- -i/ .,4„ _'`' INSTRUCTIONS — PLEASE READ FIRST Please type or print your answers clearly. Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this form or the application process call, come in person or refer to the accompanying instructions. This application consists of four parts. PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV — CERTIFICATION are on this page. PART II and III contain additional information specific to your proposal and MUST be attached to this page to complete the application. Remember to bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted. The Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid. , Filing fees are not refundable. PART I — GENERAL INFORMATION I . APPLICANT NAME Envizaqe Development Group — Ke I I 04141 2. APPLICANT ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER STREET 200 Galloway Drive CITY Yakima STATE WA ZIP 98908 PHONE . 253-9rO5•-Off,L-SSAGE ( ) 3. APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY CHECK OWNER X OWNER REPRESETATIVE ONE ■ CONTRACT PURCHASER • OTHER 4. PROPERTY OWNER (IF OTHER THAN • Ell V I Z. -c-19 <. D R J= 6 ;ev,d/° NAME OMR_ Jut_ s i- I c ' p•l- y“._ v C(( S 5. PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS AND PHONE (IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT) _ STREET CITY STATE ZIP, PHONE ( ) MESSAGE ( ) 6. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY: 18131531011 & 34037 7. EXISTING ZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: R1 / R2 8. ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: On Castlevale Road across from the Seatt SlewRunIntersection 9. TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ Class (2) Use ❑ Class (3) Use ❑ Rezone ❑ Variance ❑ Home Occupation Administrative Adjustment (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY ,„, Y7ti �Z (..0.4. C v-rt2vti or 7. F Environmental Checklist (SEPA) ❑ Right -of -Way Vacation ❑ Modification to Approved Class (2) & (3) Uses ❑ Short Plat Exemption • ❑ Appeal ❑ Shoreline ❑ Non -Conforming Structure/Use ❑ Utility Easement Release ❑ Preliminary Subdivision ❑ Interpretation by Hearing Examiner ❑ Short Plat • ❑ Other PART II — SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION AND PART III— REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS 10. SEE ATTACHED SHEETS '' PART IV — CERTIFICATION 11. I certify that t r - information on this ap i cation and the required attachments are true and correc to the best of my knowledge. 3/S 0r OP.' TY 0 ERS SIGNATURE DATE Revised 8-04 FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY FILE No. DATE FEy PAID 1 _. tWIEIVED BY, AMOUNT 1 ..-,� & CEIPT NO.I HEAI[J GATE 13 - / - ,9 INDEX • LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 181315-31011 RECEIVED MAY 14)n;cl CITY OF YrirOMA PLANNING DIV. THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W.M., DYING SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE RICHT OF WAY OF THE YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL COMPANY AND THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF 1IIE SOUTHWEST 1/4 , AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 LYING EASTERLY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL COMPANY AND NORTHERLY OF A UNE BEGINNING AT A POINT ON TI•IE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, 659.90 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 86'40'00" WEST 1,115 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID CANAL; EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED UNE: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, OF THE NORTHEAST 1/44 OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4; THENCE SOUTH 89'59118" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF 658.19 .FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4° OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE SOUTH 89'58'52" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF WE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 15 A DISTANCE OF 69.77 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT'. OF WAY OF NORTH 40th AVENUE, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVINGA RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY CONSUMING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00'09'48"• AN ARC LENGTH OF 2.99 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH '02'21'39" EAST TO THE POINT. OF BEGINNING OF SAID LINE; 'HENCE NORTH 89'58'52" •WEST 304.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, SMD CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 225.00 FEET; i THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONSUMING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF. 6463'09" AN ARC LENGTH OF 253.76 FEET; . THENCE NORTH 25°21'42" WEST 466.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING, A RADIUS OF 150.00 FEET;- THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONSUMING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33'00'26" AN. ARC LENGTH OF 86.41 FEET TO THE YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL COMPANY RIGHT OF WAY AND TERMINUS OF SAID LINE. PARCEL 181315-XXXXX THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 13 NOR1H,RANGE 18 EAST, W.M. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING 659.9 FEET SOUTH OF. THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE' SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 15 EAST W.M.; THENCE NORTH 86'40' WEST 1115 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE OF THE YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY UNE. TO THE EAST UNE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH 375 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT BEGINNING 659.9 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15. TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 - EAST W.M.; THENCE NORTH 86'40' WEST 214.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00'00' EAST 337.6 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF THE YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID RICHT OF WAY LINE, TO THE EAST UNE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE NORTH 375 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; DOC. INDEX LEGAL DESCRIPTION RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PARCEL 181315-31011 PLANNING DIV. THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W.M., DYING SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL COMPANY AND THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF TI -1E SOUTHWEST 1/4 , AND T1 -IE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF TI•IE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 LYING EASTERLY OF THE RICHT OF WAY OF THE YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL COMPANY AND NORTHERLY OF A UNE BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST UNE OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, 659.90 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 86'40'00" WEST 1°115 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE OF SAID CANAL; EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED UNE: • BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,•OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 -OF SAID SOUTHWEST 1/4; THENCE SOUTH 89.59'18" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF 658.19 FEET TO ;THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE SOUTH 89'58'52" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 15 A DISTANCE OF 69.77 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF NORTH 40th AVENUE, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY CONSUMING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00'09'48"• AN ARC LENGTH OF 2.99 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 02°21'39" EAST TO THE POINT. OF BEGINNING OF SAID LINE; THENCE NORTH 89'58'52" WEST 304.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 225.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONSUMING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF. 64°37'09" AN ARC LENGTH OF 253.76 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25'21'42" WEST 466.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 150.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONSUMING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33°00'26" bN ARC LENGTH OF 86.41 FEET TO THE YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL COMPANY RIGHT OF WAY AND TERMINUS OF SAID UNE. PARCEL 181315-XXXXX THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST, W.M. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING 659.9 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST W.M.; THENCE NORTH 86'40' WEST 1115 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE OF THE YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY. ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY UNE, TO THE EAST UNE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH 375 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT BEGINNING 659.9 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15. TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST W.M.; THENCE NORTH 86'40' WEST 214.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00.00' EAST 337.6 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF THE YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, TO THE EAST UNE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE NORTH 375 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; DOC. INDEX • TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER G Notices EXHIBIT DOCUMENTS G-1 Determination of Application Incompleteness 5/01/08 G-2 Land Use Action Installation Certificate 5/23/08 G-3 Determination of Application Completeness 6/09/08 G-4 Notice of Application, Public Hearing, and Environmental Review G -4a: Press Release and Distribution E-mail G -4b: Legal Notice and Confirmation E-mail G -4c: Agencies and Parties Notified G -4d: Affidavit of Mailing 6/13/08 G-5 Notice of Decision for Transportation Concurrency 7/07/08 G-6 Public Records Request Form from Mr. James R. Lane 7/08/08 G-7 Notice of Decision of Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance (MDNS) G -7a: Press Release and Distribution E-mail G -7b: Legal Notice and Confirmation E-mail G -7c: Agencies and Parties Notified G -7d: Affidavit of Mailing 7/14/08 G-8 Land Use Action Installation Certificate for SEPA Appeal 7/29/08 G-9 Notice of SEPA Appeal and Hearing G -9a: Agencies and Parties Notified G -9b: Affidavit of Mailing 7/31/08 G-10 Hearing Examiner Packet Distribution List 8/7/08 G-11 Hearing Examiner Agenda 8/14/08 G-12 Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Sign -In Sheet 8/14/08 G-13 E-mail response regarding Helen Harvey, Legal Department and Mr. Hatfield's request for additional time. 8/22/08 EXHIBIT } � �r}. ds -.se y may* t , DOCUMENTS } �Ty..R DAdE G-14 Notice of Hearing Examiner's 1st Interim Decision G -14a: Agencies and Parties Notified G -14b: Affidavit of Mailing 8/25/08 G-15 Notice of Hearing Examiner's 2nd Interim Decision (See DOC Exhibit # AA -1 for Decision) G -15a: Agencies and Parties Notified G -15b: Affidavit of Mailing 9/25/08 G-16 Hearing Examiner Agenda 10/21/08 G-17 Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Sign -In Sheet 10/21/08 G-18 • Notice of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision (See DOC Exhibit #AA -2 for Decision) G -18a: Website Posting G -18b: Certified Mail to Applicant and Appellant G -18c: Parties of Record Notified G -18d: Affidavit of Mailing 11/06/08 G-19 Notice of Appeal G -19a: Parties of Record Notified G -19b: Affidavit of Mailing 11/26/08 G-20 Fax to Mr. Chad Hatfield from Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner 12/04/08 G-21 Agenda Statement — Set Date for City Council "Closed Record" Public Hearing 01/06/09 • BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: January 6, 2009 ITEM TITLE: Set Date for a Closed Record Public Hearing of appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Toscana Project. SUBMITTED BY: William R. Cook, Director of Community Economic Development CONTACT PERSON / TELEPHONE: Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner, 575-6162 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The Toscana Project is a residential development consisting of. 84 duplex and 96 apartment units. The Hearing Examiner issued a decision on File CL(3) #7- 08, CL(2) #20-08, Adm Adj #16-08 and SEPA Appeal #4-08 on November 4, 2008. The decision affirmed the SEPA Appeal and denied the requested Class (3) and (2) land uses and Administrative Adjustments. The Applicant submitted an application to appeal the Hearing Examiner's Decision on November 20, 2008. You are now being asked to set the date of February 3, 2009 for the Closed Record Public Hearing on this appeal. Resolution Ordinance Other (Specify) Contract Mail to (name and address): Phone: Funding Source APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set the date of February 3, 2009 for a Closed Record Public Hearing of the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Toscana Project. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: DOC. INDEX CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIVISION 129 NO. 2ND STREET YAKIMA, WA 98901 (509) 575-6183 FAX (509) 575-6105 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: Chad Hatfield Joseph Calhoun COMPANY: Velikanje Halverson DATE: 12/4/08 FAX NUMBER: 509-453-6880 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 1 PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: Toscanna Appeal ® URGENT ❑ FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY 0 PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: Dear Mr. Hatfield; Thank you for the timely request for an extension. A comment period cannot end on a legal holiday, so the last day for written memorandum will be 5:00 pm on December 26, 2008. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. Very Truly Yours, Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner 509-575-6162 jcalhoun@ci.yakima.wa.us DOC. INDEX 1 _co • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: Appeal#4-08 Toscanna Development 4200 block of Castlevale Rd • I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Appeal. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the , appellant and all parties of record. That said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 26th day of November, 2008. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Nh a xZosalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist DOC. INDEX # -1Rb Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5960' Toscanna Development 12419 172nd Street E, NN 103 Puyallup, WA 98374 Tom Clayton 902 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Tim Gavin 904 Coach Ct Yakima, WA 98908 Dan Johnson 1 102 Fellows Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Mel Moore 904 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Geo Olson 4503 Fechter Road Yakima, WA 98908 Department of Ecology 15 West Yakima Ave, Ste#200 Yakima, WA 98902 Envizage Group 200 Galloway Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Laura and Rulon Bergeson 4301-A Garden Park Way Yakima, WA 98908 Lee and Patricia Clark 817 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 Etiquettes fadies paler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5960""` IFeed Paper See Instruction Sheet ; for Easy Peel Feature 1 The Casey Group 5521 100th Street SW, Ste. A Lakewood, WA 98499 Dan & Mary Jane Craiger 4508 Fechter Road Yakima, WA 98908 Chad Hatfield P.O. Box 22550 Yakima, WA 98907 Jerrilyn & John Makins 823 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Cindy Noble 5609 West Arlington Yakima, WA 98908 Rick Wehr 1 120 West Lincoln Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima County Clean Air 329 North 1st Street Yakima, WA 98901 Theresa & Douglas Allen 4504 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 Duane and Dorothy Brodrick -Knittle 909 North Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 Sonny Cooper 905 Conestoga -Blvd Yakima, WA 98900OC• INDEX # er • Sens de chargement ¶ AW ®5960TM I 1 Dearborn & Moss PLLC c/o Alison Moss 2183 Sunset Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98116 Melda Follett 816 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Chad Hatfield 405 East Lincoln Avenue Yakima, WA 98907 Robert & Jan Martin 4602 Phaeton Place Yakima, WA 98908 Charles Northrup 802 North 40th Ave. #19 Yakima, WA 98908 Connie White 4602 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 • • Yakima Valley Canal Company 1604 Garretson Lane Yakima, WA 98908 Shirley and Jack Barker 4203-B Garden Park Way Yakima, WA 98908 Greg & Connie Chin 919 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 Macile Cowman 921 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 Consultez la feuille www.avery.com d'instruction 1 -800 -G0 -AVERY 'Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5960TM Bruce & Diane Crockett North 46th Avenue ma, WA .98908 Hector Felix 915 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 Dave Franklin 4604 Surrey Lane Yakima, WA 98908 Therese & Pat Hamm -Sexton 903 North Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 Gloria Hutchinson 703 North 44th Avenue ima, WA 98908 Patrick and Samantha Knittle 909 Conestoga Blvd -Yakima, WA 98908 John and Peggy Maxwell 4410 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Jerry Mellen 904 N. Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 Delmar Pearson 2101 St. Helens Street Yakima, WA 98902 J�uccinelli 4102 Donald Drive Yakima , WA 98908 iiiquettes fadles paler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5960'"` 1 Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet 1 ...• for Easy Peel Feature Amy & Dileep Dhruva 4603 Phaeton Place Yakima, WA 98908 W.W. Fetzer 4604 Phaeton Place Yakima, WA 98908 Tom Gasseling 714 North 44th Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 Ron and Linda Hatfield 829 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908.. Ronald Jones 715 North 46th Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 James and Marilyn Lane 819 North Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 Edith McArthur. 4203-A Garden Park Way Yakima, WA 98908 Andy Mervos 4108 Donald Drive • Yakima, WA 98908 Dennis & Lis Pedemonte 4606 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 Caroline Purdon 4301-B Garden Park Way Yakima, WA 989COOC. INDEX ® # 6-161A_ Sens de chargement i CIAVEFir95960n1i 1 Betty L. Douglas 4201 Fechter Road Yakima, WA 98908 Blanche Fortier 4201-B Garden Park Way Yakima, WA 98908 Mike and Sue Gunderson 720 North 44th Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 Gerald H. Hino 724 North 44th Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 Dave & Marge Joynt 821 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Robert C. Martin P.O. Box 2667 Yakima, WA 98907 Kent and Gail McLachlan 815 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 Robert & Carmen Newstead 814 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 Dan & Elizabeth Penhallegon 4105 Fechter Road Yakima, WA 98908 Travis & Sandra Rundell 4305 Garden Park Way Yakima, WA 98908 Consultez la feuille www.averycom d'instruction 1 -800.60 -AVERY 'Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5960TM Jim & Bonnie Scoggins 4603 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 Betty Van Ryder 807 North 46th Avenue Yakima. WA 98908 Donovan Young 913 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 f tiquettes fadles peler i Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet i for Easy Peel Feature Charles Scott 4107 Donald Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Joel and Monica Weyhe 901 North Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 Pars °F Record Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5960""Sens de chargement. �l %i7 t:\AW ®5960m I 1 Patrick and Sonia True -Rodriguez 911 North Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908.411 Bob Wilkes 4601 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 DOC. INDEX • Consultez la feuille www.avery.com d'instruction 1 -800 -GO -AVERY Ole Schneider s IN-HOUSE DISTRIBUTION LIST City Legal Mike Antijunti Carolyn Belles Engineering Codes Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Ron Melcher Fire Dept. Bill Cook Director, CED DECISIONS ONLY City Clerk DECISIONS ONLY Sandy Cox Codes DECISIONS ONLY Joan Davenport Office of Neighborhood and Binder Traffic Engineering DECISIONS ONLY Development Services Jerry Robertson s For the RECORD / FILE DOC. INDEX November 26, 2008 To: Appellant and Parties of Record Subject: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny proposed Class (2) and (3) land uses and Administrative Adjustments Assessor's Parcel Number: 181315-31011, 181315-34037 File #: UAZO Appeal #4-08 Notice is hereby given by the City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development that an appeal was filed on November 20, 2008, by Envi7age Development Group (project applicant), regarding the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny a proposed land use project. The purpose of this notice is to provide parties of record the opportunity to review and comment upon the appeal. Persons wishing to respond to the appeal may submit written comments by December 10, 2008. Written comments shall not include the presentation of new evidence and shall be based only upon the facts presented to the Hearing Examiner (YMC § 15.16.040(B)(1)). Submit your written comments to the City of Yakima, Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901. Copies of the Appeal, the Hearing Examiner's decision, and other materials related to this action are available upon request. - For additional information, please contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner, at (509) 575-6162. Upon completion of the fourteen -day comment period, the City Clerk will schedule a date for this appeal hearing before the Yakima City Council. Notice of the time, date and location of this closed record public hearing will be mailed to the parties of record. Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner DOC. INDEX # (1-/q • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: CL3#7-08, CL2#20-08, Adm Adj#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal#4-08 Toscanna Development / Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill Vicinity of Castlevale Rd and Seattle Slew Run I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Hearing Examiner Decision. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant, and parties of record, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 6th day of November, 2008. That I mailed said ,notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist DOC. INDEX # Applicant and Parties of Interest Notified for NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION dated November 6, 2008. Applicant: Toscanna Development / Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill File: CL3#7-08, CL2#20-08, ADM ADJ#16-08, SEPA APPEAL#4-08 CERTIFIED MAIL: • 7005 2570 0000 1372 0737 Toscanna Development Attn: Keith Basham 12419 172nd Street, NN 103 Puyallup, WA 98374 CERTIFIED MAIL: 7005 2570 0000 1372 0713 Envizage Development Group Attn: Dave Sjule 200 Galloway Drive Yakima, WA 98908 • CERTIFIED MAIL: 7005 2570 0000 1372 0720 Concerned Citizens for Carriage Hill Attn: Ron Hatfield 829 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 Note: For PARTIES OF RECORD please see attached list titled "Parties of Record — Toscanna, LLC" Royale Schneider Codes Mike Antijunti Engineering Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Joan Davenport Traffic Engineering Jerry Robertson Codes City Legal Carolyn Belles Codes Ron Melcher Fire Department Office of Neighborhood and Development Services For the RECORD / FILE Bill Cook Director, CED DECISIONS ONLY City Clerk DECISIONS ONLY III Sandy Cox Codes DECISIONS ONLY Binder DECISIONS ONLY DOC. INDEX I 6 - /gG arties of Record - Toscanna, LLC (UAZO CL(3-_nR F.r•1q_nQ� \\Apollo\Shared\Planning\Applications-Planning\2o08 Planning Applications\Toscanna-CL3\Comment Letters Received. Toscanna.doc , �.t' �141d1,fY "�' `#r F�t.�a•9<� 6lt uj;10�K`t94�^&S':? a�0�A.� Toscanna Development 12419 172nd Street E, NN103 ,, Puyallup WA 98374 NO The Casey Group 5521 100th Street SW, Ste. A Lakewood WA 98499 NO Clayton Tom 902 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima WA 98908 NO Craiger Dan & Mary Jane 4508 Fechter Road Yakima WA 98908 NO Follett Melda 816 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima WA 98908. NO Gavin Tim 904 Coach Ct Yakima WA 98908 NO Hatfield Chad P.O. Box 22550 Yakima WA 98907 NO Hatfield Chad 405 East Lincoln Avenue Yakima WA 98907 NO Johnson Dan 1102 Fellows Drive Yakima WA 98908 NO Makins Jerrilyn & John 823 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima WA 98908 NO Martin Robert & Jan 4602 Phaeton Place Yakima WA 98908 NO Moore Mel 904 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima WA 98908 NO Noble Cindy 5609 West Arlington Yakima WA 98908 NO Northrup Charles 802 North 40th Ave. #19 Yakima WA 98908 NO Olson . Geo 4503 Fechter Road Yakima WA 98908 NO Wehr Rick 1120 West Lincoln Avenue Yakima WA 98902 NO White Connie 4602 Conestoga Blvd Yakima. WA 98908 NO Department of Ecology 15 West Yakima Ave, Ste#200 Yakima WA 98902 NO — on EC labels Yakima County Clean Air 329 North 1st Street Yakima WA 98901 NO — on EC labels Yakima Valley Canal Company 1604 Garretson Lane Yakima WA 98908 NO — on EC labels Envizage Group 200 Galloway Drive Yakima WA 98908 YES Allen . Theresa & Douglas 4504 Conestoga Blvd Yakima WA 98908 YES Barker Shirley and Jack 4203-B Garden Park Way Yakima WA 98908 YES Bergeson Laura and Rulon 4301-A Garden Park Way Yakima WA . 98908 YES Brodrick -Knittle Duane and Dorothy 909 North Conestoga Blvd. Yakima WA 98908 YES Chin Greg & Connie 919 Conestoga Blvd Yakima . WA . 98908 YES Clark Lee and Patricia 817 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima WA 98908 YES Cooper Sonny 905 Conestoga Blvd Yakima WA 98902 YES Cowman Macile 921 Conestoga Blvd Yakima WA 98908 YES Crockett Bruce & Diane 713 North 46th Avenue Yakima WA 98908 YES Dhruva Amy & Dileep ' 4603 Phaeton Place Yakima WA 98908 YES. Douglas Betty L. 4201 Fechter Road Yakima WA 98908 YES \\Apollo\Shared\Planning\Applications-Planning\2o08 Planning Applications\Toscanna-CL3\Comment Letters Received. Toscanna.doc Parties of Record - Toscanna, LLC (UAZO CL(3)#7-08, CL(2)#20-08, Adm Ad i #16-08, EC#19-08 Felix Hector 915 Conestoga Blvd Yakima WA 98908 YES Fetzer W.W. 4604 Phaeton Place Yakima WA 98908 YES Fortier Blanche 4201-B Garden Park Way Yakima WA 98908 YES Franklin Dave 4604 Surrey Lane Yakima WA 98908 YES Gasseling Tom 714 North 44th Avenue Yakima WA 98908 YES Gunderson Mike and Sue 720 North 44th Avenue Yakima WA 98908 YES Hamm -Sexton Therese & Pat 903 North Conestoga Blvd. Yakima WA 98908 YES Hatfield Ron and Linda 829 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima WA 98908 YES Hino Gerald H. 724 North 44th Avenue Yakima WA 98908 YES Hutchinson Gloria 703 North 44th' Avenue Yakima WA 98908 YES Jones Ronald 715 North 46th Avenue Yakima WA 98908 YES Joynt Dave.& Marge 821 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima . WA 98908 YES Knittle Patrick and Samantha 909 Conestoga Blvd Yakima . WA 98908 YES Lane James and Marilyn 819 North Conestoga Blvd. Yakima WA 98908 YES Martin Robert C. P.O. Box 2667 Yakima WA 98907 YES Maxwell John and Peggy 4410 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima WA 98908 YES McArthur Edith 4203-A Garden Park Way Yakima WA 98908 YES McLachlan Kent and Gail 815 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima WA 98908 YES Mellen Jerry 904 N. Conestoga Blvd Yakima WA 98908 YES Mervos Andy 4108 Donald Drive Yakima WA 98908 YES Newstead Robert & Carmen 814 Conestoga Blvd Yakima WA 98908 YES Pearson Delmar 2101 St. Helens Street Yakima WA 98902 YES Pedemonte Dennis & Lis 4606 Conestoga Blvd Yakima WA 98908 YES Penhallegon Dan & Elizabeth 4105 Fechter Road Yakima WA 98908 YES Puccinelli John 4102 Donald Drive Yakima WA 98908 YES Purdon Caroline 4301-BGarden Park Way Yakima WA 98908 YES Rundell Travis & Sandra 4305 Garden Park Way Yakima WA 98908 YES Scoggins Jim & Bonnie 4603 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima WA 98908 YES Scott Charles 4107 Donald Drive Yakima WA 98908 YES True -Rodriguez Patrick and Sonia 911 North Conestoga Blvd. Yakima WA 98908 YES Van Ryder Betty 807 North 46th Avenue Yakima WA 98908 YES Weyhe Joel and Monica 901 North Conestoga Blvd. Yakima WA 98908 YES Wilkes Bob 4601 Conestoga Blvd Yakima WA 98908 YES Young Donovan 913 Conestoga Blvd Yakima WA 98908 YES Updated on 11/04/08 \\A o11�T�5hare \Pl p d ammng\Applications Plannmg\2008 Planning Applications\Toscanna CLMommen ers Received Toscanna.doc 'SENDER COMPLzETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. Is Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill Attn: Ron Hatfield 829 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 COMP. LETS"THIS. SECJTION'ON"DELIVERY;; :' A. Signatu X gent Addressee B. R ed by ( n ted Name) Date of Delivery V& tcC D. Is delivery addIVE If YES, enter delivery address below: 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) NOV 1 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA ce Type ertified Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 7005 2570 0000 1372 0720 0 Yes PS Form 3811, February 2004 • 1372 0720 7005 2570 0000 Domestic Retum Receipt Domestic Mail Only,'�No�tnsurance�Coyerage Provided, For�de!iigery�rnfo�matloiiE�istfgouc�webstteiattwww usps"com®�'�. Postage Certified Fee Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) S Totel Po tRne R PAPA .Q. Postmark Here lte Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill Attn: Ron Hatfield 829 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 102595-02-M-1540 DOC. INDEX it C -7 -Ig SENDER COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON. DELIVERY ecgived b _ ( P 1. Article Addressed to: Toscanna Development Attn: Keith Basham 12419 172nd Street, NN103 Puyallup, WA 98374 Agent 0 Addressee cd-r-trive D. Is delivery ad: �4-• '�` G m 1? 0 Ye If YES, enter delivery address below: NOV 1 0 2008 /y PLAItua Div 3. Se ce Type ertified Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail 0 No ❑ Express Mail ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number (Tiansferfrom service 7005 2570 0000 1372 0737 PS Form 3811, February 2004 1372 0737 l7 l7 O p ' Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Domestic Retum Receipt �. terse 'k�R`i o-Insurance4coverageProvide( ForFdelivery information vtsttfoitr,N ebsite_at wwwusps?coin, Postage Certified Fee $ Total P. tpn. a. Foes Sent Ti Toscanna Development Attn: Keith Basham 12419 172nd Street, NN103 Puyallup, WA 98374 Street, or PO City, S. Postmark Here 1/(//o 102595-02-M-1540 • DOC. INDEX # -/fib SENDER COMPiETETHIS SECTION ..•, • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. s Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Envizage Development Group Attn: Dave Sjule 200 Galloway Drive Yakima, WA 98908 A. Signature ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee . Rec d y (Printed Name) rip C. Date of Delivery RECEIVE D. I -t elivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter Atm aidr s ?Oloow: 0 No art OFY PLANNING DIV. 3. Service Type rtified Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes ! 2. Article Number (Transfer from service lat PS Form 3811, February 2004 m a 0 rU m Postage O Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) teRestricted I . (Endorsement Required) ri ed) ru 7005 2570 0000 1372 0713 Domestic Retum Receipt -gym e omesttcrNo Insurance CoyeragOrovnded �(DMarl Onl y "-' del e , jmforma ion,vrstt;our�websiteTat www•`usps cort � 0 0 Tot} Sent r- siree or PC City, Postmark Here I 11 teja Envizage Development Group Attn: Dave Sjule 200 Galloway Drive Yakima, WA 98908 "PS Form.,_ 102595-02-M-1540 eez everse� ori nstrucUons,� DOC. INDEX # 6-/gb Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:19 AM To: Brackney, Rosanne Cc: All Planning Subject: 11-06-08 Website Posting: HE Decision - Toscanna Development Attachments: HECity Toscanna32AAFinDec.doc rage 1 01 1 Roseanne, please post to: http://www.ci.vakima.wa.us/services/planning/hearinlexa.miner.asp under Decisions. Thanks! Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist City of Yakima Planning Division p: (509) 575-6183 ribarn(ci.yakirna.w_ a.us 11/6/2008 DOC. INDEX # C-► - / S - • NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION November 6, 2008 On August 14, 2008 the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner held an open record public hearing for CL (3) #7-08, CL (2) #20-08, ADM ADJ #16-08, and SEPA APPEAL #4-08. The application was submitted by Envizage Development Group, to construct a residential development which consists of 84 duplex units and 96 apartment units in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. An extension was requested to provide additional information after the hearing. The request was granted until September 8, 2008 by an interim decision dated August 21, 2008. On September 22, 2008, an interim decision was issued to reconvene the hearing to October 21, 2008. This decision has been issued within ten business days of October 21, 2008. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Decision is enclosed. The decision is final unless appealed. .Appeals can be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of mailing, ,and must be accompanied by a $295 appeal fee. For further information or assistance you may contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575-6162. Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner Date of Mailing: November 6, 2008 Enclosure: Hearing Examiner's Decision DOC. INDEX 1 6-13 Gary M. Cuillier ATTORNEY AT LAW 314 N. SECOND STREET YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 November 4, 2008 Yakima City Planning Division Attn: Rosalinda 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 RECEIVED NOV 0 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. (509) 575-1800 FAX: (509) 452-4601 Re: Hearing Examiner's Decision Envizage Development Group, UAZO CL (3) #7-08, UAZO CL (2) #20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ #16-08, EC #19-08, SEPA APPEAL #4-08 Dear Rosalinda: Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding the above -entitled matter. The hearing was on August 14, 2008 and an extension was requested to provide additional information. The request was granted until September 8, 2008 by an interim decision dated August 21, 2008. Within ten business days of that date an interim decision dated September 22, 2008 was issued reconvening the hearing to October 21, 2008 and this decision has been issued within ten business days of October 21, 2008. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, c„, GARY M. CUILLIER GMC: bvv Enclosure cc: Vicki Adams, Yakima County Planning Department, w/ Enclosure DOC. Pat Spurgin, City of Yakima Pro Tem Hearing Examiner, w/ Enclosure INDEX # Com --/g • • HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS HEARING DATE: Tuesday October2/, 2008 CASE FILE # APPLICANT :SITE ADDRESS A. UAZO CL3#7-08 UAZO CL2#20-08 UAZO Adm Adj#16-08 EC#19-08 SEPA Appeal#4-08 Toscanna Development Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill 4200 block of Castlevale Rd. PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY! Please indicate which proposal von are interested in: A. CASE NAME ADDRESS : ;ZIP: CODE M. Qun,pcerat,n) %2,U /V L/ y + A 1/� C p / Qr 7-6.w. OCL433,-- i js.4 7/1/ / L/1jkr. 9fi50? ...///vi GA te, 0 ) 6 1 4 D 4_ Co 11-4 C4- 90'b Boa kit t_K�s 14 60 r Coae-r06 4 6LV b ('SI63 gets -K cer 8077)-1/.6`kk/tee. il7v7 4 / /, i&! VC S- r z,kicc41 4vt t)?o o r� - M,of 6 6 -}/ 71 - p000f.2667 f 'e 90 7 AadeiCA/041111, gal ine6layA I1/ _ggle9? 2. c_ G, ett /lc 7d -7 -S A, z ez-e 7f7o r Y -r-o. el -f-,,,,,k'(0Z e.�2v rCH\1I / 8`]c))- °‘A CeCci_iUcK WL.�m `l`n0?' JtVYgNI M�LLta eel/ rfre (0 aike . 1402, 0 , 4 e,-tt ,, /giv,, wag 'Aar ,. �� y r OS 1.---ec-14..4cR ( (f gi0 s( 1 l� C 1/5-0/ a4,,, -/-7c,,/ /i f .3 v , _5 2 �'�i Page 1 DOC. INDEX # 62-/7 HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS HEARING DATE: Tuesday Octobeif. 2008 CASE FILE # APPLICANT SITE ADDRESS A. UAZO CL3#7-08 UAZO CL2#20-08 UAZO Adm Adj#16-08 EC#19-08 SEPA Appeal#4-08 Toscanna Development Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill 4200 block of Castlevale Rd. PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY! Please indicate which proposal von are interested in: A. • CASE NAME ADDRESS ' ZIP CODE 4/01 Ji)ALdceeet o e _ 9� 9e"r / itticigra . 905 Ceifv4c �7 g6e7o 73nucii: CRaG rr 7/3 &*-4- 4vii ridc ► l w` � 1vi S (-146S o vl e54"es6 14, %clo ? bob CotoeS A B\Ob GeQ08 ..j•AQ15 i/f--cji,e1cfile.-1J eitlI 69.7,_:-;-/y CvrCCK cko� om,s-c446n k)a �90 ,JAy-�/ J 4-604- 54// j 64-I k %t* zz-e ,,‘ ot( g �--,,.Tcs4e 15L,,v_ 0, Bd70, Pagel. DOC. INDEX # 6_/7 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 (509) 575-6183. • Fax (509) 575-6105 • www.ci.yakima.wa.us CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER AGENDA Yakima City Hall Council Chambers Tuesday October 21, 2008 9:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. INTRODUCTION III. PUBLIC HEARING A. TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT (3/18/08) UAZO CL(3)#7-08 Planner: Joseph Calhoun UAZO CL(2)#20-08 Address: 4200 block Castlevale UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08 Request: Construct 96 apartments and 84 duplexes EC#19-08 Permit 2family dwellings in the R-1 zone and multi -family in the R-2; Adjust rear setbacks and maximum lot coverage. - CARRIAGE HILL/HATFIELD (7/28/08) Address: Castlevale Rd. and Seattle Slew Run Request: Appeal MDNS for UAZO EC#19-08. IV. ADJOURNMENT SEPA APPEAL#4-08 If you are unable to attend the hearing, you may submit your comments in writing prior to the hearing. You may also submit written testimony at the hearing. Yakima DOC. eigtri INDEX # C - 1994 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: UAZO CL3#7-08, CL2#20-08, Adm Adj#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal#4-08 Toscanna Development Vicinity of Castlevale Rd and Seattle Slew Run I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant, SEPA Reviewing Agencies and parties of record, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 25th day of September, 2008. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. k..._1 ezAA ) Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist • DOC. INDEX # 6 -/Sb 181315-31403 917 TRIPLE CROWN LLC 917 TRIPLE CROWN WAY # 20 YAKIMA, WA 98908 1115-33416 ALLEN F & DONNA J FEARON 618 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2501 181315-24473 ANDREW M & WILMA JEAN MERVOS 4108 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32499 AIDA 0 GARCIA ' 821 :CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32456 AMAL Y SEIF 828 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34464 ANNA M & WILLIAMS SCHROEDER 4103 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 1813.15-24442 181315-34423 ARNO L & JOYCE L PELL JOHNSON' AUDREY M JOLLEY 4306 FELLOWS DR 617 N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2603 181315-33466 BETTY ANN VAN RYDER 807 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2467 181315-34477 BLANCHE L FORTIER 4201 GARDEN PK WY B YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33480 ALISON & RACHEL A RIEGERT 4507 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32442 ANATOLE & ELIZABETH KIM 911 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32501 ANTHONY R & LORI T THOMAS 5808 SUMMITVIEW AVE STE A YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31402 BAKER BOYER BANK PO BOX 1263 YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32400 BRUCE A LAWRENCE 918 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 1 33478 181315-34462 . 181315-24443 B S & DIANE N CROCKETT BURTON & LAURA LEIGH POWERS C. DEAN & GERALDINE AMENDE 71 46TH AVE 4107 GARDEN PARK WAY 4304 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989082629 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2207 181315-34472 CAROL L SIPES 4303 MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4306 181315-24414 CHARLES G SCOTT 4107 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32502 2LIFFORD P & MARGARET KNOBEL 301 TENNANT LN XAKIMA, WA 98901-372.7 [81315-31405 ) E P PROPERTIES INC ?10 INT HELENS ST WA 98902-4162 .8 :1 'AK 315-31408 P P'wPERTI 1 SA N H , WA r' INC:0 , S 8902-4162 181315-34479 CAROLINE PURDON 43015 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 181315-34483 CHARLES F& SHIRLEY M BELFIELD 701 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34034 181315-32493 CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER CHURCH OF CLAUDE M & PAULA SLAYE 716 N 40TH AVE 4506 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32492 CONNIE J WHITE 4001 SUMMITVIEW AVE # 5 YAKIMA, WA 98908 1:1315 1406 D E P •'IPERT 2 01 '•AI HE YA WA ':902-4162 1:1315-31 08 D E P P'.P•RTIES 21.1 S NT 'ELE4 YA WA 9:'.2-4162 181315-33033 CYNDIA A THOMPSON 1013 MADISON AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315- 1407 D E P •'PERT NC 2.01 S I H ENS ST YA' 'r•, WA 98902-4162 181315-31409 D E P P OPERTI 21 1 S INT HELES YA , WA -9-'902-4162 . 181315-24424 DAMEN GARCIA 143 ROBERTS RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32452 DAVE & BECKY FRANKLIN 4604 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33467 DAVID L & JUANITA WILBURN 711 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24468 181315-32446 DAN K & ELIZABETH E PENHALLEGON DANIEL A & BROOKE L ALLEN DAV 4105 FECHTER RD 908 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA .98908-2431 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33036 DAVID A HEAD 4206 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32469 DAVID T. JOYNT 821 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32490 181315-32459 DENNIS E & ELISABETH V PEDEMONTE DILEEP & AMY DHRUVA 4606 CONESTOGA BLVD 4603 PHAETON PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32510 DONOVAN M & DIANE M YOUNG 913 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 989082423 181315-32494 DOUGLAS B & THERESA ALLEN 4504 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2425 181315-32432 DAVID C IRWIN 4406 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-34482 DELORES ROE 4202 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32491 DONALD & REMONA TRUHLICKA TRUE 4604 SONNESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34494 DOUGLAS L ROETHER 4302 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2683 181315-33034 181315-32508 181315-34458 DUANE L & CATHY L GARLOCK DUANE R & DOROTHY L BRODRICK KNI EDITH MC ARTHUR 4602 MODESTO WAY 909 CONESTOGA BLVD 4203A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2577 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2673 181315-34470 ELAINE M CAMPBELL 4300 MADERA WY # A YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 181315 FLtREN 4E 816 N YAKI 4419 2ND ^V WA 98908-2601 RYMAN • 181315-33012 181315-24422 ELDA MAE JOHNSON REVOCABLE LIVIN ERIC & BARBARA J CURETON 2805 BRACKETT AVE 4203 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32434 FRANCES A & THOMAS A CHAPPLE 910 N CONESTOGA- BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33415 FRANK T W ET UX COLE 616 N 46TH AVE 1 YAKIMA, WA 98908 L81315-32468 181315-34471 181315-23023 3EORGE J & SUSAN G VLAHAKIS JR GEORGE W FINDLEY REVOCABLE TRUST GERALD & DOLLY BUSEY 319 CARRIAGE HILL DR 4304 MADERA WAY 4307 FELLOWS DR (AKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 .81315-34496 ;ERALD A & ANNA M CARROLL ;11 N 43RD AVE 'AKIMA, WA 98908 81315-32437 ERALD N & DIANA L MELLEN 04 CONESTOGA BLVD AKIMA, WA 98908-2422 18 315-344 GELD A 611 YAKIMA, AVE WA 98908 181315-23018 181315-33472 ARLL GERALD N & CYNTHIA PERKIINC 724 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 DOC. INDEX # G -(5a 81315- 4418 GERALD W & JUDY ADAM e RAL( M V 7►1 S 27T E YAKIMA, WA 989082434 YA A, WA 98902 4501 FECHTER RD 181315-34495 181315-32513 . 181315-24447 GLORIA D HUTCHINSON GREGORY G CHIN FAMILY TRUST HAN CHOL & HYONG 0 KIM 703 N 44TH AVE 919 CONESTOGA BLVD 4305 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908.-2423 YAKIMA, WA 98908. • 181315-34484 181315-32511 181315-33474 HARLAND G & EVELYN M HOFER REV L HECTOR R FELIX HUGH MACGREGOR 613 N 43RD"AVE UNIT B 915 CONESTOGA BLVD PO BOX 4585 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA '98908 EL DORADO HILLS, California 9 181315-33475 GH ►" CGREI• BO 8 H PO EL 1n 181315-34035 181315-34459 INTERNATIONAL CHURCH FOURSQUARE JACK H & SHIRLEY L BARKER TRU 1910 W SUNSET BLVD #200 4203 B GARDEN PARKWAY ILLS, California 9576 LOS ANGELES, California 90026-01 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34480 JACK HARWOOD 4109A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-33407 JAMES & DONNA HOWELL 617 N 47TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24445 JACK I & MARY H LOVELL" 4301 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2208 181315-24464 JACK M & NATALIE G KING 4109 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2431 18 315-244 2 181315-32465 JA S ' BE ETT JAMES L & BONNIE P SCOGGINS 400 N. WOE 4603 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2619 1 -32498 181315-33484 181315-34491 JA S R. LANE JAMIE HELGELAND JANET E CAMPBELL 819 CONESTOGA BLVD 4500 MATTHEWS PL 700 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2420 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33482 81315-3483 JASON E GASSELING LIVING TRUST SON E a•SSEL 714 N 44TH AVE 71 N.44T AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YA , WA 181315-34481 JEFFREY & VIVIENNE GAMACHE 4109B GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 LNG TRUST 181315-34463 .JEFFREY T & TERESA L LOUMAN 4105 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31007 181 15-3 008 JERRY L & MARCIA L BLEVINS JER'Y L & MAR A :LEVINS 802 N 40TH AVE 802 OTH YAKIMA, WA 98908-2402 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2402 181315-34493 181315-32504 J0 VERNA-TRUSTE MONTGOMERY JOEL & JOAN WEYHE 51 : 3RD AVE 901 CONESTOGA BLVD DOC IA , WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 INDEX 1813.15-32430 JOHN E & PEGGY A MAXWELL 1410 CARRIAGE HILL DR 'AKIMA, WA 98908-2415 # 6 /5o 181315-33481 JASON P & VIRGINIA M MORGAN 4505 MATTHEWS PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33436 JERROLD A & SYLVIA JACOBY 4601 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33438 JOE & DELORES NUNEZ 4605 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32447 JOHN & DEBBI SPITLER REVOC LIV 906 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2418 181315-32470 JOHN F & JERRIILYN MAKINS 3305 W VIOLA YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-32405 JOHN G & ROBIN WATKINS 4411 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 181315-34415 JOHN H & GERALDINE VADIVER 701 S 27TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902-4032 18\1315 - JOHN H 701 S YAKI 1:1315-3 '13 JIHN H G RAL'I VANDIVER 70 S 7TH YA u., WA 9:•02-4032 3 i28 181315-33039 G-RALD Nt,y IVER • JOHN J ROME TH 712 N 44TH AVE WA 98902-4032 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32402 JOSH & JAEL HUIZAR 4405 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 181315-34411 KENNETH LEADER 627 ESTEE CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2628 181315-24444 LARRY & BARBARA KOREIS 4302 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32433 LEO & KAREN LEE 4404 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-32445 LISA J ZIGLER 910 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2418 181315-32435 KATHRYN I BLANKENSHIP 908 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2422 181315-32496 KENT A MC LACHLAN 815 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24420 LARRY R & BETTY DOUGLAS 4201 FLETCHER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24413 LESLIE C RUCKER 1013 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-32401 LOIS J WELKE 4403 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 181315-33435 181315-34465 LOUIS J & MARGARET E PETERSCHICK LYLE E & HELEN G BOND 808 N 46TH AVE 4108 GARDEN PARKWAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2401 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24426 NANUEL L LOZANO. 1206 FELLOWS DR i'AKIMA, WA 98908 L81315-33013 'ARY C KIRK 706 N 44TH AVE (AKIMA, WA 98908-2610 .81315-34416 4ERYL R HILL 902 SUNRISE PARK DR 'AKIMA, WA 98902-2262 181315-33437 MARIO M & JANE VILLANUEVA 4603 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2578 181315-32431 MATTHEW D & HOLLY J CHRISTENSEN 4408 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 DOC. 18'315-34 .7 JO N H & E" LDI'E VANDIVER 701 S 2 H A YAKI r•, WA 98902-4032 • 181315-34456 JOHNETTE SULLIVAN 4303 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34476 KAY LUCAS REVOCABLE LIVING TRI 225 19TH ST NE # 15 EAST WENATCHEE, WA 98802-4272 181315-24423 KENT C SEELIG 4204 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32497 LEE C & PATRICIA J CLARK 817 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33487 LINDA CHIN 4506 MATTHEWS PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-34487 LOUIE A & BARBARA HAUSER 4300B MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 181315-33035 LYNN & JEANNE SEAWARD REV LIVI 701 N 47TH AVE 1 YAKIMA, WA 98908 INDEX # _/5& 181315-32460 MARTIN K & SANDRA M DEVER 4605 PHAETON PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24450 MELICIEN TETTAMBEL 4302 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33473 MICHAEL & SUE GUNDERSON 720 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2610 181315-32404 MICHAEL B GEFFRE 4409 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 • 181315-34414 181315-32441 181315-34488 MI.CHAEL J & DEBRA L VAN HORN MICHAEL L & CYNTHIA G MCFARLAND MICHELLE FOLLANSBEE 401 SCHENK RD 909 COACH CT 700 N 42ND AVE # A TIETON, WA 98947 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2452 YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 • 181315-34490 MIKE & SHARON M LOVINING 4300 GARDEN PARK WY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32506 MILTON LEE & KARIE LYNN COOPER 905 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA,, WA 98908 181315-24434 181315 2443 NOMITA MEHTA N• IT EH 1018 FELLOWS DR 10 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAK 181315-32509 PATRICK A TRUE • 911 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 181315-33486 RACHEL ADLER 4504 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 1 32444 RI D L & LISA BALDOZ 912 COACH CT • YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32439 ROBERT H & KIMBERLY A WILKINS 4503 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33479 RON & TERESA JONES 715 N 46TH AVE fAKIMA, WA 98908 L81315-34492 20SIE A STOTSENBERG 1301 MADERA WAY (AKIMA, WA 98908-4306 S DR , WA 98908 181315-24449 PAUL F. HAMMERSTAD 805 N FRONT ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-32512 RAYMOND & ANITA A NAVARRO 917 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34036 MT ADAMS CATTLE CO 2101 SAINT HELENS ST YAKIMA, WA 98902-4162 181315-24446 PAJAH LLC 805 N FRONT ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-24417 PUCCINELLI REVOCABLE LIVING TF 4102 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32443 RICHARD J & ELIZABETH IRONS 913 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24472 181315-32462 RICK OEHRING ROBERT C MARTIN 8632 REFUGE POINT CIRCLE PO BOX 2667 NORTH CHARLESTON, South Carolina YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32464 ROBERT M & JUNE W WILKES 4601 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2428 181315-32503 RONALD V & LINDA J HATFIELD 829 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34478 RULON C BERGESON 4301A GARDEN PARK WAY "YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 181315-32463 ROBERT R & MARIE C NEWSTEAD 814 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2419 181315-32454 ROSEMARY FALON 4506 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2440 181315-34465 SARAJANE GORGURA 613 N 43RD AVE # A -YAKIMA, WA 98908 .81315-32436 181315-32403 181315-24415 ;COT LARSON STAN K & JACQUELINE KORESKI BIRD STEPHEN P & KAREN L HARRISON )06 STOGA BLVD 4407 CARRIAGE HILL DR 1019 FELLOWS DR 'AK WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 YAKIMA, WA 98908 DOC. INDEX 81315-33485 181315-3250581315 3038 TEVEN B & TERESA AHERRERA THERESE C. HAMM # 6-154 ► OMA DOL' RES GASSELING 502 MATTHEWS 903 CONESTOGA BLVD. 7 e N 44 E AKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 YAK A, WA 98908 181315-32466 THOMAS E & LOIS H NELSON 815 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32429 TIMOTHY G & LYNN M GELLERSON 4506 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2417 181315-34455 TRAVIS L & SANDRA D RUNDELL REV 4305 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34486 VERNA E KING 701 N 42ND AVE # B YAKIMA, WA 98908-4317 18.1315-32500 WAYNE E & COLLETTE M HEFFNER JR 823 CONESTOGA YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34489 WILLIAM J & GLORIA CHURCH 700B N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 181315-32461 WILLIAM W & KIMBERLY K FETZER 4604 PHAETON PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-42406 YAKIMA VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 2811 TIETON DR YAKIMA, WA 98902 188 labels pA,i.nted 4:12 4541 1%"l� (/O) 181315-32467 THOMAS R. DDS ROSIER 817 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31011 TOSCANNA LLC 200 GALLOWAY DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-9023 181315-32457 TREVOR L T & MELANIE M GREENE 826 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2421 181315-32453 VIVIAN & SHAWN C LOUDON 4602 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2442 181315-32514 WILLIAM & MACILE-TR COWMAN 921 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32455 WILLIAM M III ELLIS PO BOX 62 LILLIWAUP, WA 98555-0062 11315 495 Y KIM• C IY 122ND YAKIMA, WA 98901-2613 181315-32507 YUN G & AE S CHOI 907 CONESTOGA BLVD I YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 for map sheet toscanna 1 :131 T OMA PO B YAK A, WA 98909-1974 ON L RIDOUT 181315-34037 T. CANN 20GA 0 YAK' LC Y DR . WA 98908-9023 181315-24432 TYRONE F RODRIGUEZ 4203 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 81315-32458 ALTE BA 8 4 ••N TO' A YA A, 98908 • LATER 181315-32440 WILLIAM D & ANNA M MAHONEY 905 COACH COURT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24425 WILLIAM P & TERI L FOSTE 4207 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31401 YAKIMA COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDI PO BOX 2707 YAKIMA, WA 98907-2707 DOC. INDEX # 6-f5 Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5960TM Tom Clayton 902 Carriage Hill Drive ma, WA 98908 Chad Hatfield P.O. Box 22550 Yakima, WA 98907 R 46 Ya bert & Jan M. -tin 2 P eton P at e A :90 Geo Olson 4503 Fechter Road Yakima, WA 98908 The Casey Group 5521 100th Street SW, Ste. A Lakewood, WA 98499 • Etiouettes faciles peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5960Mc �reed raper for Easy Peel Feature V4w wQ v v-vDivvy ••-• Dan & Mary Jane Craiger 4508 Fechter Road Yakima, WA 98908 Dan Johnson 1102 Fellows Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Mel Moore 904 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA.98908 Rick Wehr 1120 West Lincoln Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 Cindy Noble 5609 West Arlington Yakima, WA 98908 Sens de chargement Melda Follett! 816 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Jerrilyn & John Makins 823 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Charles Northrup 802 North 40th Ave. #19 Yakima, WA 98908 Toscanna Development 12419 172nd Street E, NN103 Puyallup, WA 98374 DOC. INDEX # G-l5e Consultez la feuille www.avery.com dinstruction 1 -800 -GO -AVERY OD -RG, SEPA Reviewer Army Corps PO Box c-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Cascade Natural Gas 701 S. 1s' Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 N 9'h St. Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of Transportation Planning Engineer 2809 Rudkin Road Union Gap, WA 98903 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6`h Ave. MS 623 Seattle, WA 98101 FAA 2200 W. Washington Yakima, WA 98903 Yakima Greenway Foundation 111 S. 181" St. Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima School District Superintendent 104 N. 461 Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima Airport Manager 2400 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 Ahtanum Irrigation District P.O. Boz 563 Yakima, WA 98907 Dept. of Natural Resources 713 Bowers Rd Ellensburg, WA 98926 Dept of Soc/Health Service Capital Programs Ofc. Bldg#2 MS OB -23B Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Health Michelle Vazquez 1500 W. 4th Ave. St. 305 Spokane, WA 99204 Tom McAvoy Q -West 8 S. 2nd Ave. Room 304 Yakima, WA 98902 West Valley School District Attn: Peter Ansingh 8902 Zier Road Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima Co Health Dist 1210 Ahtanum Ridge Drive Union Gap, WA 98903 Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Chuck Hagerhjelm WA State Emergency Mgmt. Div. Mitigation, Analysis & Planning Mgr Building 20 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122 Yakama Indian Nation Cultural Resources Program Johnson Meninick, Mgr PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 YVCOG Transportation Planner 311 N. 4th Street STE 2L,, INDEX WA 98901 INDEX # 6-/.5'. Mr. Greg Griffith Div. of Archeol & Hist. Pres. PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Attorney Gen. Office 1433 Lakeside Ct. Ste102 Yakima, WA 98902 City of Union Gap PO Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Gary W. Pruitt Clean Air Authority 329 North 1st Street Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Lee Faulconer Dept. of Agriculture PO Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Gwen Clear Dept of Ecology 15 W. Yakima Ave. St. 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Nob Hill Water Co 6111 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Pacific Power Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of CTED Growth Management Services PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Yakama Indian Nation Environmental Protection Prog. Moses Segouches PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 • • Mr. Doug Mayo 0 water Treatment Plant Yakima County Commissioners Mr. Vern Redifer Yakima County Public Services Mr. Bill Bailey Yakima Cnty Dev. Serv. Ctr. Mr. Steven Erickson Yakima County Planning • Federal Aviation Administration Cayla Morgan, Airport Planner Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055-4056 Ruth Jim Yakama Tribal Council PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Mr. Scott Nicolai Yakama Indian Nation -Fisheries PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Soil Conservation Dist Attn: Ray Wondercheck 1606 Perry St Suite F Yakima, WA 98902 Environmental Coordinator Bureau of Indian Affairs PO Box 632 Toppenish, WA 98948 Mr. Marty Miller Office of Farm Worker Housing 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98902 Eric Bartrand Dept. of Fisheries 1701 S. 24`'' Ave Yakima, WA 98902 WSDOT Aviation Division John Shambaugh P.O. Box 3367 Arlington, WA 98223 John Baugh Yakima Valley Museum 2105 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 DOC. INDEX # -� 5a In -House Distribution List Royale Schneider City Legal Codes Mike Antijunti Carolyn Belles Engineering - Codes Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Ron Melcher Fire Dept. Bill Cook Director, CED DECISIONS ONLY City Clerk DECISIONS ONLY Sandy Cox Codes DECISIONS ONLY Joan Davenport Binder Office of Neighborhood and Traffic Engineering DECISIONS ONLY Development Services Jerry Robertson Codes For the RECORD / FILE DOC. INDEX # 6 -154_ • • NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S INTERIM DECISION September 25, 2008 On September 22, 2008 the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner issued his Interim Decision regarding the proposed Toscanna Project (City File Number(s): UAZO CL(3) #7-08, CL(2) #20- 08, Adm Adj #16-08, EC #19-08, and SEPA APPEAL #4-08 The Hearing Examiner will reconvene the Hearing on this matter on Tuesday, October 21 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Council Chambers, 129 N Second Street, Yakima WA. Please refer to the attached interim decision for more information. ® For further information or assistance you may contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575-6162. Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner Date of Mailing: September 25, 2008 Enclosure: Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision DOC. INDEX # -/� Gary M. Cuillier ATTORNEY AT LAW 314 N. SECOND STREET YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 September 22, 2008 Yakima City Planning Division Attn: Rosalinda 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 (509) 575-1800 FAX: (509) 452-4601 RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2008 CIEN°,JAI7MA Y pIV. Re: Hearing Examiner's Decision Envizage Development Group, UAZO CL (3) #7-08, UAZO CL (2) #20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ #16-08, EC #19-08, SEPA APPEAL #4-08 Dear Rosalinda: Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding the above -entitled matter. The hearing was on August 14, 2008 and an extension was requested to provide additional information. The request was granted until September 8, 2008 by an interim decision dated August 21, 2008 and this decision has been issued within ten business days of September 8, 2008. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, ; GARY M. CUILLIER GMC: bvv Enclosure cc: Vicki Adams, Yakima County Planning Department, w/ Enclosure Pat Spurgin, City of Yakima Pro Tem Hearing Examiner, w/ Enclosure DOC. INDEX # 6-/5 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: CL(3)#7-08, CL(2)#20-08, ADM ADJ#16-08 Toscanna/Envizage Development Group 4200 block of Castlevale Road I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant, and parties of record, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on this 25th day of August, 2008. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist DOC. INDEX 181315-31403 917 TRIPLE CROWN LLC 917 TRIPLE CROWN WAY # 20 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33416 ALLEN F & DONNA J FEARON 618 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2501 181315-24473 ANDREW M & WILMA JEAN MERVOS 4108 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24442 ARNO L & JOYCE L PELL JOHNSON 4306 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33466 BETTY ANN VAN RYDER 807 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2467 181315-33478 BRUCE S & DIANE N CROCKETT 713 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34472 CAROL L SIPES 4303 MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4306 181315-24414 CHARLES G SCOTT 4107 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32502 2LIFFORD P & MARGARET KNOBEL 301 TENNANT LN i'AKIMA, WA 98901-3727 181315-31405 ) E P PROPERTIES INC ?101 SAINT HELENS ST 'AKIMA, WA 98902-4162 8 315-31418 E P PRO'E''IES INC 1 1315 31408 181315 314' D P PRO ES IN� D P PRO' RTI I 101 Al HE. NS ST 210 SAI HEL ST 210' SAI. HELENS ST AKIMA, A 9890 -4162 YAKI WA 98902-4162 YAKI A 98902-4162 181315-32499 AIDA 0 GARCIA 821 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32456 AMAL Y SEIF 828 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34464 ANNA M & WILLIAMS SCHROEDER 4103 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-34423 AUDREY M JOLLEY 617 N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2603 181315-34477 BLANCHE L FORTIER 4201 GARDEN PK WY B YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34462 BURTON & LAURA LEIGH POWERS 4107 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 989082629 181315-34479 CAROLINE PURDON 4301B GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 181315-33480 ALISON & RACHEL A RIEGERT 4507 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32442 111/1 ANATOLE & ELIZABETH KIM 911 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32501 ANTHONY R & LORI T THOMAS 5808 SUMMITVIEW AVE STE A YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31402 BAKER BOYER BANK PO BOX 1263 YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32400 BRUCE A LAWRENCE 918 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24443 C. DEAN & GERALDINE AME 4304 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2207 • 181315-34483 CHARLES F& SHIRLEY M BELFIELD 701 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34034 181315-32493 CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER CHURCH OF CLAUDE M & PAULA SLAYE 716 N 40TH AVE 4506 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32492 CONNIE J WHITE 4001 SUMMITVIEW AVE # 5 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33033 CYNDIA A THOMPSON 1013 MADISON AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-31416 181315-31407 D E P PROD P PROP TIE 21'1 SAIH .ENS ST 2111 SAI HELEN YA 'MA, A 989b- 4162 YA M' A 98902-4162 181315-24424 DAMEN GARCIA 143 ROBERTS RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32452 DAVE & BECKY FRANKLIN. 4604 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33467 DAVID L & JUANITA WILBURN 711 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24468 181315-32446 DAN K & ELIZABETH E PENHALLEGOr DANIEL A & BROOKE L ALLEN DAV 4105 FECHTER RD 908 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2431 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33036 DAVID A HEAD '4206 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32469 • DAVID T. JOYNT 821 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32432 DAVID C IRWIN 4406 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-34482 DELORES ROE 4202 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32490 181315-32459 181315-32491 DENNIS E & ELISABETH V PEDEMONTE DILEEP & AMY DHRUVA DONALD & REMONA TRUHLICKA TRU: 4606 CONESTOGA BLVD 4603 PHAETON PL 4604 SONNESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32510 DONOVAN M & DIANE M YOUNG 913 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 989082423 181315-32494 DOUGLAS B & THERESA ALLEN 4504 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2425 181315-34494 DOUGLAS L ROETHER 4302 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2683 1 -33034 181315-32508 181315-34458 DUA L & CATHY L GARLOCK DUANE R & DOROTHY L BRODRICK KNI EDITH MC ARTHUR 4602 MODESTO WAY 909 CONESTOGA BLVD 4203A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2577 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2673 181315-34470 ELAINE M CAMPBELL 4300 MADERA WY # A YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 181315-33012 181315-24422 ELDA MAE JOHNSON REVOCABLE LIVIN ERIC & BARBARA J CURETON 2805 BRACKETT AVE 4203 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18 315-3 41 , ("' 181315-32434 181315-33415' FL REN E. UNTRYMAN FRANCES A & THOMAS A CHAPPLE FRANK T W ET UX COLE 61 N 2ND AVE 910 N CONESTOGA BLVD 616 N 46TH AVE YAK , WA 98908-2601 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32468 181315-34471 181315-23023 GEORGE J & SUSAN G VLAHAKIS JR GEORGE W FINDLEY.REVOCABLE TRUST GERALD & DOLLY BUSEY 819 CARRIAGE HILL DR 4304 MADERA WAY 4307 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34496 181315- ,4 3EA & ANNA M CARROLL GE LD & • N' M CARROLL 51 3RD AVE 611 3RD A (AK WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 .81315-32437 3ERALD N & DIANA L MELLEN )04 CONESTOGA BLVD 'AKIMA, WA 98908-2422 181315-23018 GERALD W & JUDY ADAMS 4501 FECHTER-RD YAKIMA, WA 989082434 181315-33472 GERALD N & CYNTHIA PERKINS HIN 724'N 44TH A\O`'' YAKIMA, WA 918,08y 181315-34418 GERALDINE M VANDIVER 701 S 27TH AVE YAKIMA. WA 98902 181315-34495 181315-32513 181315-24447 GLORIA D HUTCHINSON - GREGORY G CHIN FAMILY TRUST HAN CHOL & HYONG 0 KIM 703 N 44TH AVE 919 CONESTOGA BLVD 4305 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34484 181315-32511 HARLAND G & EVELYN M HOFER REV L HECTOR R FELIX 613 N 43RD AVE UNIT B 915 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-33474 HUGH MACGREGOR PO BOX 4585 EL DORADO HILLS, California 9 181315-33475 181315-34035 181315-34459 HU H MAC GOR INTERNATIONAL CHURCH FOURSQUARE JACK H & SHIRLEY L BARKER TRU: PO OX 585 1910 W SUNSET BLVD #200 4203 B GARDEN PARK WAY EL DO HILLS, California 9576 LOS ANGELES, California 90026-01 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34480 JACK HARWOOD 4109A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-24445 JACK I & MARY H LOVELL 4301 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2208 181315-24464 JACK M & NATALIE G KING 4109 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2431 181315-33407 1P1315-2 12 1r 181315-32465 JAMES & DONNA HOWELL JAMES D B KET JAMES L & BONNIE P SCOGGINS 617 N 47TH AVE 4102 'GLE 4603 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YA. , WA 98908-2619 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32498 JAMES R. LANE 819 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2420 181315-33482 JASON E GASSELING LIVING TRUST 714 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34481 JEFFREY & VIVIENNE GAMACHE 4109B GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-31007 JERRY L & MARCIA L BLEVINS 902 N 40TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2402 181315-33484 JAMIE HELGELAND 4500 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 1 315-3 JAON E 714 TH AV YAKI WA 98908 NG TRUST 181315-34463 JEFFREY T & TERESA L LOUMAN 4105 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181 15-31008 JER L :CIA B EVINS 802 ! H AV YAKIMA, WA 98908-2402 L81315-34493 181315-32504 JOE D & VERNA-TRUSTE MONTGOMERY JOEL & JOAN WEYHE 110 N 43RD AVE 901 CONESTOGA BLVD AKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 81315-32430 "OHN E & PEGGY A MAXWELL 410 CARRIAGE HILL DR "AKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-32470 JOHN F & JERRIILYN MAKINS 3305 W VIOLA YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-34491 JANET E CAMPBELL 700 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33481 JASON P & VIRGINIA M MORGAN 4505 MATTHEWS PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33436 JERROLD A & SYLVIA JACOBY 4601 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33438 JOE & DELORES NUNEZ 4605 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32447 JOHN & DEBBI SPITLER REV IV 906 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 9�®�24l8 INDEX #-/`{Gt 181315-32405 JOHN G & ROBIN WATKINS 4411 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA. WA 98908-241F 181315-34415 JOH H & G 701 . 27T AVE YAKI ►-, A 98902-4032 18 315-3 3 / \� JO N H GE .sLDINH' VANDIVER 701 5 27TH AV YAKIMA, WA 98902-4032 181315-34 181315-33039 JO . H GE —-INE VANDIVER JOHN J ROME 701 7TH AVE 712 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902-4032 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32402 JOSH & JAEL HUIZAR 4405 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 181315-34411 KENNETH LEADER 627 ESTEECT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2628 181315-24444 'LARRY & BARBARA KOREIS 4302 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 18 —32433 LEO KAREN LEE 4404 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-32445 LISA J ZIGLER 910 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2418 181315-32435 KATHRYN I BLANKENSHIP 908 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2422 181315-32496 KENT A MC LACHLAN 815 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA. 98908 181315-24420 LARRY R & BETTY DOUGLAS 4201 FLETCHER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24413 LESLIE C RUCKER 1013 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-32401 LOIS J WELKE 4403 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 181315-33435 181315-34465 L.OUIS J & MARGARET E PETERSCHICK LYLE E & HELEN G BOND 308 N 46TH AVE 4108 GARDEN PARKWAY (AKIMA, WA 98908-2401, YAKIMA, WA 98908 .81315-24426 4ANUEL L LOZANO :206 FELLOWS DR 'AKIMA, WA 98'908 181315-3441 JOH H & ••-' 'E VANDIVER 701 2 AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902-4032 181315-34456 JOHNETTE SULLIVAN 4303 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34476 KAY LUCAS REVOCABLE LIVING TRI 225 19TH ST NE # 15 EAST WENATCHEE, WA 98802-4272 181315-24423 KENT C SEELIG 4204.DONALD'DR I YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32497 LEE C & PATRICIA J CLARK 817 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33487 LINDA CHIN 4506 MATTHEWS PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34487 LOUIE A & BARBARA HAUSER 4300B MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 181315-33035 LYNN & JEANNE SEAWARD REV LIVI: 701 N 47TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33437 181315-32460 MARIO M & JANE VILLANUEVA MARTIN K & SANDRA M DEVER 4603 MODESTO WAY 4605 PHAETON PL YAKIMA, WA 98908-2578 YAKIMA, WA 98908 8131 —33013 181315-32431 181315-24450 (AR IRK MATTHEW D & HOLLY J CHRISTENSEN MELICIEN TETTAMBEL 06 TH AVE 4408 CARRIAGE HILL DR 4302 SCENIC DR,,,,,„ AK WA 98908-2610 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989. • INDEX 81315-34416 ERYL R HILL 902 SUNRISE PARK DR AKIMA, WA 98902-2262 181315-33473 MICHAEL & SUE GUNDERSON 720 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2610 181315-32404 MICHAEL B GEFFRE 4409 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA. WA 9R9()R-741F 181315-34414 MICHAEL J & DEBRA L VAN HORN 401 SCHENK RD TIETON, WA 98947 181315-34490 MIKE & SHARON M LOVINING 4300 GARDEN PARK WY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24434 NOMITA MEHTA 1018 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32509 PATRICK A TRUE 911 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 181315-33486 RACHEL ADLER 4504 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32444 RICHARD L & LISA BALDOZ 912 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32439 ROBERT H & KIMBERLY A WILKINS 4503 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33479 RON & TERESA JONES 715 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34492 2OSIE A STOTSENBERG 1301 MADERA WAY (AKIMA, WA 98908-4306 L81315-32436 SCOTT M LARSON )06 CONESTOGA BLVD AKIMA, WA 98908 81315-33485 TEVEN B & TERESA A HERRERA 502 MATTHEWS AKIMA. WA 98908 181315-32441 181315-34488 MICHAEL L & CYNTHIA G MCFARLAND MICHELLE FOLLANSBEE 909 COACH CT 700 N 42ND AVE # A YAKIMA, WA 98908-2452 YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 181315-32506 MILTON LEE & KAREE LYNN COOPER 905 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 18 15-2 NO ITA M 101 YAKIM 181315-34036 MT ADAMS CATTLE CO 2101 SAINT HELENS ST YAKIMA, WA 98902-4162 181315-24446 PAJAH LLC LOW DR 805 N FRONT ST , WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-24449 PAUL F. HAMMERSTAD 805 N FRONT ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-32512 RAYMOND & ANITA A NAVARRO 917 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-24417 PUCCINELLI REVOCABLE LIVING TF 4102 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32443 RICHARD J & ELIZABETH IRONS 913 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24472 181315-32462 RICK OEHRING ROBERT C MARTIN 8632 REFUGE POINT CIRCLE PO BOX 2667 NORTH CHARLESTON, South Carolina YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32464 ROBERT M & JUNE W WILKES 4601 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2428 181315-32503 RONALD V & LINDA J HATFIELD 829 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34478 RULON C BERGESON 4301A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 181315-32463 ROBERT R & MARIE C NEWSTEAD 814 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2419 181315-32454 ROSEMARY FALON 4506 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2440 181315-34485 SARAJANE GORGURA 613 N 43RD AVE # A YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32403 181315-24415 STAN K & JACQUELINE KORESKI BIRD STEPHEN P & KAREN L HAR 4407 CARRIAGE HILL DR 1019 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 YAKIMA, WA 98908 DOC. INDEX 181315-32505 181315-33038 THERESE C. HAMM ' GL TH• AS & DO.'RES 1 SSELING 903 CONESTOGA BLVD 4 N 44T. AVE YAKIMA. WA 98908-2423 YAKI` . A 98908 181315-32466 THOMAS E & LOIS. H NELSON 815 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32429 TIMOTHY G & LYNN M GELLERSON 4506 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2417 181315-34455 TRAVIS L & SANDRAD RUNDELL REV 4305 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34486 VERNA E KING 701 N 42ND AVE # B YAKIMA, WA 98908-4317 181315-32500 WAYNE E & COLLETTE M HEFFNER JR 823 CONESTOGA YAKIMA, WA 98908 1 -34489 WI M J & GLORIA CHURCH 700B N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 181315-32461 WILLIAM W & KIMBERLY K FETZER 4604 PHAETON PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32467 THOMAS R. DDS ROSIER 817 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 Dave Sjule Envizage Development Group 181315-31011 TOSCANNA LLC 200 GALLOWAY DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-9023 181315-32457 TREVOR L T (c- MELANIE M GREENE 826 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2421 181315-32453 VIVIAN & SHAWN C LOUDON 4602 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2442 181315-32514 WILLIAM & MACILE-TR COWMAN 921 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32455 WILLIAM M III ELLIS PO BOX 62 LILLIWAUP, WA 98555-0062 18 315-3 495 YA IMA I Y 129 N D YAKI , WA 98901-2613 181315-42406 181315-32507 YAKIMA VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL YUN G & AE S CHOI 2811 TIETON DR 907 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 188 labels printed for map sheet b ,eue C(1)LOLP6Ii)) -ct° 18 TH PO YAK 315-32 MAS W OX S 0974 , WA 98909-1974 Oro RIDOUT 181315-3 TO CAN 20& Ga LOWA• DR YAK A, WA 98908-9023 181315-24432 TYRONE F RODRIGUEZ 4203 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181 15-32 8 WA TER 824 t IESTO YAKIMA, WA 98908 LATER 181315-32440 WILLIAM D & ANNA M MAHONEY 905 COACH COURT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24425 WILLIAM P & TERI L FOSTER 4207 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31401 YAKIMA COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDI PO BOX 2707 YAKIMA, WA 98907-2707 Keith Basham Zbscanna Development 12419 172nd Street E, NN103 Puyallup, WA 98374 The Casey Group 5521 100th Street SW, Ste A Lakewood, WA 98499 DOC. INDEX Zbm Clayton 902 Carriage 1i Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Dan & Mary Jane Craiger 4508 Fechter Road Yakima,WA 98908 Melda Follett 816 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Chad Hatfield P.O. Box 22550 Yakima, WA 98907 Dan Johnson 1102 Fellows Drive - Yakima, WA 98908 Jerrilyn & John Makins 823 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Robert & Jan Martin 4602 Phaeton Place Yakima, WA 98908 Mel Moore 904 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Charles Northrup 802 North- 40th Ave #19 Yakima, WA 98908 Geo Olson 4503 Fechter Road Yakima, WA 98908 PLSA Attn: Rick Wehr 1120 West' L,ircoln Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 DOC. INDEX • OD -RG, SEPA Reviewer Army Corps P c-3755 S WA 98124 Sheila Ross Cascade Natural Gas 701 S. Il' Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 N 9`'' St. Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of Transportation Planning Engineer 2809 Rudkin Road Union Gap, WA 98903 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Ave. MS 623 SO. WA 98101 FAA 2200 W. Washington Yakima, WA 98903 Yakima Greenway Foundation 111 S. 18`'' St. Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima School District Attn: Ben Soria 104 N. 4th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mr. Buck Taylor Yakima Airport 2400 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 A i, Irrigation District P.O. Box 563 Yakima, WA 98907 Dept. of Natural Resources 713 Bowers Rd Ellensburg, WA 98926 Dept of Soc/Health Service Capital Programs Ofc. Bldg#2 MS OB -23B Olympia, WA' 98504 Dept. of Health Michelle Vazquez 1500 W. 4`h Ave. St. 305 Spokane, WA 99204 Tom McAvoy Q -West 8 S. 2nd Ave. Room 304 Yakima, WA 98902 WV School District Attn: Peter Ansingh 8902 Zier Road Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima Co Health Dist Art McKuen 1210 Ahtanum Ridge Drive Union Gap, WA 98903 Department of Ecology Environ Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Chuck Hagerhjelm WA State Emergency Mgmt. Div. Mitigation, Analysis & Planning Mgr Building 20 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122 Cultural Resources Program Johnson Meninick, Mgr Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Transportation Planner YVCOG _ 311 N. 4`'' Street STE 20DOC, Yakima, WA 98901 INDEX # C -11/4L. Mr. Greg Griffith Div. of Archeol & Hist. Pres. PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Attorney Gen. Office 1433 Lakeside Ct. Ste102 Yakima, WA 98902 City of Union Gap PO Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Gary W. Pruitt. Clean Air Authority 6 S. 2nd St., Room 1016 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Lee Faulconer Dept. of Agriculture PO Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Gwen Clear Dept of Ecology 15 W. Yakima Ave. St. 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Nob Hill Water Co 6111 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Pacific Power Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of CTED Growth Management Services PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Mose Segouches Yakama Indian Nation Environmental Protection Prog. PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Mr. Doug Mayo Wastewater Treatment Plant Yakima County Commissioners Mr. Vern Redifer Yakima County Public Services Mr. Bill Bailey Yakima Cnty Dev. Serv. Ctr. Mr. Steven Erickson Yakima County Planning Federal Aviation Administration Cayla Morgan, Airport Planner Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055-4056 Ruth Jim • Yakama Tribal Council PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Mr. Scott Nicolai Yakama Indian Nation -Fisheries PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Soil Conservation Dist Attn: Ray Wondercheck 1606 Perry St Suite F Yakima, WA 98902 Environmental Coordinator Bureau of Indian Affairs PO Box 632 Toppenish, WA 98948 • Mr. Marty Miller Office of Farm Worker Housing 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98902 EricBartrand Dept. of Fisheries 1701 S. 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 WSDOT Aviation Division John Shambaugh P.O. Box 3367 Arlington, WA 98223 John Baugh Yakima Valley Museum 2105 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 DOC. INDEX • Mike Antijunti Engineering Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Joan Davenport Traffic Engineering Jerry Robertson 1N -HOUSE DISTRIBUTION LISW City Legal Carolyn Belles Codes Ron Melcher Fire Dept. Office of Neighborhood and Development Services For the RECORD / FILE Bill Cook Director, CED DECISIONS ONLY City Clerk DECISIONS ONLY Sandy Cox Codes DECISIONS ONLY Binder DECISIONS ONLY DOC. INDEX NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S INTERIM DECISION August 25, 2008 On August 14, 2008 the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner held an open record public hearing for CL (3) #7-08, CL (2) #20-08 and ADM ADJ #16-08. The application was submitted by Envizage Development Group, to construct a residential development called "Toscanna" which consists of 84 duplex units and 96 apartment units in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. During the hearing, the Hearing Examiner left the record open to submit additional information until 5:00 pm on August 21, 2008. Requests were submitted to the Hearing Examiner by both the City and by attorney Chad Hatfield to extend the time period to allow the City to fully research and locate documents related to hearings that occurred around 12 years ago. The Hearing Examiner is leaving the record open until 5:00 pm on Monday, September 8, 2008, to allow time to research these documents and submit any additional comments. Please submit any additional comments to Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner, 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington, 98901. For further information or assistance you may contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575-6162. Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner Date of Mailing: August 25, 2008 Enclosure: Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision • - DOC: INDEX City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision August 21, 2008 In the Matter of an Application for ) Class (3) Uses, Class (2) Uses and an ) Administrative Adjustment Submitted by: ) ) Envizage Development Group ) Fora Mixture of Duplex & Apartment Units and a Rear Yard -Setback Administrative Adjustment in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts RECEIVED AUG 21 Me PLAN NIF jG DIVA UAZO CL (3) #7-08 UAZO CL (2) #20-08 UAZO ADM ADJ #16-08 Introduction. The Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on August 14, 2008. Testimony at the public hearing raised an issue as to the intent of the Yakima City Council and the representations made to neighboring property owners as to the type of development that wouldbe compatible and allowed on the subject property here proposed for development. The Examiner closed the hearing, but allowed anyone with further information by way of videotapes, audiotapes and other documents created at or before the property was zoned R-1 and R-2 one week to submit them to Assistant Planner Joseph Calhoun for inclusion into the record and for forwarding to the Examiner for review. Receipt of Request for Additional Time. This date the Examiner received a request Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run Interim Decision Extending Time CL (3) #7-08; CL (2) #20-08; ADM. ADJ. #16-08 1 DOC. INDEX # -i4 RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2008 CITY OF YAKIM� PLANNING DIV, for additional time from attorney Chad Hatfield who has not yet received tapes of City Council meetings that were requested. The Examiner also this date received a request from Assistant City Attorney Helen Harvey asking that the record remain open until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, September 8, 2008 to allow the City to fully research the matter, locate the records and respond to the public records request received from John Puccinelli which includes a request for videotapes, audiotapes and documentation relative to hearings that occurred about 12 years ago in 1996. Interim Decision. Realizing that it takes a significant amount of effort and time to research, locate and reproduce videotapes, audiotapes and documents relative to hearings that occurred about 12 years ago and viewing those items to be relevant to this matter, the Examiner grants the City's request and Mr. Hatfield's request for additional time, and asks that a copy of this Interim Decision be sent to the parties of record in this matter so that they will all be aware that they also have until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, September 8, 2008 to submit any additional evidence of the type requested that may be in their possession to Mr. Calhoun at the City Planning Division, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington 98901. DATED this 21st day of August, 2008. Envizage Development Group Toscanna Development of Duplexes and Apartments at Castlevale Rd./Seattle Slew Run Interim Decision Extending Time CL (3) #7-08; CL (2) #20-08; ADM. ADJ. #16-08 2 Gary M. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner DOC: INDEX # , "IL • 0 0 Harvey, Helen From: Harvey, Helen Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:05 PM To: 'Tcbec@aol.com' Subject: RE: Toscanna Development Hearing Examiner Cuillier: Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED AUG 2 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. The City respectfully requests additional time to locate and produce historical information that you requested at the hearing and to fully research, locate records, and respond to a public records request the City recently received from John Puccinelli which includes a request for documentation and videotapes and audiotapes, if they exist, from hearings on the property that occurred approximately twelve years ago — for example, in' June of 1996. The City respectfully requests that the record remain open for all the parties involved in this matter for an additional period of time until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, September 8, 2008. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Helen Harvey Helen A. Harvey Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Yakima Legal Department 200 South Third Street Yakima, Wa 98901-2830 (509) 576-6324 or 575-6030 (509) 575-6160 (Fax) From: Tcbgc©aol.com [mailto:Tcbec@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:33 PM To: Harvey, Helen Subject: Toscanna Development Helen -- In response to an inquiry today from the Yakima City Attorney's Office asking whether additional time may be requested to locate and provide tapes and/or other documentation regarding the City Council's intent and/or representations when the subject property for the proposed Toscanna Development was rezoned to R-1 and R-2, and also in response to an inquiry I just received from Chad Hatfield asking for another week because the tapes have been located but not yet provided, please let me know if you would need more than the week he has requested to provide the tapes and/or documentation and l will grant the request because I am interested in having as much information as possible to review in this regard. I will provide a copy of this e-mail to Mr. Hatfield and will follow up with a short Interim Decision as soon as I know if you need more than a week, which I will deliver to the Planning Division today or tomorrow to be mailed to all parties of record so all parties on both sides of the issues would know that they have more time to supply the documentation. Gary Cuillier, Hearing Examiner It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. 8/22/2008 DOC, INDEX # 6-43 Helen -- In response to an inquiry today from the Yakima City Attorney's Office asking whether additional time may be requested to locate and provide tapesand/or other documentation regarding the City Council's intent and/or representations when the subject property for the proposed Toscanna Development was rezoned to R-1 and R-2, and also in response to an inquiry I just received from Chad Hatfield asking for another week because the tapes have been located but not yet provided, please let me know if you would need more than the week he has requested to provide the tapes and/or documentation and I will grant the request because I am interested in having as much information as possible to review in this regard. I will provide a copy of this e-mail to Mr. Hatfield and will follow up with a short Interim Decision as soon as I know if you need more than a week, which I will deliver to the Planning Division today or tomorrow to be mailed to all parties of record so all parties on both sides of the issues would know that they have more time to supply the documentation. Gary Cuillier, Hearing Examiner 1;1° N.I`w HA rye, ,)01)r sa r.,J 1% 1) to_ •'2,1 -D8 e4' /;.:3-(pahl. Thursday, August 21, 2008 AOL: Tcbgc • RSCalVID S Ma PLANNING OM DOC. INDEX HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS HEARING DATE: Thursday August 14, 2008 CASE FILE # APPLICANT SITE ADDRESS .; A. UAZO CL(3)#7 -08 UAZO CL(2)#20-08 ADM ADJ#16-08 EC#19-08 SEPA APPEAL#4-08 .Toscana Development Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill. SEPA Appeal 4200 block Castlevale B. PRE LONG PLAT#2-08 EC#6-08 Yakima Development Plat of "Applebrook" 7402 Coolidge Road PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY! Please indicate which proposal you are interested in: A or B. Page 1 of C \Cid cock L) CQ B@ qc 9a&/ CASE NAME ADDRESS . ` ..: 21P. CODE 14- e- C: (/,�A cc/7 Gos4-s d p,. b 1d 761 'i A R.ki.c.0 00 K- (6)7 Cc,AC7S 0 � X04 cre9og✓ Al< ,‘ , { f36.5 G^ 0, p 0 et - zg(8- g4e,„ Are Idget 98'76s7✓ 4 .; r� d2/ 1 '9 I& //i6A • 705 I) yy C rya g ✓ -17 � �D i 45 i? F� 5� --�' � 4- „tifir4.4,1 <Poa -Dee #3IkI biL 99908 Ng rv)Ef vfs 4168 /)oNA/4' L7) 4g z)0 A ' K. 4 4 votr +.:-- mop z Lc( ) -4A,)- k 1 es c4 C3t .2c. i ()E- A. ,1t 744,,yo 3 . k g0 cl., 5,NNq C q05 Gd�,rc7 c�C7idJ /4' 8/4 6! =i0 gcth-c_.0_4-it, 9t ., /.,;`. 9e9,0 f-. S LA- d& R I e./JL ',o 1.-07 997 mi- e)rk-kr0ocp [A-9-0 ( -7-5,-c,4_>Te Qo p u 7 __, - too pviiiit) i'l %g5. Jo /' " 1 igi - / ' / ji L A -- d / v ✓ b 1 14 m lr `i13 'Coo Gam► 14.1/D Q ,✓' Page 1 of C \Cid cock L) CQ B@ qc 9a&/ HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS HEARING DATE: Thursday August 14, 2008 CASE FILE # APPLICANT SITE ADDRESS A. UAZO CL(3)#7 -08 UAZO CL(2)#20-08 ADM ADJ#16-08 EC#19-08 SEPA APPEAL#4-08 Toscana Development Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill SEPA Appeal 4200 block Castlevale B. PRE LONG PLAT#2-08 EC#6-08 Yakima Development Plat of "Applebrook" 7402 Coolidge Road PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY! Please indicate which proposal you are interested in: A. B. C, or D. • CASE NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE )4 --13,c,th,j, 'iamb E--0 7 7?I cipld - c dg'`' 6yibk wi, U,� le,c3 in/mr--7-59.) P , 37` A&tri4-1-1•_PIlciiro. 41 oQ1>e,,- a guy A. 0A 14 PZ-rrklA,,ti - ,4 ''lo 5 f � L/f . 0 . ✓ iii;) '• `/ c-47 //- `-5>. �'p7(P°' 46Zil. e/ (od,op ci,A )7/4( 7P&ra A # �ae/ /laM•((/ LIO S g- t bfl ,.e: ' 28,01 ./ ,- (7LO, O2 -.6E lq . acCc./-�-71 , ,C 9 eQz✓ /L j• ` f %� 111_ «04 11 -4 -.--DA),--- . v?' /9 0,16,, y�Y � Q ��9 e k../ A -,e/ - / 5s9 -i fr 4• 9,1,ar e/6 C',. -i-,.JG iii,), 6 , , ?ggv V 14" 7V4 d 21- kW5T7 ,v( i° ref °I./ * /Dill Ca55ej,, 4 %/f( !). t(11 A jc.: 5Sci0V A Ti � � U //Zv te, G-wc.otj/ g9ne.✓ A_ ,101 ,c,5&,0L-6,1—' /6 `1�(X; 9 6 la, -60(45,11 1(492- fa6-4s 'Or 9026 5 -/ I A QA.\-1cJ 1&,,lW,c, '09 Coo a5L.,�.13\,o DO 9 CZ / Page 2 of3 INDEX- GA7� N v. ktr Q 4 417x1 > qoa Cori c i/3 & es / d Mve,Lt2, Lw le -Lk, Qi Crot z I c pt-A/4c1 g Cly} Lkai,i714 1,0 7 / 3 P1 v 2. ,t 4/_ 7� 5 1‘) h��c D e.40, v tc i1tl f q 1 Q1 C=aNkks-com CASE A. B. FILE # UAZO CL(3)#7 -08 UAZO CL(2)#20-08 ADM ADJ#16-08 EC#19-08 SEPA APPEAL#4-08 PRE LONG PLAT#2-08 EC#6-08 czthrrorte-it Lha CO OC(64B0) c IoW HEARING DATE: Thursday August 14, 2008 1 '-ter ciso(9/ Sep 90e,, APPLICANT Toscana Development Concerned Citizens of' Carriage Hill SEPA Appeal SITE ADDRESS 4200 block Castlevale tI Oc Yakima Development Plat of "Applebrook" 7402 Coolidge Road DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 (509) 575-6183 ¢ Fax (509) 575-6105 o www.ci.yakima.wa.us CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER AGENDA Yakima City Hall Council Chambers Thursday August 14, 2008 9:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. INTRODUCTION III. PUBLIC HEARING A. TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT (3/18/08) UAZO CL(3)#7-08 Planner: Joseph Calhoun UAZO CL(2)#20-08 Address: 4200 block Castlevale UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08 Request: Construct 96 apartments and 84 duplexes EC#19-08 Permit 2family dwellings in the R-1 zone and multi -family in the R-2; Adjust rear setbacks and maximum lot coverage. CARRIAGE HILL/HATFIELD (7/28/08) Address: Castlevale Rd. and Seattle Slew Run Request: Appeal MDNS for UAZO EC#19-08. B. YAKIMA DEVELOPMENT (02/06/08) PREL LONG PLAT#2-08 "Plat of APPLEBROOK" EC#6-08 Planner: Kevin Futrell Address: 7402 Coolidge Road Request: Residential subdivision of 9.62 acres into 31 residential lots. SEPA APPEAL#4-08 IV. ADJOURNMENT If you are unable to attend the hearing, you may submit your comments in writing prior to the hearing. You may also submit written testimony at the hearing. DOC. INDEX # • • Yakima :1111J! ® 1994 Hearing Examiner Packet Alibution List ADA ONLY KIT-KATS Radio . 4010 Summitview, Suite 200 Yakima, WA 98908 KARY Radio 1200 Chesterly Dr. #160 Yakima, WA 98902 KIMA TV P.O. Box 702 Yakima, WA 98907 KNDO TV 1608 S. 24`h Ave Air, WA 98902 Yakima Herald -Republic P.O. Box 9668 Yakima, WA 98909 VIVA P.O. Box 511 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dave Zabel! - Assistant City Manager Dick Zais City Manager Phil Lamb 311 North 3rd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima Assoc. of Realtors Gov. Affairs Committee 2707 River Road Yakima, WA 98902-1165 KCYU-FOX 68 David Okowski 1205 West Lincoln Ave. Yakima, WA 98902 Pacific Power Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd. Yakima, WA 98901 Office of Rural FWH Marty Miller 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98902 Ben Soria Yakima School Dist. #7 104 North 4th Street Yakima, WA 98902 Business Times Bruce Smith P.O. Box 2052 Yakima, WA 98907 Yakima Valley C.O.G. 311 N. 4th Street STE 202 Yakima, WA 98901 Codes Bulletin Board Ken Crockett Mike Brown Comm. Relations Sam Granato Police Chief Charlie Hines Fire Chief Debbie Moore City Clerk Carolyn Belles Codes KBBO-KRSE Radio 1200 Chesterlye Dr. St. 160 Yakima, WA 98902 Patrick D. Spurgin 411 N. 2" St. Yakima, WA 98901 KAPP TV Paul Gary P.O. Box 10208 Yakima, WA 98909-1208 Gary Cuillier 314 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 DOC. INDEX Hearing Examiner Packet AGENDA, STAFF REPORT, SITE PLAN AND MAPS Yakima County Planning County Courthouse Binder Copy Keith Basham Toscanna Development 12419 172nd Street E NN103 Puyallup, WA. 98374 Concerned Citizens / Carriage Hill Ron Hatfield 829 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA. 98908 City Legal Department Office of Neighborhood and Development Services DON'T FORGET TO SEND ONE TO THE APPLICANT Dave Sjule Envizage Development Group 200 Galloway Yakima, WA. 98908 Engineering Mike Antijunti Bill Cook CED Director Casey Group 5521 100th Street SW, Ste A Lakewood, WA. 98499 - -DOC. - INDEX • STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING Re: SEPA Appeal#4-08 Ron Hatfield — Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill 829 Conestoga Bld I, Myron Menard as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Appeal and Public Hearing. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant; SEPA reviewing agencies and all property owners of record within a radius of 500 feet of subject property, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 31st day of July, 2008. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Myron Menard Planning Specialist INDEX # _� 'qb .. 181315-32466 THOMAS E & LOIS H NELSON 815 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32429 TIMOTHY G & LYNN M GELLERSON 4506 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2417 181315-32467 THOMAS R. DDS ROSIER 817 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31011 TOSCANNA LLC 200 GALLOWAY DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-9023 181315-34455 181315-32457 TRAVIS L & SANDRA D RUNDELL REV TREVOR L T & MELANIE M GREENE 4305 GARDEN PARK WAY 826 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2421 181315-34486 VERNA E KING 701 N 42ND AVE # B YAKIMA, WA 98908-4317 181315-32453 VIVIAN &.SHAWN C LOUDON 4602 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2442 181315-32500 181315-32514 WAYNE E & COLLETTE M HEFFNER JR WILLIAM & MACILE-TR COWMAN 823 CONESTOGA 921 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34489 WILLIAM J & GLORIA CHURCH 700B N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 181315-32455 WILLIAM M III ELLIS PO BOX 62 LILLIWAUP, WA 98555-0062 181315-32438 THOMAS W & SHARON L RIDOUT PO BOX 10974 111, YAKIMA, WA 98909-197 1 181315-3,A 37 TOSCANNA L C 2 Q 0 GI�LLOW Y DR YA YA, WA 8890J, 9023 181315-24432 TYRONE F RODRIGUEZ 4203 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32458 WALTER & BARBARA SLATER 824 CONESTOGA YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32440 WILLIAM D & ANNA M MAHONEY 905 COACH COURT YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-24425 WILLIAM P & TERI L FOSTER 4207 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32461 1 13157%2495 181315-31401 WILLIAM W & KIMBERLY K'FETZER Y I CIITY-- YAKIMA COMMUNITY FEDERAL CR 4604 PHAETON PLACE 12 _1(2NN PO BOX 2707 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, 98901-2613 YAKIMA, WA 98907-2707 181315-42406 181315-32507 YAKIMA VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL YUN G & AE S CHOI 2811 TIETON DR 907 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 188 labels printed for map sheet carriage /V c 1(3 t It)/ DOC. INDEX # '��t • 181315-32441 181315-34488 MICHAEL L & CYNTHIA G MCFARLAND MICHELLE FOLLANSBEE 909 COACH CT 700 N 42ND AVE # A KIMA, WA 98908-2452 YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 11111 181315-32506 181315-34036 MILTON LEE & KARIE LYNN COOPER MT ADAMS CATTLE CO 905 CONESTOGA BLVD 2101 SAINT HELENS ST YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98902-4162 181315-34490 MIKE & SHARON M LOVINING 4300 GARDEN PARK WY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31409 NICLOAS K REEP, DDS,PS 3804 KERN RD # A YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-24434 181315/24435 j 181315-24446 NOMITA MEHTA . NOMITA EHTA PAJAH LLC 1018 FELLOWS DR 1018 E LOWS r,• 805 N FRONT ST YAKIMA, WA 98908 YA IA, A •:908 YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-32509 PATRICK A TRUE 911 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 181315-33486 RACHEL ADLER 4504 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 0315-32444 RICHARD L & LISA BALDOZ 912 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24449 PAUL F. HAMMERSTAD 805 N FRONT ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-32512 RAYMOND & ANITA A NAVARRO 917 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24417 PUCCINELLI REVOCABLE LIVING 4102 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32443 RICHARD J & ELIZABETH IRONS 913 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24472 181315-32462 RICK OEHRING ROBERT C MARTIN 8632 REFUGE POINT CIRCLE PO BOX 2667 NORTH CHARLESTON, South Carolina YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32439 181315-32464 181315-32463 ROBERT H & KIMBERLY A WILKINS ROBERT M.& JUNE W WILKES ROBERT R & MARIE C NEWSTEAD 4503 SURREY LN 4601 CONESTOGA BLVD 814 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2428 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2419 181315-33479 RON & TERESA JONES 715 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 1.81315-34492 ROSIE A STOTSENBERG 4301 MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4306 5-32436 M LARSON ONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 - 181315-33485 STEVEN B & TERESA A HERRERA 4502 MATTHEWS 181315-32503 RONALD V & LINDA J HATFIELD 829 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315734478 RULON C BERGESON 4301A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 181315-32454 ROSEMARY FALON 4506 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2440 181315-34485 SARAJANE GORGURA 613 N 43RD AVE # A YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32403 181315 24415 STAN K & JACQUELINE KORESKI BIRD' STEPHEN P & KAREN L HARRISON 4407 CARRIAGE HILL DR 1019 FELLOWS Dd- YAKIMA, WA 9890.8=2416 YAKIMA, WA 9890$"' i,L �LiX 181315-32505 THERESE C. HAMM 903 CONESTOGA BLVD 181315-33038 THOMAS & DOLORES M GASSELING 714 N 44TH AVE 181315-34417 JOHN H & GERALDINE VANDIVER 701 S 27TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902-4032 181315-34456 JOHNETTE SULLIVAN 4303 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315- 4 28 181315-33039 JOHN H & ERALD NE NDIVER JOHN J ROME 701 S 27T AVE 712 N 44TH AVE YAIIl�A, WA 02-4032 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32402 JOSH & JAEL HUIZAR 4405 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 181315-34476 181315-34411 KAY LUCAS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST KENNETH LEADER 225 19TH ST NE # 15 627 ESTEE CT EAST WENATCHEE, WA 98802-4272 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2628 181315-24423 KENT C.SEELIG 4204 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32497 LEE C & PATRICIA J CLARK 817 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32434 LEX C & ANITA L TOWNS 21767 RADICLE RIDGE WAY KIRKSVILLE, Montana 63501 181315-32401 LOIS J WELKE 4403 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 181315-34465 LYLE E & HELEN G BOND 4108 GARDEN PARKWAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33437 MARIO M & JANE VILLANUEVA 4603 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2578 181315-32431 MATTHEW D & HOLLY J CHRISTENSEN 4408 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33473 MICHAEL & SUE GUNDERSON 720 N 44TH AVE 181315-24444 LARRY & BARBARA KOREIS 4302. FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32433 LEO & KAREN LEE 4404 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-33487 LINDA CHIN 4506 MATTHEWS PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-32435 KATHRYN I BLANKENSHIP 908 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2422 181315-32496 KENT A MC LACHLAN 815 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24420 LARRY R & BETTY DOUGLAS 4201 FLETCHER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24413 LESLIE C RUCKER 1013 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-32445 LISA J ZIGLER 910 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2418 • 181315-34487 181315-33435 LOUIE A & BARBARA HAUSER LOUIS J & MARGARET E PETERSC 4300B MADERA WAY 808 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2401 181315-33035 181315-24426 LYNN & JEANNE SEAWARD REV LIVING MANUEL L LOZANO 701 N 47TH AVE 4206 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32460 MARTIN K & SANDRA M DEVER 4605 PHAETON PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24450 MELICIEN TETTAMBEL 4302 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32404 MICHAEL B GEFFRE 4409 CARRIAGE HILL DR 181315-33013 MARY C KIRK 706 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2610 181315-34416 MERYL R HILL 3902 SUNRISE PARK DR YAKIMA, WA 98q)C(262 INDEX ciR 181315-34414 MICHAEL J & DEBRA L VAN HORN 401 SCHENK RD • 181315-32513 181315-24447 GREGORY G CHIN FAMILY TRUST HAN CHOL &.HYONG 0 KIM 919 CONESTOGA BLVD 4305 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32511 HECTOR R FELIX 915 CONESTOGA BLVD. YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34484 HARLAND G & EVELYN M HOFER 613 N 43RD AVE UNIT B YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33474 1)81315 33475 HUGH MACGREGOR HUGH ACdREGO PO BOX 4585 P6J3 X 45 5 EL DORADO HILLS, California 9576 EL DORADO LLS, California 181315-34035 181315-34459 181315-34480 INTERNATIONAL CHURCH FOURSQUARE JACK H & SHIRLEY L BARKER TRUSTE JACK HARWOOD 1910 W.SUNSET BLVD #200 4203 B GARDEN PARK WAY 4109A GARDEN PARK WAY LOS ANGELES, California 90026-01 YAKIMA,"WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-24445 JACK.I & MARY H LOVELL 4301 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2208 181315-24412 JAMES D BECKETT 4002 ENGLEWOOD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2619 •315_33484 JAMIE HELGELAND 4500 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33483 JASON E GASSELING LIVING TRUST 714 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34463 JEFFREY T & TERESA L LOUMAN 4105 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31008 JERRY L & MARCIA L BLEVINS 802 N 40TH AVE _ YAKIMA, WA 98908-2402 181315-24464 JACK M & NATALIE G KING 4109 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2431 181315-32465 JAMES L & BONNIE P SCOGGINS 4603 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34491 JANET E CAMPBELL 700 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33481 JASON P & VIRGINIA M MORGAN 4505 MATTHEWS PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33436 JERROLD A & SYLVIA JACOBY 4601 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33407 JAMES & DONNA HOWELL 617 N 47TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32498 JAMES R. LANE 819 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2420 1811315- 34:2 JASON GA`SELIN LIVING TRT 71ll_N 44TH YAKIMA, WA 9:•08 181315-34481 JEFFREY & VIVIENNE GAMACHE 4109B GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629- 181315-31007 JERRY L & MARCIA L BLEVINS 802 N 40TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2402 181315-34493 181315-32504 JOE D & VERNA-TRUSTE MONTGOMERY JOEL JOAN WEYHE 610 N 43RD AVE 901 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 5-32447 181315-32430 & DEBBI SPITLER REVOC LIVIN JOHN E & PEGGY A MAXWELL OACH CT 4410 CARRIAGE HILL DR YA MA, WA 98908-2418 - - - YAKI-MA, WA 98908-2415 181315-32405 JOHN G & ROBIN WATKINS 4411 CARRIAGE HILL DR 181315-34415 JOHN H & GERALDINE VADIVER 701 S 27TH AVE 181315-32470 JOHN F & JERRIILYN MAKINS 3305 W VIOLA YAKIMA, WA 98903;QC INDEX 181315-34'413 JOHN H fd GERA 701\S 2/7TH AVR ANDI 181315-24468 181315-32446 181315-32452 DAN K & ELIZABETH E PENHALLEGON DANIEL A & BROOKE L ALLEN DAVIS DAVE & BECKY FRANKLIN 4105 FECHTER RD 908 COACH CT 4604 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2431 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-33036 DAVID A HEAD 4206 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32469 DAVID T.` JOYNT 821 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32432 DAVID C IRWIN 4406 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-33438 DELORES NUNEZ 4605 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32490 181315-32459 DENNIS E & ELISABETH V PEDEMONTE DILEEP & AMY DHRUVA 4606 CONESTOGA BLVD 4603 PHAETON PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32510 DONOVAN M & DIANE M YOUNG 913 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 989082423 181315-33034 DUANE L & CATHY L GARLOCK 4602 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2577 181315-34470 ELAINE M CAMPBELL 4300 MADERA WY # A YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 181315-34419 FLORENCE E. COUNTRYMAN 616 N. 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2601 181315-32494 DOUGLAS B & THERESA ALLEN 4504 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2425 181315-33467 DAVID L & JUANITA WILBURN 711 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908. 181315-34482 DELORES ROE 4202 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32491 DONALD & REMONA TRUHLICKA 7 4604 SONNESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34494 DOUGLAS L ROETHER 4302 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2683 181315-32508 181315-34458 DUANE R & DOROTHY L BRODRICK KNI EDITH MC ARTHUR 909 CONESTOGA BLVD 4203A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2673 • 181315-33012 181315-24422 ELDA MAE JOHNSON REVOCABLE LIVIN ERIC & BARBARA J CURETON 2805 BRACKETT AVE 4203 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33415 FRANK T W ET UX COLE 616 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34471 181315-23023 GEORGE W FINDLEY REVOCABLE TRUST GERALD & DOLLY BUSEY 4304 MADERA WAY 4307 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34497 GERALD A & ANNA M CARROLL 611 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-23018 GERALD W & JUDY ADAMS 4501 FECHTER RD 181315-32468 GEORGE J & SUSAN G VLAHAKIS 819 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 1131.- 4496 ER• D A & ANN M CARROLL 6 N 43. YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33472 181315-32437 GERALD N & CYNTHIA PERKINS HINO GERALD N & DIANA L ME 724 N 44TH AVE 904 CONESTOGA�}.VlD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989108)-2422 ;ND/EX 181315-34418 181315-34495 ___���'� GERALDINE M VANDIVER GLORIA D HUTCHINSON 701 S 27TH AVE 703 N 44TH AVE 181315-31403 917 TRIPLE CROWN LLC 917 TRIPLE CROWN WAY ## 20 YAKIMA, WA 98908 0 181315-33416 ALLEN F & DONNA J FEARON 618 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2501 181315-24473 ANDREW M & WILMA JEAN MERVOS 4108 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24442 ARNO L & JOYCE L PELL JOHNSON 4306 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33466 BETTY ANN VAN RYDER 807 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2467 15-33478 CE S & DIANE N CROCKETT 713 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34472 CAROL L SIPES 4303 MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4306 181315-24414 CHARLES G SCOTT 4107 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32502 CLIFFORD P & MARGARET KNOBEL 801 TENNANT LN YAKIMA, WA 98901-3727 181315-31405 PROPERTIES INC SAINT HELENS ST A, WA 98902-4162 181315-31408 D E P PROPERTIES INC 2101 SAINT HELENS ST YAKIMA, WA 98902-4162 • 181315-32499 AIDA 0 GARCIA 821 CONESTOGA BLVD. YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32456 AMAL Y SEIF 828 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34464 ANNA M & WILLIAMS SCHROEDER 4103 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-34423 AUDREY M JOLLEY 617 N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2603 181315-34477 BLANCHE L FORTIER 4201 GARDEN PK WY B YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34462 BURTON & LAURA LEIGH POWERS 4107 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 989082629 181315-34479 CAROLINE PURDON 4301B GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 181315-34034 CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER CHURCH OF 716 N 40TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32492 CONNI.E J WHITE 4001 SUMMITVIEW AVE # 5 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315- D E P 2 YA 406 PERTIES INC HELEN T A, W 98',2-4162 18'131541408 D iE P / P PERT INC 21\01 AI T LE ST YAKJAA, WA 98902- 162 181315-33480 ALISON & RACHEL A RIEGERT 4507 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32442 ANATOLE & ELIZABETH KIM 911 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32501 ANTHONY R & LORI T THOMAS 5808 SUMMITVIEW AVE STE A YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31402 BAKER BOYER BANK PO BOX 1263 YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32400 BRUCE A LAWRENCE 918 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24443 C. DEAN & GERALDINE AMENDE 4304 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2207 181315-34483 CHARLES F& SHIRLEY M BELFIEL 701 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32493 CLAUDE M & PAULA SLAYE 4506 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33033 CYNDIA A THOMPSON 1013 MADISON AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902 1 1315 D E P 21 YA 407 PERTI'S INC T H ENS ST A, W- 8902-4162 D; 1C: INDE=X 181315-24424 DAMEN GARCIA 143 ROBERTS RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 • /.J• 44_ Ronald Hatfield 829 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA. 98908 Tbscanna Development Group Keith Basham 12419 172nd Street E #103 Puyallup, WA. 98374 Envizage Development Group Dave Sjule 200 Galloway, Yakima, WA. 98908 Cindy Noble NFRD 5609 W. Arlington Ave Yakima, WA 98908 OD -RG. SEPA Reviewer Army Corps P c-3755 S WA 98124 Sheila Ross Cascade Natural Gas 701 S. 1" Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 N 9`'' St. Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of Transportation Planning Engineer 2809 Rudkin Road Union Gap, WA 98903 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6`'' Ave. MS 623 S WA 98101 FAA 2200 W. Washington Yakima, WA 98903 Yakima Greenway Foundation 111 S. 18`'' St. Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima School District Attn: Ben Soria 104 N.4"Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mr. Buck Taylor Yakima Airport 2400 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 Ah m Irrigation District P.O. Box 563 Yakima, WA 98907 Dept. of Natural Resources 713 Bowers Rd Ellensburg, WA 98926 Dept of Soc/Health Service Capital Programs Ofc. Bldg#2 MS OB -23B Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Health Michelle Vazquez 1500 W. 4th Ave. St. 305 • Spokane, WA 99204 Tom McAvoy Q -West 8 S. 2nd Ave. Room 304 Yakima, WA 98902 WV School District Attn: Peter Ansingh 8902 Zier Road Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima Co Health Dist Art McKuen 1210 Ahtanum Ridge Drive Union Gap, WA 98903 Department of Ecology Environ Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Chuck Hagerhjelm WA State Emergency Mgmt. Div. Mitigation, Analysis & Planning Mgr Building 20 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122 Cultural Resources Program Johnson Meninick, Mgr Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Transportation Planner YVCOG 311 N. 4`11 Street STE 202 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Greg Griffith Div. of Archeol & Hist. Pres. PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Attorney Gen. Office 1433 Lakeside Ct. Ste102 Yakima, WA 98902 City of Union Gap PO Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Gary W. Pruitt Clean Air Authority 6 S. 2nd St., Room 1016 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Lee Faulconer Dept. of Agriculture PO Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Gwen Clear Dept of Ecology 15 W. Yakima Ave. St. 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Nob Hill Water Co 6111 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Pacific Power Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of CTED Growth Management Services PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Mose Segouches Yakama Indian Nation Environmental Protection Prog. PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 989480C: INDEX Mr. Doug Mayo Wastewater Treatment Plant Yakima County Commissioners Mr. Vern Redifer . Yakima County Public Services Mr. BiII Bailey Yakima Cnty Dev. Serv. Ctr. Mr. Steven Erickson Yakima County Planning Federal Aviation Administration Cayla Morgan, Airport Planner Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055-4056 Ruth Jim Yakama Tribal Council PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Mr. Scott Nicolai Yakama Indian Nation -Fisheries PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Soil Conservation Dist Attn: Ray Wondercheck 1606 Perry St Suite F Yakima, WA 98902 Environmental Coordinator Bureau of Indian Affairs PO Box 632 Toppenish, WA 98948 Mr. Marty Miller Office of Farm Worker Housing 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98902 Eric Bartrand Dept. of Fisheries 1701 S. 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 WSDOT Aviation Division John Shambaugh P.O. Box 3367 Arlington, WA 98223 John Baugh Yakima Valley Museum 2105 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 DOG. INDEX • • Dayana Sanchez es City Legal Mike Antijunti Carolyn Belles Engineering Codes Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Ron Melcher Fire Dept. Bill Cook Director, CED DECISIONS ONLY City Clerk DECISIONS ONLY Sandy Cox Codes DECISIONS ONLY Joan Davenport Binder Traffic Engineering Office of Neighborhood and Development Services Jerry Robertson Codes For the RECORD / FILE • DECISIONS ONLY INDEX NOTICE OF SEPA APPEAL DATE: July 31, 2008 TO: Applicant, Adjoining Property Owners, SEPA Reviewing Agencies FROM: William Cook, CED Director SUBJECT: Notice of SEPA APPEAL File Number(s): SEPA APPEAL #4-08 Tax Parcel Number(s): 181315-31011, 181315-34037 An appeal of the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for Toscanna LLC (File EC #19-08) was received July 28, 2008. A public hearing regarding this appeal will be held before the Hearing Examiner on Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the Yakima City Council Chambers, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. The hearing on this Appeal will be held in conjunction with the scheduled hearing to consider the application from Toscanna LLC to establish 84 duplexes in the R-1 zone and 96 apartment units in the R-2 zone. We are required to consider both issues at a single hearing since no more than one open record public hearing may be conducted for a zoning application. You are welcome to attend the public hearing or to submit your written comments on this project to: William Cook, CED Director City of Yakima, Department of Community & Economic Development 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, Washington 98901 If you have any questions on this proposal, please call Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner, at (509) 575-6162. Encl: SEPA Appeal, Site Plan, Vicinity Map, Mailing Map • DOC. INDEX CITY OF YAKIMA LAND USE ACTION INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE Pro,'eect Number: Se /1-i Date of Installation: 7 2 Site Address: 7 j , Loc ion of Installation (Check One) Land Use Action Sign is installed per standards described in YUAZO § 15.11.090(C). Land Use Action Sign is installed in an alternate location on the. site. Note: this alternate location (if not pre -approved by the Code Administration and Planning Manager) may not be acceptable by the Code Administration and Planning Division and is subject to relocation (at the owner's expense) to a more visible site on the property. The alternative location is: I hereby testify that the sign installed fully complies with the Land Use Action sign layout specifications and installation standards, and that the sign will be maintained until a decision has been rendered. Applicants Name (please print) c,cv_.-., 4_4( ? Date -7 D 5 / c>y Applicants Signature Poi fz 13q/a � 2,./ C 4 ,. Telephone 'S 6 Number of Applicant -S.-7f— The required comment period will begin when the Code Administration and Planning Division have received the Land Use Action Sign Installation Certification. The date of installation certificate receipt will begin the notice period. Failure to post a Land Use Action sign and return this form in a timely manner will cause a delay in the application review. Please remit the above certification and deliver; FAX at 509-575-6105; or mail to: City_. of Yakima, _Code Administration and _Planning Division, 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901. DOO. INDEX �y # C7'd AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: UAZO EC#19-08 Toscanna, LLC Vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Decision of MDNS. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant, listed SEPA agencies and all property owners and parties of record within a radius of 500 feet of subject property, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 14th day of July, 2008. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. osalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist DOC. INDEX • • • 1b1315 -314U3 917 TRIPLE CROWN LLC 917 TRIPLE CROWN WAY # 20 YAKIMA, WA 98908 1111/5-33416 ALLEN F & DONNA J FEARON 618 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA. 98908-2501 181315-24473 ANDREW M & WILMA JEAN MERVOS 4108 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24442 ARNO L & JOYCE L PELL JOHNSON 4306 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33466 BETTY ANN VAN RYDER 807 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2467 181315-32499 AIDA 0 GARCIA 821 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32456 AMAL Y SEIF 828 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34464 ANNA M & WILLIAMS SCHROEDER 4103 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA,. WA 98908-2629 181315-34423 AUDREY M JOLLEY 617 N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2603 '181315-34477 BLANCHE L FORTIER 4201 GARDEN PK WY B YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33480 ALISON & RACHEL A RIEGERT 4507 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32442 ANATOLE & ELIZABETH KIM 911 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32501 ANTHONY R & LORI T THOMAS 5808 SUMMITVIEW AVE STE A YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31402 BAKER BOYER BANK PO BOX 1263 YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32400 BRUCE A LAWRENCE 918 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 1 33478 181315-34462 181315-24443 B S & DIANE N CROCKETT BURTON & LAURA LEIGH POWERS C. DEAN & GERALDINE AMENDE 71 46TH AVE 4107 GARDEN PARK WAY 4304 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989082629 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2207 181315-34472 CAROL L SIPES 4303 MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4306 181315-24414 CHARLES G SCOTT 4107 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32502 CLIFFORD P & MARGARET KNOBEL 301 TENNANT LN (AKIMA, WA 98901-3727 .L81315-31405 ) E P PROPERTIES INC ?10INT HELENS ST .'AK� WA 98902-4162 8 315-31408 P Pr.' RTIES I 10 S NT S ST AK WA 98902-4162 181315-34479 CAROLINE PURDON 4301B GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 181315-34483 CHARLES F& SHIRLEY M BELFIELD 701 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34034 181315-32493 CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER CHURCH OF CLAUDE M & PAULA SLAYE. 716 N 40TH AVE 4506 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32492 CONNIE J WHITE 4001 SUMMITVIEW AVE # 5 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181215- 406 D'E P P•I•ERT S NC 211 S INH ENS T YAK WA 98902-4162 181315-31418 D P PRO' •'IES IN 21. SAID H ENS :T Y.K WA 989• 162 181315-33033 CYNDIA A THOMPSON 1013 MADISON AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-314 D P PR'•E•TIE I 21. S; T H S ST YAKIMA, WA 98902-4162 181315-31409 D E ,P PROPE 2101 SAINT EL; YAKI . 9891F2-4162 ����. 181315-24424 DAMEN GARCIA 143 ROBERTS RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32452 DAVE & BECKY FRANKLIN 4604 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33467 DAVID L & JUANITA WILBURN 711 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24468 181315-32446 DAN K & ELIZABETH E PENHALLEGLDANIEL A & BROOKE L ALLEN DAV 4105 FECHTER RD 908 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2431/ YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33036 DAVID A HEAD 4206 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32469 DAVID T. JOYNT 821 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32490 181315-32459 DENNIS'E & ELISABETH V PEDEMONTE DILEEP & AMY DHRUVA 4606 CONESTOGA BLVD 4603 PHAETON PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32510 DONOVAN M & DIANE M YOUNG 913 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 989082423 181315-33034 DUANE L & CATHY L GARLOCK 4602 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2577 181315-34470 ELAINE M CAMPBELL 4300 MADERA WY # A YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 181315-32494 DOUGLAS B & THERESA ALLEN 4504 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2425 • 181315-32432 DAVID C IRWIN 4406 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-34482 DELORES ROE 4202 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32491 DONALD & REMONA TRUHLICKA TRU: 4604 SONNESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34494 DOUGLAS L ROETHER 4302 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2683 181315-32508 181315-34458 DUANE R & DOROTHY L BRODRICK KNI EDITH MC ARTHUR 909 CONESTOGA BLVD 4203A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2673 • 181315-33012 181315-24422 ELDA MAE JOHNSON REVOCABLE LIVIN ERIC & BARBARA J CURETON 2805 BRACKETT AVE 4203 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315- 419 181315-32434 181315-33415 FLREN C• N'RYMA FRANCES -A & THOMAS A CHAPPLE FRANK T W ET UX COLE 61 N '2ND 910 N CONESTOGA BLVD 616 N 46TH AVE YAK WA 98908-2601 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32468 GEORGE J & SUSAN G VLAHAKIS JR 819 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34496 GERALD A & ANNA M CARROLL 511 N 43RD AVE i'AKIMA, WA 98908 L81315-32437 GERALD N & DIANA L MELLEN 304 CONESTOGA BLVD IAKIMA, WA 98908-2422 181315-34471 181315-23023 GEORGE W FINDLEY REVOCABLE TRUST _GERALD & DOLLY BUSEY 4304 MADERA WAY 4307 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18 315-34497 GE ALD ANNA 611 N 3RD YAK , WA 98908 CARROLL 181315-23018 GERALD W & JUDY ADAMS 4501 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 989082434 181315-33472 GERALD N & CYNTHIA PERK IN 724 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 DOC. 181315-34418 IIAAii((����X GERALDINE M VANDI�TE� 701 S 27TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 9890217 �-�G 181315-34495 181315-32513 181315-24447 GLORIA D HUTCHINSON GREGORY G CHIN FAMILY TRUST HAN CHOL & HYONG 0 KIM 703 N 44TH AVE 919 CONESTOGA BLVD 4305 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-34484 181315-32511 HARLAND G & EVELYN M HOFER REV L HECTOR R FELIX 613 N 43RD AVE UNIT B 915 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33474 HUGH MACGREGOR PO BOX 4585 EL DORADO HILLS, California 9 181 .15- 475(1) 181315-34035 181315-34459 HUG MA REG INTERNATIONAL CHURCH FOURSQUARE JACK H & SHIRLEY L BARKER TRU, PO B 45 5 1910 W SUNSET BLVD #200 4203 B GARDEN PARK WAY EL DORADO ILLS, California 9576 LOS ANGELES, California 90026-01 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34480 JACK HARWOOD 4109A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-24445 JACK I & MARY H LOVELL 4301 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2208 181315-24464 JACK M & NATALIE G KING 4109 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2431 181315-33407 181315- 4412 181315-32465 JAMES & DONNA HOWELL JADES ' :ECK" T JAMES L & BONNIE P SCOGGINS 617 N 47TH AVE 40i NGL OD A• 4603 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA,"WA 98908-2619 YAKIMA, WA 98908 1 -32498 ' JA R. LANE 819 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2420 181315-33482 JASON E GASSELING LIVING TRUST 714 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34481 JEFFREY & VIVIENNE GAMACHE 4109B GARDEN PARK WAY "YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-33484 JAMIE HELGELAND 4500 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 18.315-334 JA •N E G SS 714 44•H AVE YAKIM•, WA 98908 ING LIVING TRUST 181315-34463 JEFFREY T & TERESA L LOUMAN .4105 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34491 JANET E CAMPBELL 700 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33481 JASON P & VIRGINIA M MORGAN 4505 MATTHEWS PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33436 JERROLD A & SYLVIA JACOBY 4601 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31007 18 15-310.: 181315-33438 JERRY L & MARCIA L BLEVINS JER•Y L & ARCIs L :LEVINS JOE & DELORES NUNEZ 802 N 40TH AVE 802 4OT AVE 4605 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2402 YAKIMA, A 98908-2402 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34493 181315-32504 JO VERNA-TRUSTE MONTGOMERY JOEL & JOAN WEYHE 61 3RD AVE 901 CONESTOGA BLVD YAK , WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32430 JOHN E & PEGGY A MAXWELL 1410 CARRIAGE HILL DR AKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-32470 JOHN F & JERRIILYN MAKINS 3305 W VIOLA YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-32447 JOHN & DEBBI SPITLER REVOC LIV 906 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2418 000. 181315-32405 INDEX JOHN G & ROBIN WATKINS 4411 CARRIAGE HIWL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-_2_4_1- 181 - 5-34 IOH \14 & 701 27 H AVE (AKI WA 98902-4032 DI ADIVER :813 TOHN /01 .'AKI 5-34428 H & GER 27TH VE 98902-4032 E VANDIVER 81315-32402 BOSH & JAEL HUIZAR 405 CARRIAGE HILL DR AKIMA, WA 98908-2416 81315-34411 .ENNETH LEADER 27 ESTEE CT AKIMA, WA 98908-2628 81315-24444 ARRY & BARBARA KOREIS 302 FELLOWS DR AKIMA, WA 98908 81315-32433 EO & KAREN LEE 404 CARRIAGE HILL DR AKIMA, WA 98908-2415 81315-32445 ISA J ZIGLER 10 COACH CT AKIMA, WA 98908-2418 18 315-344 JOH H & ERA►PIN A 701 _ H AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902-4032 181315-33039 JOHN J ROME 712 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32435 KATHRYN I BLANKENSHIP 908 CONESTOGA BLVD. YAKIMA, WA 98908-2422 181315-32496 KENT A MC LACHLAN 815 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 18 315-34417 DIVER JO'N H & G 'INE 701 S 27 AVE YAKI .-, A 98902-4032 181315-24420 LARRY R & BETTY DOUGLAS 4201 FLETCHER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24413 LESLIE C RUCKER 1013 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-32401 LOIS J WELKE 4403 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 VANDIVER • 181315-34456 JOHNETTE SULLIVAN 4303 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34476 .KAY LUCAS REVOCABLE LIVING TRU: 225 19TH ST NE # 15 EAST WENATCHEE, WA 98802-4272 181315-24423 KENT C SEELIG 4204 DONALD DR 'YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32497 LEE C & PATRICIA J CLARK 817 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33487 LINDA CHIN 4506 MATTHEWS PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34487 LOUIE A & BARBARA HAUSER 4300B MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 • 31315-33435 181315-34465 181315-33035 )UIS J & MARGARET E PETERSCHICK LYLE E & HELEN G BOND LYNN & JEANNE SEAWARD REV LIVING )8 N 46TH AVE 4108 GARDEN PARKWAY 701 N 47TH AVE kKIMA, WA 98908-2401 1YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 31315-24426 kNUEL L LOZANO ?06 FELLOWS DR OKIMA, WA 98908 1315-33013 JRY C KIRK. 16 N 44TH AVE •KIMA, WA 98908-2610 181315-33437 MARIO M & JANE VILLANUEVA 4603 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2578 181315-32431 MATTHEW D & HOLLY J CHRISTENSEN 4408 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32460 MARTIN K & SANDRA M DEVER 4605 PHAETON PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24450 MELICIEN TETTAMBEL 4302 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 DOC. • 1315-34416 181315-33473 181315-32404 INDEX RYL R HILL MICHAEL & SUE GUNDERSON MICHAEL B GEFFRE 02 SUNRISE PARK DR 720 N 44TH AVE 4409 CARRIAGE HILL#DR KIMA, WA 98902-2262 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2610 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 181315-34414 MICHAEL J & DEBRA L VAN HORN .401 SCHENK RD TIETON; WA 98947 • 181315-34490 MIKE & SHARON M LOVINING 4300 GARDEN PARK WY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32441 181315-34488 MICHAEL L & CYNTHIA G MCFARLANiJ MICHELLE FOLLANSBEE 909 COACH CT 700 N 42ND AVE # A YAKIMA, WA 98908-2452 YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 181315-32506 MILTON LEE & KARIE LYNN COOPER 905 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24434 18.315-24• 181315-24446 NOMITA MEHTA NO ITA ME T� \� PAJAH LLC 1018 FELLOWS DR 101: FEL OWS 805 N FRONT ST YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKI' , A 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-34036 MT ADAMS CATTLE CO 2101 SAINT HELENS ST YAKIMA, WA 98902-4162 181315-32509 PATRICK A TRUE 911 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 181315-33486 RACHEL ADLER 4504 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 1111 -32444 RI RD L & LISA BALDOZ 912 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32439 ROBERT H & KIMBERLY A WILKINS 4503 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33479 RON & TERESA JONES 715 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34492 ROSIE A STOTSENBERG 1301 MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4306 181315-24449 PAUL F. HAMMERSTAD 805 N FRONT ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-32512 RAYMOND & ANITA A NAVARRO 917 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24417 PUCCINELLI REVOCABLE LIVING TF 4102 DONALD DR 1 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32443 RICHARD J & ELIZABETH IRONS 913 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24472 181315-32462 RICK OEHRING ROBERT C MARTIN 8632 REFUGE POINT CIRCLE PO BOX 2667 NORTH CHARLESTON, South Carolina YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32464 ROBERT M & JUNE W WILKES 4601 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2428 181315-32503 RONALD V & LINDA J HATFIELD 829 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34478 RULON C BERGESON 4301A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 181315-32463 ROBERT R & MARIE C NEWSTEAD 814 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2419 181315-32454 ROSEMARY FALON 4506 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2440 181315-34485 SARAJANE GORGURA 613 N 43RD AVE # A YAKIMA, WA 98908 L81315-32436 181315-32403 181315-24415 >CLARSON STAN K & JACQUELINE KORESKI BIRD STEPHEN P & KAREN L HARRISON )0 ESTOGA BLVD 4407 CARRIAGE HILL DR 1019 FELLOWS DR A , WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 YAKIMA, WA 98908 81315-33485 ;TEVEN B & TERESA A HERRERA 502 MATTHEWS "AKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32505 THERESE C. HAMM 903 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 18 315-3 s THaMAS DOLES 714 N 4TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 DOC. 1476 =ASSF.LTJ0 �—• 181315-32466 THOMAS E & LOIS H NELSON 815 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32429 TIMOTHY G & LYNN M GELLERSON 4506 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2417 181315-34455 TRAVIS L & SANDRA D RUNDELL REV 4305 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34486 VERNA E KING 701 N 42ND AVE # B YAKIMA, WA 98908-4317 181315-32500 WAYNE E & COLLETTE M HEFFNER JR 823 CONESTOGA YAKIMA, WA 98908• 181315-34489 WILLIAM J & GLORIA CHURCH 7009 N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 181315-32461 WILLIAM W & KIMBERLY K FETZER 4604 PHAETON PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-42406 YAKIMA VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 2811 TIETON DR YAKIMA, WA 98902 188 1abP Cr map sheet Yakima Valley . _Canal. Company Attn: Robert Smoot 1640 Garretson Lane Yakima, WA 98908 Cindy Noble 5609 West Arlington Yakima, ,WA 98908 181315-32467 THOMAS R. DDS ROSIER 817 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 Envizage Development Group 181315-31011 TOSCANNA LLC 200 GALLOWAY DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-9023 181315-32457 TREVOR L T & MELANIE M GREENE 826 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2421 181315-32453 VIVIAN & SHAWN C LOUDON 4602 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2442 181315-32514 WILLIAM & MACILE-TR COWMAN 921 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32455 WILLIAM M III ELLIS PO BOX 62 LILLIWAUP, WA 98555-0062 1 1315-3 5 YA IMA ITY 12 N ND ST YAKI , WA 98901-2613 181315-32507 YUN G & AE S CHOI 907 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 toscanna vi/t, \t-\\ Department Of Ecology 15 West Yakima,Ave. #200 Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima Regional Clean Air 6 South 2nd Street, #1016 Yakima, WA 98901 f 81315- 2438 OMA PO YAKIMA, WA L RI OUT 98909-1974 • 181315-34037 0 TO CANN LC 20 GAL OW DR YA M , WA 98908-9023 181315-24432 TYRONE F RODRIGUEZ 4203 FELLOWS OR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-3 58 ,WA TER=•RB ••A SLATER 82 C•'EST YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32440 WILLIAM D & ANNA M MAHONEY 905 COACH COURT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24425 WILLIAM P & TERI L FOSTER 4207 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-31401 YAKIMA COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDI PO BOX 2707 YAKIMA, WA 98907-2707 Delmar Pearson 2101 St. Helens Street Yakima, WA 989v2 Toscanna Development Attn: Keith Basham 12419 172nd Street E., NN103 Puyallup, WA 98374 Casey Group 5521 100th Street SW, Ste A Lakewood, WA 98499 DOC. 4110 INDEX Atttn : Rick Wehr # C' 1120 West Lincoln Avenue Yakima, ;WA 98902 OD -RG, SEPA Reviewer Army Corps PO c-3755 SA 98124 Sheila Ross Cascade Natural Gas 701 S. 151 Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10N9`11St. Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of Transportation Planning Engineer 2809 Rudkin Road Union Gap, WA 98903 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6`'' Ave. MS 623 4Se' , WA 98101 FAA 2200 W. Washington Yakima, WA 98903 Yakima Greenway Foundation 1 1 1 S. 18`f1 St. Yakima. WA 98901 Yakima School District Attn: Ben Soria 104 N. 4°i Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mr. Buck Taylor Yakima Airport . 2400 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 Mip Rigdon Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Natural Resources 713 Bowers Rd Ellensburg, WA 98926 Dept of Soc/Health Service Capital Programs Ofc. Bldg#2 MS OB -23B Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Health Michelle Vazquez 1500 W. 4th Ave. St. 305 Spokane, WA 99204 Tom McAvoy Q -West 8 S. 2nd Ave. Room 304 Yakima, WA 98902 WV School District Attn: Peter Ansingh 8902 Zier Road Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima Co Health Dist Art McKuen 1210 Ahtanum Ridge Drive Union Gap, WA 98903 Department of Ecology Environ Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Chuck Hagerhjelm WA State Emergency Mgmt. Div. Mitigation, Analysis & Planning Mgr Building 20 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122 Cultural Resources Program Johnson Meninick, Mgr Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA '98948 Transportation Planner YVCOG 311 N. 4"' Street STE 202 Yakima. WA 98901 Mr. Greg Griffith Div. of Archeol & Hist. Pres. PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Attorney Gen. Office 1433 Lakeside Ct. Ste102 Yakima, WA 98902 City of Union Gap PO Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Gary W. Pruitt Clean Air Authority 6 S. 2nd St., Room 1016 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Lee Faulconer Dept. of Agriculture PO Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Gwen Clear Dept of Ecology 15 W. Yakima Ave. St. 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Nob Hill Water Co 6111 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Pacific Power Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of CTED Growth Management Services PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Mose Segouches Yakama Indian Nation Environmental Protection Prog. PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 989$x`'' INDEX # G -iG Mr. Doug Mayo Wastewater Treatment Plant Yakima County Commissioners Mr. Vern Redifer Yakima County Public Services Mr. Bill Bailey. Yakima Cnty Dev. Serv. Ctr. Mr. Steven Erickson Yakima County Planning Federal Aviation Administration Cayla Morgan, Airport Planner Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055-4056 Lavina Washines, Chairman Yakama Tribal Council PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Mr. Scott Nicolai Yakama Indian Nation -Fisheries PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Soil Conservation Dist Attn: Ray Wondercheck 1606 Perry St Suite F Yakima, WA 98902 Environmental Coordinator Bureau of Indian Affairs PO Box 632 Toppenish, WA 98948 • Mr. Marty Miller Office of Farm Worker Housing 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98902 Eric Bartrand Dept. of Fisheries 1701 S. 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 WSDOT Aviation Division John Shambaugh P.O. Box 3367 Arlington, WA 98223 Martin Humphries Yakima Valley Museum 2105 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 • DOO. INDEX # �L In House Distribution List Oana Sanchez City Legal Codes Mike Antijunti Carolyn Belles Engineering Codes Sam Granato Police Chief Charlie Hines Fire Chief Bill Cook Director, CED DECISIONS ONLY City Clerk DECISIONS ONLY Sandy Cox Codes DECISIONS ONLY Joan Davenport Office of Neighborhood and Binder Traffic Engineering Development Services DECISIONS ONLY Jerry Robertson For the RECORD / FILE DOC. INDEX LAG. /-14-VU i cguI 1V VllLG. .31:of I-1 1V1LLVJ - 1 VJGUIIIIQ. 1 UUIIJII V11 /-19--VU. t1l,l.l 11 Ail -G. Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Sent: To: Legals [legals@ yakimaheraid.com] Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:30 PM Ibarra, Rosalinda 1 QbG 1 UI 1 Subject: Re: 7-14-08 Legal Notice: SEPA MDNS - Toscanna. Publish on7-14-08. Acct 11002. I've scheduled the attached legal notice for 7/10, for a total cost of $148.35. On 7/9/08 11:42 AM, "Ibarra, Rosalinda" <ribarra@ci.yakima.wa.us> wrote: Please publish only once on Monday July 14, 2008. Send affidavit of publication and invoice to: Account 11002 City of Yakima, Planning Division 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist City of Yakima Planning Division p: (509) 575-6183 ribarra@ci.yakima.wa.us Simon Sizer Legal/Obituary Clerk Yakima Herald -Republic Phone: 509-577-7740 Fax: 509-577-7766 legals@yakimaherald.com 7/11/2008 Legal Notices legal Notices WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MITIGATED DETERMINATION NONSIGNIFICANCE CITY OF YAKIMA WASHINGTON PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Yakima Depart- ment of Conimurn and Ecoriomic Development re- ceived an environmental review; applicationfor;thecon- struction•84-duplexes in the R zoning distnct;an_d 96- apartment units m the R-2 zon-iing•distnct. PROPONENT Toscanna LLC LOCATION 'Viarnty of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run x.,T. PARCEL NUMBER 181315 3101';1 181315-34037 LEAD AGENCY City of;Yakima Washington FILE'NUMBER ,EC,#19;08 7 t DETERMINATION The City of Yakima as lead agency fonthis proposal after reviewing a' completed envir_on- mental checklist and other information onfile with the lead agency, t has determined that; the project will; not have a probable significant adverse impact;on the "envi- ronment and:an environmental impact statement'.(EIS) will not be required under RCW. § 4321GQ3,0(2)(c), provided the masud b eres listeelow are used to mitigate potential adverse impacts SThe information ;relied. upon in. reaching this determination is available tothe;public upon.request'at the'City'ofgYakima.Ptanning,Division. IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTACIMPACTS AND MITI- GATION MEASURES ZThrs Mmgated Deteminatio""n'of j Nonsignficance (MDNS)lis hereby conditioned'upon• the following'mifigatrng``;measures','as authorized under WAC-§ 197 1:1 660 and YMC § 6.88.160,and the 'Yaki- ma :Urban Area Comprehensive'lPlan which' contains goal§ policies kand/regulations which provide: substan- tive `authority, to require mitigation under the`State'Envi- ronmentatPolicy Act A"completeXrecord or the "mitiga- tion'requirements is on file at City Hall under -Pile Num- ber EC #19 08., CONTACT PERSON Contact Joseph Calhoun, Assis- tant-P.lanner.(509) 575.6162 for more information. [X] This MANS; is`Issued;;after using the optional DNS process in WAC § 19711=355 There_islno faither com- merrt period on(the MDNs - Responsible official William R Gook s4 Position/Trtle: CED Director/SEPAIResoonsrlile Official Phone (5(1$)''575-6113 ;. t r Address -129•N2nd Streets Yakima -.WA 98901 • [X] You•may-appeal-thie%determination to: 'William R. Cook, CED Director; at'129;N'2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901,:.: ��- No later than: -..11.0:28,.!.?008k1hy,,sutiiiiittirib a.comolete ,$gDeal aoolicatiomform and Davment of;the 5505-ao- peal fee:,You should be prepared to;'make:specific fac- tuai objections. Contact the City of Yakima' Planning Di- vision to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA ap- peals. (09547395) July 14, 2008. DOC. INDEX • • Press Release WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON July 14, 2008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development received an environmental review application for .the construction 84 -duplexes in the R-1 zoning district and 96 -apartment units in the R-2 zoning district. PROPONENT: Toscanna LLC LOCATION: Vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run PARCEL NUMBER: 181315-31011, 181315-34037 LEAD AGENCY: City of Yakima, Washington FILE NUMBER: UAZO EC #19-08 DETERMINATION: The City of Yakima, as lead agency for this proposal, after reviewing a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency, has determined that the project will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required under RCW § 43.21C.030(2)(c), provided the measures listed below are used to mitigate potential adverse impacts. The information relied upon in reaching this determination is available to the public upon request at. the City of Yakima Planning Division. IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: This Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is hereby conditioned upon the following mitigating measures, as authorized under WAC § 197-11-660 and YMC § 6.88.160, and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, which contains goals, policies, and regulations which provide substantive authority to require mitigation under the State Environmental Policy Act. FINDINGS: A. Earth and Land Alteration: The SEPA Checklist indicates that up to 90,000 cubic yards of earth may be moved for filling and grading. According to YMC § 15.12.020(A), no use or development, as those terms are defined by this title, may be established, placed, performed, construction, made or implemented, in whole or in part, without the issuance of a development permit by the building official. No development permit may be issued.without the prior issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Review by the planning department for the proposed development, indicating: that the proposal has been through the review procedures of this ordinance and conforms to its requirements (YMC § 15.12.020(B)). Toscanna LLC EC# 19-08 1 DOC. INDEX GL Press Release B. Air Quality/Dust Control: Contractors doing clearing, grading, paving, construction or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA). Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. Prior to demolishing any structures, an asbestos survey must be done by a certified asbestos building inspector. Any asbestos found must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition; and notification for the demolition must be filed with the YRCAA. C. Water Quality: The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the limitations of its water rights. If the proposal's actions are different than the existing • water right (source, purpose, the place of use, or period of use), then it is subject to approval from the Department of Ecology pursuant to Sections 90.03.380 RCW and 90.44.100 RCW. If water is used for dust suppression, it must be obtained legally. A water right permit is required for all surface water diversions and for any water from a well that will exceed 5,000 gallons per day. D. Water Resources: Project Greater — Than 1 Acre with Potential to Discharge Off -Site: An NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology is required if there is a potential for stormwater discharge from a construction site with more than one acre of disturbed ground. This permit requires that SEPA checklist fully disclose anticipated activities including building, road construction and utility placement. Obtaining a permit is a minimum of a 38 day process and may take up to 60 days if the original SEPA does not disclose all proposed activities. The permit requires that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) is prepared and' implemented for all permitted construction sites. These control measures must be able to prevent soil from being carried into surface water (this includes storm drains) by stormwater runoff. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. The Yakima Valley Canal Company (YVCC) will not allow any excavation or construction within their right-of-way. Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way. E. Storm Water Management: Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. If Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are used in the drainage design, the UIC wells must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and a copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and registration number(s) shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer. There is a note that says "connect storm drainage to existing off-site storm facility". Current City standards require that all storm drainage be retained on site. The property has a drainage easement allowing them to discharge some amount of runoff into the City storm drain lines. The Tos'annc, LLC EC# 19-08 2 DOC. INDEX • • • r Press Release applicant should not assume they can put all of their runoff into the City lines. The easement language is not specific as to how much and it is interpreted that the applicant should retain at least a significant amount of runoff on site and then use the city lines as an overflow: F. Toxics: Based upon the historical agricultural use of this land, there is a possibility the soil contains residual concentrations of pesticides. Ecology .recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found at concentrations above the MTCA clean up levels Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence. G. Transportation: This application has been reviewed and approved (July 3, 2008) for consistency with YMC 12.08 Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance. This development will not exceed the PM peak hour capacity of the City Arterial street system and reserve capacity exists on all impacted streets. This review does not include any site development or safety issues which may be discussed at the project -level or SEPA review (Safety issues are discussed below). The review does not address intersection level of service H. Public Services: Water and Sewer: Public waterlines are required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall be placed in the street connect to the existing waterline in Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependent on the required fireflow for the buildings. Placement of hydrants shall be addressed during the plan review phase. In accordance with YMC § 12.03.020, sewer is to be extended along the east edge of the property to provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer pipe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly finger of the development to provide gravity sewer to existing residences on the west and south sides of the canal. All public utility lines on private property shall be located in a minimum 16 -foot easement. I. Public Services: Fire and Life Safety: Fire Department Access Roads shall be installed and designed to the standards of the 2006 International Fire Code (IFC). Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6 and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not Tess than 13 feet 6 inches. The proposed gates shall comply with the following 2006 WC standards: 1. The minimum gate width shall be 20 feet; 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type; 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person; 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and repaired and replaced when defective; 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by the fire department personnel- for emergency. access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official; Tusranna LLC EC# 19-08 3 DOC. INDEX Press Release 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a keybox containing the key(s) to the lock installed at the gate location; and, 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official. The electronic opening device of a fire apparatus access road shall include the components on a Knox Box rapid Entry system or Opticom system, which will be approved by the fire code official. Where required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posed on one or both sides of the fire department access road as required by Section D103.6.1 of D103.6.2. In review of the City Engineer and staff, we are requiring Kern Road to be used as a fire access road along with a local access road. Kern Road will be built to universal fire code standards for fire apparatus. A minimum of 20' of paved surface will be required. J. Noise: During project construction, all contractors shall adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. These hours are 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends and holidays. (YMC Title 6, Public Safety and Morals, Chapter 6.04.180, Public Disturbance Noise). K. Frontage Improvements / Development Standards: Full frontage improvements shall be required along all street frontages of the proposed site. Title 12 development standards shall be applied to this project including new streets built to city standards with curb, gutter, five-foot sidewalks and streetlights. Five-foot sidewalk and streetlights are required along the Castlevale frontage. Public easements will be recorded where needed. L. Light and Glare: "Lighting shall be provided to illuminate any off-street parking or loading space used at night. When provided, lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties." (YMC § 15.06.100) The proponent shall construct the project in a manner that minimizes the reflection of building and parking lot light and glare onto adjacent residential properties. Exterior lighting shall be minimized where possible, and shielded from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. M. Aesthetics: The purpose of YMC Chapter 15.05, Site Design and Improvement Standards is to establish certain basic development requirements.. These are the minimum criteria that must be met to assure land use compatibility and promote public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project shall conform to all applicable standards including, but not limited to: building. setbacks, lot coverage, fence height, access, and building height. N. Sitescreening: The purpose of YMC Chapter 15.07,- is to establish site screening standards to provide a visual buffer between uses of different intensity, streets and structures; reduce erosion and stormwater runoff; protect property values; and eliminate potential land use conflicts Tosraiana LLC EC# 19-08 4 • • DOC, INDEX 76t _---- • Press Release by mitigating adverse impacts from dust, odor, litter, noise, glare, lights, signs, buildings or parking areas. Based on adjacent single family residences to the west and south, Sitescreening"Standard "A" shall be required (YMC Ch. 15.07, Table 7-1). Standard "A" is a ten -foot wide landscaped planting strip with trees at twenty -feet to thirty-foot centers, shrubs, and groundcover (YMC 15.07.040). The developer may substitute a higher sitescreening standard, standard "C" being higher than "B" and standard "B" being higher than "A". COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The 1997 Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use for this area as a mixture of low density and medium density residential. The Low Density Residential future land use designation characterized as primarily single family, detached residences. Net residential density before considering roads and right of way is less than 7.0 dwelling units per acre, which is considered the lowest residential density to efficiently support public services. The Medium Density Residential future land use designation is characterized by a mixture of single family detached residences and duplexes, with a variety of other housing types at a residential density ranging between 7.0 and 11 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development is compatible with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy G1.4: Policy G2.5: Objective G5: Policy G8.4: Objective L1: Objective L2: Goal 111: Policy H1.2: Tosranna LLC EC# 19-08 Ensure that new development in the urban area enhances the "quality of life" within the urban area and that any environmental problems that arise from such development are corrected by the developer through the enforcement of subdivision controls and regulations. Regulations shall allow flexibility to maximize retention of individual private property rights. Recognize the transitional nature of agricultural uses within the urban growth area. Encourage major commercial, industrial and multi -family developments to locate inside city limits. Permit only those land developments and activities that are within the sustainable limits of the land and services. Establish a pattern of development that supports a sense of community. Encourage diverse and affordable housing choices. Facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single family lots, condominiums, clustering and other options which increase the supply of affordable homeownership options. 5 DOC. INDEX Press Release Objective El: Encourage development in areas with few environmental hazards to minimize the loss of natural resources due to urbanization. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 1. No development permit shall be issued prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning review. 2. Contractors doing clearing, grading, paving, construction or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA). Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. 3. The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the limitations of its water rights. A water right permit is required for all surface water diversions and for any water from a well that will exceed 5,000 gallons per day. 4. A NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Washington State Dept. of Ecology is required. The permit requires that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) is prepared and implemented for all permitted construction sites. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima's Engineering Division prior to construction. 5. The Yakima Valley Canal Company (YVCC) will not allow any excavation or construction within their right-of-way. Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way. 6. Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. If Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are used in the drainage design, the UIC wells must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and a copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and registration number(s) shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer. 7. Ecology recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found at concentrations above MTCA clean up levels, Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence. 8. Public waterlines are required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall be placed in the street connect to the existing waterline in Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependent on the required fireflow for the buildings. 9. In accordance with YMC § 12.03.020, sewer is to be extended along the east edge of the property to provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer Toseanna LLC EC# 19-08 6 DOC. INDEX • • • • Press Release pipe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly finger of the development to provide gravity sewer to existing residences on the west and south sides of the canal. 10. All public utility lines on private property shall be located in a minimum 16 -foot easement. 11. Fire Department Access Roads shall be installed and designed to the standards of the 2006 International Fire Code (IFC). 12. The proposed gates shall comply with the 2006 IFC standards and be equipped with a Knox Box rapid entry system or Opticom system which will be approved by the fire code official. 13. Where required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6 of the IFC. 14. Kern Road shall be maintained at a minimum of twenty -feet of paved surface. 15. During project construction, all contractors shall adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. These hours are 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends and holidays. 16. Title .12 development standards shall be applied to this project including streets built to city standards with curb, gutter, five-foot sidewalks and streetlights. Five-foot sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed along the Castlevale frontage. Public easements will be recorded where needed. 17. Parking and street lighting shall adhere to the standards of YMC § 15.06.100. Lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties. 18. Sitescreening Standard "A" shall be installed along the west and south property lines due to adjacent single-family residential land uses. A higher standard may be substituted. CONTACT PERSON: Contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner (509) 575-6162. for more information. There is no comment period for this DNS This MDNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC § 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the-MDNS. This DNS is issued under WAC § 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 20 days from the date below. Tose anna LLC EC# 19-08 7 DOC. INDEX Responsible official: Position/Title: Phone: Address: Press Release William R. Cook CED Director/SEPA Responsible Official (509) 575-6113 129 N 2°" Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Date July 14, 2008 You may appeal this determination to: William R. Cook, CED Director, at 129 N 2nd Street, 174 Yakima, WA 98901. No later than: July 28, 2008 By (method) Complete appeal application form and payment of $505 appeal fee. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the City of Yakima Planning Division to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. There is no agency appeal. Toscana' LLC EC# l9-08 8 DOC. INDEX • • • • raue 1 01 1 lbarra, Rosalinda From: lbarra, Rosalinda Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:05 AM To: Barbara Serrano - YHR; Brown, Michael; Bruce Smith - Yak. Business Times; Chris Bristol - YHR; Christine Ermey; Claudia Moreno - Noticias Locales; Criag Troianello - Yakima Herald Rep.; Erin Snelgrove - Yak. Herald Rep; Gabriel Martinez - KDNA; George Finch - Business Journal; lbarra, Rosalinda; Jeff Peters (website posting); Jenny Escobar; KDNA; KNDO News; Lance Tormey; Lindsay France; Lou Bartelli; Lozano, Bonnie; Mai Hoang; Mark Morey; Marta Isabel Sanchez - Univision; Mike Balmelli - KAPP; Mike Bastinelli; NWCN; Randy Beehler - YPAC; Scott Mayes; Stacie Vasko; Valerie Hurst; Yakima Business Journal; Yakima Herald Republic Newspaper Cc: Brackney, Rosanne Subject: 7-14-08 Press Release: SEPA MDNS - Toscanna Attachments: SEPA MDNS - Toscanna Press Release.doc Roseanne, please post to: http://www.ci.yakima.wa.us/services/planning/SEPADeterminations.asp Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist City of Yakima Planning Division p: (509) 575-6183 ribarra@ci.yakima.wa.us 7/14/2008 DOC. INDEX # NOTICE OF DECISION Compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) July 14, 2008 On June 13, 2008 the City of Yakima, Washington issued a Notice of Application and Environmental Review regarding an application submitted by Toscanna LLC. This review concerns the environmental analysis for the construction of 84 -duplex units in the R-1 zoning district and 96 -apartment units in the R-2 zoning district. Parcel number: 181315-31011, 181315-34037 City File Number: UAZO EC#19-08 Following the required 20 -day public comment period, and consideration of all comments received, the City of Yakima has issued the enclosed SEPA Threshold Decision. 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. A fee of $505.00 must accompany the Appeal Application. For further information or assistance, you may wish to contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509)575-6162, or email jcalhoun@ci.yakima.wa.us. William C ED Direct Notice of Decision Mailing Date: July 14, 2008 Enclosures: SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Mailing Map INDEX • • • • WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON July 14, 2008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development received an environmental review application for the construction 84 -duplexes in the R-1 zoning district and 96 -apartment units in the R-2 zoning district. PROPONENT: Toscanna LLC LOCATION: Vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run PARCEL NUMBER: 181315-31011, 181315-34037 LEAD AGENCY: City of Yakima, Washington FILE NUMBER: UAZO EC #19-08 DETERMINATION: The City of Yakima, as lead agency for this proposal, after reviewing a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency, has determined that the project will not have - a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required under RCW § 43.21C.030(2)(c), provided the measures listed below are used to mitigate potential adverse impacts. The information relied upon in reaching this determination is available to the public upon request at the City of Yakima Planning Division. IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: This Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) is hereby conditioned upon the following mitigating measures, as authorized under WAC § 197-11-660 and YMC § 6.88.160, and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, which contains goals, policies, and regulations which provide substantive authority to require mitigation under the State Environmental Policy Act. FINDINGS: A. Earth and Land Alteration: The SEPA Checklist indicates that up to 90,000 cubic yards of earth may be moved for filling and grading. According .to YMC § 15.12.020(A), no use or development, as those terms are defined by this title, may be established, placed, performed, construction, made or implemented, in whole or in part, without the issuance of a development permit by the building official. No development permit may be issued without the prior issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Review by the planning department for the proposed development, indicating that the proposal has been through the review procedures of this ordinance and conforms to its requirements (YMC § 15.12.020(B)). Toscana LLC EC# 19-08 1 DOC. INDEX B. Air Quality/Dust Control: Contractors doing clearing, grading, paving, construction or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA). Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. Prior to demolishing any structures, an asbestos survey must be done by a certified asbestos building inspector. Any asbestos found must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition; and notification for the demolition must be filed with the YRCAA. C. Water Quality: The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the limitations of its water rights. If the proposal's actions are different than the existing water right (source, purpose, the place of use, or period of use), then it is subject to approval from the Department of Ecology pursuant to Sections 90.03.380 RCW and 90.44.100 RCW. If water is used for dust suppression, it must be obtained legally. A water right permit is required for all surface water diversions and for any water from a well that will exceed 5,000 gallons per day. D. Water Resources: Project Greater — Than 1 Acre with Potential to Discharge Off -Site: An NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology is required if there is a potential for stormwater discharge from a construction site with more than one acre of disturbed ground. This permit requires that SEPA checklist fully disclose anticipated activities including building, road construction and utility placement. Obtaining a permit is a minimum of a 38 day process and may take up to 60 days if the original SEPA does not disclose all proposed activities. The permit requires that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) is prepared and implemented for all permitted construction sites. These control measures must be able to prevent soil from being carried into surface water (this includes storm drains) by stormwater runoff. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. The Yakima Valley Canal Company (YVCC) will not allow any excavation or construction within their right-of-way. Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way. E. Storm Water Management: Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. If Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are used in the drainage design, the UIC wells must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and a copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and registration number(s) shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer. There is a note that says "connect storm drainage to existing off-site storm facility". Current City standards require that all storm drainage be retained on site. The property has a drainage easement allowing them to discharge some amount of runoff into the City storm drain lines. The Toscanna LLC EC# 19-08 2 DOC. INDEX # 6-7 • • applicant should not assume they can put all of their runoff into the City lines. The easement language is not specific as to how much and it is interpreted that the applicant should retain at least a significant amount of runoff on site and then use the city lines as an overflow. F. Toxics: Based upon the historical agricultural use of this land, there is a possibility the soil contains residual concentrations of pesticides. Ecology recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found at concentrations above the MTCA clean up levels Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence. G. Transportation: This application has been reviewed and approved (July 3, 2008) for consistency with YMC 12.08 Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance. This development will not exceed the PM peak hour capacity of the City Arterial street system and reserve capacity exists on all impacted streets. This review does not include any site development or safety issues which may be discussed at the project level or SEPA review (Safety issues are discussed below). The review does not address intersection level of service H. Public Services: Water and Sewer: Public waterlines are required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall be placed in the street connect to the existing waterline in Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependent on the required fireflow for the buildings. Placement of hydrants shall be addressed during the plan review phase. In accordance with YMC § 12.03.020, sewer is to be extended along the east edge of the property to provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer pipe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly forger of the development to provide gravity sewer to existing residences on the west and south sides of the canal. All public utility lines on private property shall be located in a minimum 16 -foot easement. I. Public Services: Fire and Life Safety: Fire Department Access Roads shall be installed and designed to the standards of the 2006 International Fire Code (IFC). Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6 and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. The proposed gates shall comply with the following 2006 IFC standards: 1. The minimum gate width shall be 20 feet; 2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type; 3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person; 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and repaired and replaced when defective; 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by the fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official; Toscanna LLC EC# 19-08 3 INDEX # &--7 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a keybox containing the key(s) to the lock installed at the gate location; and, 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the fire code official. The electronic opening device of a fire apparatus access road shall include the components on a Knox Box rapid Entry system or Opticom system, which will be approved by the fire code official. Where required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by .18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be posed on one or both sides of the fire department access road as required by Section D103.6.1 of D103.6.2. In review of the City Engineer and staff, we are requiring Kern Road to be used as a fire access road along with a local access road. Kern Road will be built to universal fire code standards for fire apparatus. A minimum of 20' of paved surface will be required. J. Noise: During project construction, all contractors shall adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. These hours are 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends and holidays. .(YMC Title 6, Public Safety and Morals, Chapter 6.04.180, Public Disturbance Noise). K. Frontage Improvements / Development Standards: Full frontage improvements shallbe required along all street frontages of the proposed site. Title 12 development standards shall be applied to this project including new streets built to city standards with curb, gutter, five-foot sidewalks and streetlights. Five-foot sidewalk and streetlights are required along the Castlevale frontage Public easements will be recorded where needed. L. Light and Glare: "Lighting shall be provided to illuminate any off-street parking or loading space used at night. When provided, lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties." (YMC § 15.06.100) The proponent shall construct the project in a manner that minimizes the reflection of building and parking lot light and glare onto adjacent residential properties. Exterior lighting shall be minimized where possible, and shielded from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. M. Aesthetics: The purpose of YMC Chapter 15.05, Site Design and Improvement Standards is to establish certain basic development requirements. These are the minimum criteria that must be met to assure land use compatibility and promote public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project shall conform to all applicable standards including, but not limited to: building setbacks, lot coverage, fence height, access, and building height. N. Sitescreening: The purpose of YMC Chapter 15.07, is to establish site screening standards to provide a visual buffer between uses of different intensity, streets and structures; reduce erosion and stormwater runoff; protect property values; and eliminate potential land use conflicts Toscanna LLC EC# 19-08 4 DOC. INDEX # • • • • • by mitigating adverse impacts from dust, odor, litter, noise, glare, lights, signs, buildings or parking areas. Based on adjacent single family residences to the west and south, Sitescreening Standard "A" shall be required (YMC Ch. 15.07, Table 7-1). Standard "A" is a ten -foot wide landscaped planting strip with trees at twenty -feet to thirty-foot centers, shrubs, and groundcover (YMC § 15.07.040). The developer may substitute a higher sitescreening standard, standard "C" being higher than "B" and standard "B" being higher than "A". COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The 1997 Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use for this area as a mixture of low density and medium density residential. The Low Density Residential future land use designation characterized as primarily single family, detached residences. Net residential density before considering roads and right of way is less than 7.0 dwelling units per acre, which is considered the lowest residential density to efficiently support public services. The Medium Density Residential future land use designation is characterized by a mixture of single family detached residences and duplexes, with a variety of other housing types at a residential density ranging between 7.0 and 11 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development is compatible with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy G1.4: Policy G2.5: Objective G5: Policy G8.4: Objective Ll: Objective L2: Goal Hl: Policy H1.2: Toscanna LLC EC# 19-08 Ensure that new development in the urban area enhances the "quality of life" within the urban area and that any environmental problems that arise from such development are corrected by the developer through the enforcement of subdivision controls and regulations. Regulations shall allow flexibility to maximize retention of individual private property rights. Recognize the transitional nature of agricultural uses within the urban growth area. Encourage major commercial, industrial and multi -family developments to locate inside city limits. Permit only those land developments and activities that are within the sustainable limits of the land and services. Establish a pattern of development that supports a sense of community. Encourage diverse and affordable housing choices. Facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single family lots, condominiums, clustering and other options which increase the supply of affordable homeownership options. DOL. INDEX Objective El: Encourage development in areas with few environmental hazards to minimize the loss of natural resources due to urbanization. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 1. No development permit shall be issued prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning. review. 2. Contractors doing clearing, grading, paving, construction or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA). Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. 3. The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the limitations of its water rights. A water right permit is required for all surface water diversions and for any water from a well that will exceed 5,000 gallons per day. 4. A NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Washington State Dept. of Ecology is required. The permit requires that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) is prepared and implemented for all permitted construction sites. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima's Engineering Division prior to construction. 5. The Yakima Valley Canal Company (YVCC) will not allow any excavation or construction within their right-of-way. Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way. 6. Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. If Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are used in the drainage design, the UIC wells must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and a copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and registration number(s) shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer. 7. Ecology recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found at concentrations above MTCA clean up levels, Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence. 8. Public waterlines are required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall be placed in the street connect to the existing waterline in Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependent on the required fireflow for the buildings. 9. In accordance with YMC § 12.03.020, sewer is to be extended along the east edge of the property to provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer Toscanna LLC EC# 19-08 6 DOC. INDEX # 6_ 7 • • pipe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly finger of the development to provide gravity sewer to existing residences on the west and south sides of the canal. 10. All public utility lines on private property shall be located in a minimum 16 -foot easement. 11. Fire Department Access Roads shall be installed and designed to the standards of the 2006 International Fire Code (IFC). 12. The proposed gates shall comply with the 2006 IFC standards and be equipped with a Knox Box rapid entry system or Opticom system which will be approved by the fire code official. 13. Where required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6 of the IFC. 14. Kern Road shall be maintained at a minimum of twenty -feet of paved surface. 15. During project construction, all contractors shall adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. These hours are 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends and holidays. 16. Title 12 development standards shall be applied to this project including streets built to city standards with curb, gutter, five-foot sidewalks and streetlights. Five-foot sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed along the Castlevale frontage. Public easements will be recorded where needed. 17. Parking and street lighting shall adhere to the standards of YMC § 15.06.100. Lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties. 18. Sitescreening Standard "A" shall be installed along the west and south property lines due to adjacent single-family residential land uses. A higher standard may be substituted. CONTACT PERSON: Contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner (509) 575-6162 for more information. There is no comment period for this DNS This MDNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC § 197-11-355. There is no further eminent period on the MDNS. This DNS is issued under WAC § 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 20 days from the date below. Toscanna LLC EC# 19-08 7 DOC. INDEX Responsible official: Position/Title: Phone: Address: William R. Cook CED Director/SEPA Responsible Official (509) 575-6113 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Date July 14, 2008 Signature You may appeal this dete Yakima, WA 98901. R Cook, ector, at 129 N 2nd Street, No later than: July 28, 2008 By (method) Complete appeal application form and payment of $505 appeal fee. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the City of Yakima Planning Division to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. I- There is no agency appeal Toscanna LLC EC# 19-08 8 DOC. INDEX r 0 fiECUnU 1h ! 07i)321:: i CITY OF /CTLs. OFFICE OF -THE CITY CLERK 129 North Second Street Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509) 575-6037 • Fax (509) 576-6614 Date StamR E rE! V E D COpy '08 JUL -2 P2 43 Received by K a YAKIMA CITY CLERK RECEIVED PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM JUL 0 8 201 RCW CHAPTER 42.56 PUBLIC RECORDS ACT CITY OF KI PLANNING DIV^ SECTION I. Must be completed by the requesting person, business, or agency. Name (print) ,T.7., wt.cS p ,. L- / JG Agency Address CSI S t(.%6s� 6 4 134_()17 Daytime.Phone 9L City, State, Zip A/40 % MA OA t Ef)s Cell Phone Record(s) requested This must describe an identifiable record(s). This form is not intended for general inquiries. A L --(4 flA I ( /\.� ce L t- f c` e_ U- J 3 G LI T- A(. (rJ6 p -4Pt)/ IUB %—f-1 g 4.68 -r 7i, V 7PE 7 c 4 til�fA resQ -7A, VitM(Cn)11J' 7r4c 7-t� r re?T2 g T --Lc 1 X17(5'- e:)/( A,ILPD /g'/ 1.� ? 7 Action requested _ Inspection 0 Copy Desired Audio/Video format, if applicable 0 Cassette 0 CD 0 DVD 1 agree to pay all copy charges pursuant to the City's fee schedule. If I have requested a list of names, I certify that the information obtained through this public disclosure request will not be used for com rcial purposes. RCW 42.56.070(9). Requestor Signat ��� �(A-J� Date C)Y 0 / 2 / 2- g 8 _/� Public Records / Request'Form CITY OF YAKIMA • OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1 Page 1 12,1. Seg aT7dccl�d //?YZJ - Jodi S 1/F/Dk• DOC. INDEX AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: UAZO CL(3)#7-08, CL(2)#22-08, Adm Adj#16-08, EC#19-08 Toscanna LLC Vicinity of Castlevale Road & Seattle Slew Run I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Application, Environmental Review, and Public Hearing. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant; SEPA reviewing agencies and all property owners of record within a radius of 500 feet of subject property, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 13th day of Tune, 2008. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the . statements made herein are just and true. 1. cif . {:x/1 ./1.11 6._Rosalinda Ibarra , Planning Specialist DOC. INDEX • 917 TRIPLE„ vCROWN LLC 917 TRIPLE CROWN WAY #,20 YAKIMA, WA 98908 •5-33416 F & DONNA J FEARON 618 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2501- 181315-24473 ANDREW M & WILMA JEAN MERVOS 4108 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 ioi.sl5-.�l4yy AIDA 0 GARCIA 821 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32456 AMAL Y SEIF 828 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34464 ANNA M & WILLIAMS SCHROEDER 4103 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-24442 181315-34423 ARNO L & JOYCE L PELL JOHNSON AUDREY M JOLLEY 4306 FELLOWS DR 617 N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2603 181315-33466 BETTY ANN VAN RYDER 807 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2467 181315-34477 BLANCHE L FORTIER 4201 GARDEN PK WY B YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33480 ALISON & RACHEL A RIEGERT 4507 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32442 ANATOLE & ELIZABETH KIM 911 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32501 ANTHONY R & LORI T THOMAS 5808 SUMMITVIEW AVE STE A YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31402 BAKER BOYER BANK PO BOX 1263 YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32400 BRUCE A LAWRENCE 918 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 1 -33478 181315-34462 181315-24443 B S & DIANE N CROCKETT BURTON & LAURA LEIGH POWERS C. DEAN & GERALDINE AMENDE 71 46TH AVE 4107 GARDEN PARK WAY 4304 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989082629 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2207 181315-34472 CAROL L SIPES 4303 MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4306 181315-24414 :HARLES G SCOTT 1107 DONALD DR CAKIMA, WA 98908 .81315-32502 'LIFFORD P & MARGARET KNOBEL :01 TENNANT LN 'AKIMA, WA 98901-3727 81315-31405 E P PROPERTIES INC 101 INT HELENS ST AK WA 98902-4162 81315-314 P PRO ER �ES INC 1 1 SA T HELEY -S- ST SkkK A, WA 98902-4162 181315-34479 CAROLINE PURDON 4301B GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 181315-34483 CHARLES F& SHIRLEY M BELFIELD 701 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34034 181315-32493 CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER CHURCH OF CLAUDE M & PAULA SLAYE 716 N 40TH AVE 4506 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32492 CONNIE J WHITE 4001 SUMMITVIEW AVE # 5 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31406 D E P PRO _ INC 210 SA HELEN YAKI , WA 98902-4162 181315-314 D P PRIER ES INC 210 SA T HEL -ST YAKIMA, WA 98902-4162 181315-33033 CYNDIA A THOMPSON 1013 MADISON AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-31407 D E P PR 2 01 SA YA u,, WA 989 c"-1 IES I t' NS ST 0 -4162 181315-31409 DOC DEPPRO• E _ _�_” 21.1 SA 'T HELE YA , WA 9890W-416 _4 181315-24424 181315-24468 181315-32446 DAMEN GARCIA DAN K & ELIZABETH E PENHALLEL DANIEL A & BROOKE L ALLEN DAV 143 ROBERTS RD 4105 FECHTER RD 908 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2431 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32452 DAVE & BECKY FRANKLIN 4604 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33467 DAVID L & JUANITA WILBURN 711 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33036 DAVID A HEAD 4206 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32469 DAVID T. JOYNT 821 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32490 181315-32459 DENNIS E & ELISABETH V PEDEMONTE DILEEP & AMY DHRUVA 4606 CONESTOGA BLVD 4603 PHAETON PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32510 DONOVAN M & DIANE M YOUNG 913 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 989082423 181315-33034 DUANE L & CATHY L GARLOCK 4602 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2577 181315-34470 ELAINE M CAMPBELL 4300 MADERA WY # A YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 181315-34419 FLORENCE E. COUNTRYMAN 616 N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2601 181315-32468 GEORGE J & SUSAN G VLAHAKIS JR 819 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34496 3ERALD A & ANNA M CARROLL 511 N 43RD AVE ' (AKIMA, WA 98908 _81315-32437 3ERALD N & DIANA L MELLEN )04 CONESTOGA BLVD 'AKIMA, WA 98908-2422 181315-32494 DOUGLAS B & THERESA ALLEN 4504 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2425 • 181315-32432 DAVID C IRWIN 4406 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-34482 DELORES ROE 4202 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32491 DONALD & REMONA TRUHLICKA TRU: 4604 SONNESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34494 DOUGLAS L ROETHER 4302 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2683 181315-32508 181315-34458 DUANE R & DOROTHY L BRODRICK KNI EDITH MC ARTHUR 909 CONESTOGA BLVD 4203A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2673 • 181315-33012 181315-24422 ELDA MAE JOHNSON REVOCABLE LIVIN ERIC & BARBARA J CURETON 2805 BRACKETT AVE 4203 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32434 FRANCES A & THOMAS A CHAPPLE 910 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33415 FRANK T W ET UX COLE 616 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34471 181315-23023 GEORGE W FINDLEY REVOCABLE TRUST GERALD & DOLLY BUSEY 4304 MADERA WAY 4307 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 1 315-3 97 �• GE ALD & ANNA CARROLL 611 N RD AVE YAKI , WA 98908 181315-23018 GERALD W & JUDY ADAMS ' 4501 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 989082434 181315-33472 GERALD N & CYNTHIA PERKISN 724 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34418 DOC GERALDINE M VAM 9 701 S 27TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 9892 181315-34495 GLORIA D HUTCHINSON 703 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-32513 GREGORY G CHIN FAMILY TRUST 919 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 181315-34484 181315-32511 HARLAND G & EVELYN M HOFER REV L HECTOR R FELIX 613 N 43RD AVE UNIT B 915 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24447 HAN CHOL & HYONG 0 KIM 4305 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33474 HUGH MACGREGOR PO BOX 4585 EL DORADO HILLS, California 9 18 31547,13-„,,,181315-34035 181315-34459 HU M REG.4R--' INTERNATIONAL CHURCH FOURSQUARE JACK H & SHIRLEY L BARKER TRU PO 4585 1910 W SUNSET BLVD #200 4203 B GARDEN PARK WAY EL DORADO HILLS, California 9576 LOS ANGELES, California 90026-01 YAKIMA,' WA 98908 181315-34480 JACK HARWOOD 4109A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-33407 JAMES & DONNA HOWELL 617 N 47TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 1111J5-32498 R. LANE 819 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2420 181315-33482 JASON E GASSELING LIVING TRUST 714 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34481 JEFFREY & VIVIENNE GAMACHE 4109B GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-24445 JACK I & MARY H LOVELL 4301 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2208 181315-24412 JAMES D BECKETT 4002 ENGLEWOOD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2619 181315-33484 JAMIE HELGELAND 4500 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-3 JAS.N E 714 N YAKI 181315-24464 JACK M & NATALIE G KING 4109 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2431 181315-32465 JAMES L & BONNIE P SCOGGINS 4603 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34491 JANET E CAMPBELL 700 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 '3 181315-33481 GAS LING 1.:,\PING TRUST JASON P & VIRGINIA M MORGAN 4TH A 4505 MATTHEWS PLACE , WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34463 JEFFREY T & TERESA L LOUMAN 4105 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33436 JERROLD A & SYLVIA JACOBY 4601 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31007 1813 5-3100 \ 181315-33438 JERRY L & MARCIA L BLEVINS JERR L & ,$AR A L BLEVINS JOE & DELORES NUNEZ 802 N 40TH AVE 802 N,00TV AVE 4605 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2402 YAKIMA, 98908-2402 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34493 181315-32504 181315-32447 JO VERNA-TRUSTE MONTGOMERY JOEL & JOAN WEYHE JOHN & DEBBI SPITLER REVOC LIV 61 3RD AVE 901 CONESTOGA BLVD 906 COACH CT YA , WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2418 181315-32430 IOHN E & PEGGY A MAXWELL 1410 CARRIAGE HILL DR 'AKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-32470 JOHN F & JERRIILYN MAKINS 3305 W VIOLA YAKIMA, WA 98902 DOC. 181315-32405 INDEX JOHN G & ROBIN WA KINS 4411 CARRIAGE HIL DR 6 40 YAKIMA, WA 98908 2416 18p15-344 5 JON H &'GE INE VADIVER 701 TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902-4032 181315-34428 JO H & G RALDINE VANDIVER 701 27TE YAKII0,/AA 9� 8 4032 181315-32402 JOSH & JAEL HUIZAR 4405 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 181315-34411 KENNETH LEADER 627 ESTEE CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2628 181315-24444 LARRY & BARBARA KOREIS 4302 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32433 LEO & KAREN LEE 4404 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-32445 EISA J ZIGLER 310 COACH CT {AKIMA, WA 98908-2418 � f / 181315-3' 1,J 18T315-34 JOeN & GE LD NE VANDIVER JOH H & GERALl7YNE VANDIVER 701 27TH AV 701 TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902-4032 YAKIMA, WA 98902-4032 181315-33039 JOHN J ROME 712 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32435 KATHRYN I BLANKENSHIP 908 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2422 181315-32496 KENT A MC LACHLAN 815 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24420 LARRY R & BETTY DOUGLAS 4201 FLETCHER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24413 LESLIE C RUCKER 1013 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-32401 LOIS J WELKE 4403 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 .81315-33435 181315-34465 JOUIS J & MARGARET E PETERSCHICK LYLE E & HELEN G BOND 308 N 46TH AVE 4108 GARDEN PARKWAY AKIMA, WA 98908-2401 YAKIMA, WA 98908 81315-24426 1ANUEL L LOZANO 206 FELLOWS DR 'AKIMA, WA 98908 81315-33013 [ARY C KIRK 06 N 44TH AVE AKIMA, WA 98908-2610 81315-34416 ERYL R HILL 902 SUNRISE PARK DR AKIMA, WA 98902-2262 181315-33437 MARIO M & JANE VILLANUEVA 4603 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2578 181315-32431 MATTHEW D & HOLLY J CHRISTENSEN 4408 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33473 MICHAEL & SUE GUNDERSON 720 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2610 • 181315-34456 JOHNETTE SULLIVAN 4303 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34476 KAY LUCAS REVOCABLE LIVING TRE 225 19TH ST NE # 15 EAST WENATCHEE, WA 98802-4272 181315-24423 KENT C SEELIG 4204 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32497 LEE C & PATRICIA J CLARK 817 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33487 LINDA CHIN 4506 MATTHEWS PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-34487 LOUIE A & BARBARA HAUSER 43008 MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 181315-33035 LYNN & JEANNE SEAWARD REV LIVIl 701 N 47TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32460 MARTIN K & SANDRA M DEVER 4605 PHAETON PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24450 MELICIEN TETTAMBEL 4302 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 • DOC, 181315-32404 INDEX MICHAEL B GEFFRE 4409 CARRIAGE HILL#DR 6C!, YAKIMA, WA 98908-241 181315-34414 MLCHAEL'J & DEBRA L VAN HORN 401 SCHENK RD TIETON, WA 98947 181315-32441 MICHAEL L & CYNTHIA G MCFARLA. 909 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2452 181315-34488 MICHELLE FOLLANSBEE 700 N 42ND AVE # A YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 1111 1 315-34490 181315-32506 181315-34036 MIKE & SHARON M LOVINING MILTON LEE & KARIE LYNN COOPER MT ADAMS CATTLE CO 4300 GARDEN PARK WY_ 905 CONESTOGA BLVD 2101 SAINT HELENS ST YAKIMA, WA 98908. YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98902-4162 181315-24434 NOMITA MEHTA 1018 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32509 PATRICK A TRUE 911 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 181315-33486 RACHEL ADLER 4504 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 18 315- 5 NOITA 10 ELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24449 PAUL F. HAMMERSTAD 805 N FRONT ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-32512 RAYMOND & ANITA A NAVARRO 917 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24446 PAJAH LLC 805 N FRONT ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-24417 PUCCINELLI REVOCABLE LIVING TF 4102 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32443 RICHARD J & ELIZABETH IRONS 913 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 1 32444 181315-24472 181315-32462 R D L & LISA BALDOZ RICK OEHRING ROBERT C MARTIN 912 COACH CT 8632 REFUGE POINT CIRCLE PO BOX 2667 YAKIMA, WA 98908 NORTH CHARLESTON, South Carolina YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32439 ROBERT H & KIMBERLY A WILKINS 4503 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33479 RON & TERESA JONES 715 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34492 ROSIE A STOTSENBERG 4301 MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4306 181315-32464 ROBERT M & JUNE W WILKES 4601 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2428 181315-32503 RONALD V & LINDA J HATFIELD 829 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34478 RULON C BERGESON 4301A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 181315-32463 ROBERT R & MARIE C NEWSTEAD 814 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2419 181315-32454 ROSEMARY FALON 4506 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2440 181315-34485 SARAJANE GORGURA 613 N 43RD AVE # A YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32436 181315-32403 181315-24415 SCO LARSON STAN K & JACQUELINE KORESKI BIRD STEPHEN P & KAREN L HARRISON 30f STOGA BLVD 4407 CARRIAGE HILL DR 1019 FELLOWS DR YA WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 YAKIMA, WA 98908 L81315-33485 ;TEVEN B & TERESA A HERRERA 502 MATTHEWS 'AKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32505 THERESE C. HAMM 903 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 181315-33038 THO AS & Demo 714 N 44 AVE YAKI A, A 98908 M GASSELING 0-6 181315-32466 THOMAS E & LOIS H NELSON 815 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32429 TIMOTHY G & LYNN M GELLERSON 4506 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2417 181315-34455 TRAVIS L & SANDRA D RUNDELL REV 4305 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34486 VERNA E KING 701 N 42ND AVE # B YAKIMA, WA 98908-4317 181315-32500 WAYNE E & COLLETTE M HEFFNER JR 823 CONESTOGA YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34489 WILLIAM J & GLORIA CHURCH 700B N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 181315-32461 WILLIAM W & KIMBERLY K FETZER 4604 PHAETON PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-42406 YAKIMA VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 2811 TIETON DR YAKIMA, WA 98902 188 labels y p4nted for map sheet Ge: t.%." 181315-32467 THOMAS R. DDS ROSIER 817 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 Envizage Development Group Attn: Dave S'ule 200 GALLOWAY DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-9023 181315-32457 TREVOR L T & MELANIE M GREENE 826 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2421 181315-32453 VIVIAN & SHAWN C LOUDON 4602 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2442 181315-32514 WILLIAM & MACILE-TR COWMAN 921 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32455 WILLIAM M III ELLIS PO BOX 62 LILLIWAUP, WA 98555-0062 181315-32495 YkKIMA C 129 N D ST YA WA 98901-2613 181315-32507 YUN G & AE S CHOI 907 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 toscanna 01( p Pi 1 k/ 181315-32438 THOMAS W & SHARON L RIDOUT PO BOX 10974 YAKIMA, WA 98909-1974 181315-34037-- TOSCANNN= C 204611LOWAY DR Y:IKIMA, WA 98908-9023 181315-24432 TYRONE F RODRIGUEZ 4203 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32458 WALTER & BARBARA SLATER 824 CONESTOGA YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32440 WILLIAM D & ANNA M MAHONEY 905 COACH COURT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24425 WILLIAM P & TERI L FOSTE 4207 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31401 YAKIMA COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDI PO BOX 2707 YAKIMA, WA 98907-2707 Toscanna Development Attn: Keith Basham 12419 172nd Street East #103 Puyallup, WA 98374 Casey Group Attn: Paul Casey 5521 100th Street SW, Suite A Lakewood, WA 98499 PLSA Attn: Rick Wehr 1120 West Lincoln Ave Yakima, WA 98902 • DOC, Cindy Noble NFRD INDEX 5609 W. Arlington Ave _ Yakima, WA 98908 OD -RG. SEPA Reviewer Army Corps PO Box c-3755 •eWA 98124 Sheila Ross Cascade Natural Gas 701 S. 1" Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10N9'hSt. Yakima. WA 98901 Dept. of Transportation Planning Engineer 2809 Rudkin Road Union Gap, WA 98903 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6''' Ave. MS 623 Seattle. WA 98101 • FAA 2200 W. Washington Yakima. WA 98903 Mr. Steven Erickson Yakima Co Planning 128 N 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Vern Redifer Yakima Co Pub. Services' 128 N 2°`' St.. 4'h Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Bill Bailey Yakima Cnty Dev. Serv. Ctr. 128 N. 2nd St. 4'h Floor Yakima, WA 98901 1lip Rigdon Ya a Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Natural Resources 713 Bowers Rd Ellensburg, WA 98926 Dept of Soc/Health Service Capital Programs Ofc. Bldg#2 MS OB -23B Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Health Michelle Vazquez 1500 W. 4`h Ave. St. 305 Spokane, WA 99204 Tom McAvoy Q -West 8 S. 2"d Ave. Room 304 Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima. Co. Commissioners 128 North 2"d Street Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima Co Health Dist Art McKuen 1210 Ahtanum Ridge Drive Union Gap, WA 98903 Department of Ecology Environ Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Chuck Hagerhjelm WA State Emergency Mgmt. Div. Mitigation, Analysis & Planning Mgr Building 20 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122 Cultural Resources Program Johnson Meninick, Mgr Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Transportation Planner YVCOG 311 N. 4`h Street STE 202 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Greg Griffith Div. of Archeol &.Hist. Pres. PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Attorney Gen. Office 1433 Lakeside 0. Ste102 Yakima, WA 98902 City of Union Gap PO Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Gary W. Pruitt Clean Air Authority 6 S. 2"d St., Room 1016 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Lee Faulconer Dept. of Agriculture PO Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Gwen Clear Dept of Ecology 15 W. Yakima Ave. St. 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Nob Hill Water Co 6111 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Pacific Power Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of CTED Growth Management Services PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Mose Segouches Yakama Indian Nation Environmental Protection Prog. PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 93'n. INDEX Mr. Doug Mayo Wastewater Treatment Plant WSDOT Aviation Division John Sambaugh 3704 172nd St. N.E. Suite K-12 Arlington, WA 98223 Soil Conservation Dist Attn: Ray Wondercheck 1606 Perry St Suite F Yakima, WA 98902 Martin Humphries Yakima Valley Museum 2105 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima School District Attn: Ben Soria 104 N. 4`h Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Federal Aviation Administration Cayla Morgan, Airport Planner Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055-4056 Lavina Washines, Chairman Yakama Tribal Council PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Mr. Scott Nicolai Yakama Indian Nation -Fisheries PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Yakima Greenway Foundation 111 S. 18"' St. Yakima, WA 98901 Environmental Coordinator Bureau of Indian Affairs PO Box 632 Toppenish, WA 98948 • Mr. Marty Miller Office of Farm Worker Housing 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98902 Eric Bartrand Dept. of Fisheries 1701 S. 24th Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mr. Buck Taylor Yakima Airport 2400 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 WV School District Attn: Peter Ansingh 8902 Zier Road Yakima, WA 98908 DOC.C. INDEX • • Dayana Sanchez City Legal •es Mike Antijunti Carolyn Belles Engineering Codes Sam Granato Police Chief Charlie Hines Fire Chief Bill Cook Director, CED DECISIONS ONLY City Clerk DECISIONS ONLY Sandy Cox Codes DECISIONS ONLY Joan Davenport Office of Neighborhood and Binder / File /Mail Traffic Engineering DECISIONS ONLY Development Services Jerry Robertson Codes • DOC.. INDEX DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2301 Fruitvale Blvd., Yakima, Washington 98902 Phone (509) 575-6005 July 3, 2008 Keith Basham 200 Galloway Dr Yakima, WA 98908 Subject: Notice of Decision for Transportation Concurrency Proposed Toscanna LLC Development 4200 Castlevale Rd, Yakima, WA Dear Applicant, RECEIVED JUL 0 7 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Enclosed is the Decision for the Transportation Concurrency Analysis of the proposed 186 housing units in the vicinity of 42oo Castlevale Road, within the City of Yakima, Washington. This development has been APPROVED for Concurrency Analysis. Concurrency review determined that reserve capacity is available on all impacted arterial streets. Concurrency review does not evaluate impact to local access streets or street intersections. This review does not include safety or site design issues which will be addressed at the project review level of zoning and SEPA. This review concluded that the proposed development will not exceed the capacity of the arterial street system and reserve capacity exists on all impacted arterial streets. Please review the enclosed report. You may appeal the Findings of this report or request Administrative Reconsideration within fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing of this Notice. Appeal forms and procedures are available at the Department of Community and Economic Development. If you have any questions, please me call at (509)576-6417. Sincerely, JoDavenport Supervising Traffic Engineer enclosure copy: Joseph Calhoun, City Planning Division Sandy Cox, Codes Division Administration 575-6005 • Equipment Rental 575-6005 • Parks & Recreation 575-6020 • Refuse Street 575-6005 • Traffic 575-6005 • Transit 575-6005 DOC. INDEX # C.-5 575-6005 • • Yaki e 11 11 City of Yakima, Washington TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY ANALYSIS RECEIVED MAR 1 8 2008 CITY OF YA KIMA PLANNING DIV. The Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070) requires all new development to be consistent with the existing or planned street system capacities. The City of Yakima adopted Yakima Municipal Code Section 12.03 to implement this local requirement. The information you provide with this application will be used to estimate the impact of your development upon the PM Peak Hour traffic on the City of Yakima arterial streets. APPLICATION INFORMATION Applicant Name: Contact Person: Mailing Address: Project Address: Parcel Number: FEE: $250 (Receipt # Envizaqe Development Group BiSbwk _ Z5-3-yO5--0`04 200 Galloway Drive Yakima, WA 98908 on Castlevale Road across from the Seattle Slew Run Intersection 18131531011 & 34037 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL Number of Units 286 Describe Neighborhood Describe 100 Apartment Commercial Uses 100 Senior Retail/Office Housing Type: 86 Duplex Gross Floor Area: 18,000 Gross Floor Area: (single family, Apartment, condo, MHP) Special Population: Meal_ Services Parking Spaces: TED Parking Spaces: (Assisted Living, Nursing Home, etc) (Required/Provided) (Required/Provided) Other: Number of Employees IID Number of Employees (Day Care, Church, etc) Project Description: 1 00 Unit Apartment and 8 6 duplexes to be built initially. The Senior Housing and --Retail / Office' to be built as permits and market conditions allow. *****PLEASE ATTACH A SITE PLAN***** Submit this form , attachments and fee to the City Permit Center, Yakima City Hall, 129 North Second Street, Yakima, Washington, 98901. You will receive a Notice of Decision explaining the Findings of this analysis. Please review the Decision when it is sent to you, as there is a limited time period for Request for Reconsideration or Appeal. Questions? Contact the City of Yakima Public Works Traffic Division 2301 Fruitvale Boulevard, Yakima, WA 98902 Phone: 509/575-6005 DOC. INDEX City of Yakima, Washington Traffic Division of Public Works Department Transportation Concurrency Analysis RECEIVED JUL 0 7 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Date of Review: July 3, 2008 Review Prepared by: Joan Davenport, Supervising Traffic Engineer (576-641 Proposed Development: Toscana Subject Address: 4200 Castlevale Road ITE Land Use: LU #230, 84 Condos (0.52 PM Trips* 84 units = 43.68 PM Trips) LU #220, 96 Apartments (0.62 PM Trips*96 Units = 59.5 PM Trips) Expected Net PM Peak Hour Trip Generation: 103 PM Peak Hour trips Summary of Impact: The applicant proposes to construct 96 apartments and 84 duplex condominiums units in the vicinity of 4200 Castlevale Road, within the city of Yakima, Washington. All traffic from this new development will enter the Arterial Street system on North 40th Avenue. City of Yakima Administrative procedures for Concurrency Analysis use the PM Peak hour trip of the adjacent street for the selected land use category. The site -generated traffic is distributed to the Arterial street sections noted below, based upon the City policy to assess impacts for two Arterial street segments. Estimated distribution of the site -generated trips is shown on the table below. Based upon actual data, City of Yakima Traffic Volumes for PM Peak Hour is assessed as 8.7% of total Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Peak hour reserve capacity includes any vehicle trips previously assigned under the Concurrency Ordinance. City of Yakima Transportation Concurrency assesses arterial street segment capacity only and does not address intersection capacity. Seg # Street Segment Total ADT PM PK Hr ADT PK HR Reserve Cap. New Dev. PM PK HR Impact Total Con currencyPm Trips Resulting Pk Hr Capacity V/C LOS 67 40th Ave: Fruitvale to River 24,050 2,092 1,108 48 286 1,060 0.74 C 68 40th Ave: River to Castlevale 28,400 2,471 729 56 203 673 0.84 D 69 40th Ave: Castlevale to Englewood 26,600 2,314 886 56 204 830 0.79 C 70 40th Ave: Englewood - Lincoln 26,300 2,288 912 20 184 892 0.77 C 85 Fruitvale: 40th to 34th Ave 10,525 916 2,284 17 110 2,267 0.32 A 86 Fruitvale: 34th Ave toCastlevale 10,050 874 2,326 1.7 120 2,309 0.31 A 91 River Rd: Fruitvale to 20th Ave 2,200 191 1,409 11 86 1,398 0.17 A 98 W. Powerhouse Rd: 40th Peck's Cyn Rd 6,330 551 1,049 50 84 999 0.40 A 97 WCL werhouse Rd: Pecks Cyn Rd - 3,780 329 1,271 22 28 1,249 0.22 A Summary of Impact to City of Yakima Arterial Streets: This application has been reviewed and approved for consistency with YMC 12.08 Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance. This development will not exceed the PM peak hour capacity of the City Arterial street system and reserve capacity exists on all impacted streets. This review does not include any site development or safety issues which may be discussed at the project level or SEPA review. The review does not address intersection level of service. Transportation Capacity Analysis Page 1 of 1 Doc. INDEX # 6_5 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: UAZO CL(3)#7-08, CL(2)#22-08, Adm Adj#16-08, EC#19-08 Toscanna LLC Vicinity of Castlevale Road & Seattle Slew Run I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Application, Environmental Review, and Public Hearing. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant; SEPA reviewing agencies and all property owners of record within a radius of 500 feet of subject property, that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 13th day of June, 2008. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. 0 Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist DOC. INDEX # - 7`Ci� 181315-31403 917 TRIPLE CROWN LLC 917 TRIPLE CROWN WAY #,20 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33416 ALLEN F & DONNA J FEARON 618 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2501 181315-24473 ANDREW M & WILMA JEAN MERVOS 4108 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24442 ARNO L & JOYCE L PELL JOHNSON 4306 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33466 BETTY ANN VAN RYDER 807 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2467 181315-33478 BRUCE S & DIANE N CROCKETT 713 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34472 CAROL L SIPES 4303 MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4306 181315-24414 :HARLES G SCOTT 1107 DONALD DR (AKIMA, WA 98908 .81315-32502 7LIFFORD P & MARGARET KNOBEL 01 TENNANT LN 'AKIMA, WA 98901-3727 81315-31405 E P PROPERTIES INC 101 SAINT HELENS ST AKIMA, WA 98902-4162 181315-32499 AIDA 0 GARCIA 821 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32456 AMAL Y SEIF 828 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34464 ANNA M & WILLIAMS SCHROEDER 4103 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-34423 AUDREY M JOLLEY 617 N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2603 181315-34477 BLANCHE L FORTIER 4201 GARDEN PK WY B YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34462 BURTON & LAURA LEIGH POWERS 4107 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 989082629 181315-34479 CAROLINE PURDON 4301B GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 181315-33480 ALISON & RACHEL A RIEGERT 4507 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32442 ANATOLE & ELIZABETH KIM 911 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-32501 ANTHONY R & LORI T THOMAS 5808 SUMMITVIEW AVE STE A YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31402 BAKER BOYER BANK PO BOX 1263 YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32400 BRUCE A LAWRENCE 918 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24443 C. DEAN & GERALDINE AME 4304 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2207 181315-34483 CHARLES F& SHIRLEY M BELFIELD 701 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34034 181315-32493 CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER CHURCH OF CLAUDE M & PAULA SLAYE 716 N 40TH AVE 4506 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32492 CONNIE J WHITE 4001 SUMMITVIEW AVE # 5 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31406 D P PRO' 'T 210. SA YAKI HELEN WA 98902-4162 INC 81315-314yy 181315-314 (E P PRO ER ES INC D P PR ER ES INC 11 SA T HEL ST 210\1 SA T HEL -ST AK A, WA 98902-4162 YAKIMA, WA 98902-4162 181315-33033 CYNDIA A THOMPSON 1013 MADISON AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-31407 D E P PR 2 01 SA T HE YA y•, WA 989 IES INC-' NS ST 0 -4162 • DOC. cm 181315-31409 `` (�(�P����({ D E P PRO • E PIP 2101 SA IT HELE YA “-, WA 9890 ST 4162 E-'- 181315-24'424 DAMEN GARCIA 143 ROBERTS RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-32452 DAVE & BECKY FRANKLIN 4604 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33467 DAVID L & JUANITA WILBURN 711 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24468 181315-32446 DAN K & ELIZABETH E PENHALLEGON DANIEL A & BROOKE L ALLEN DAV 4105 FECHTER RD 908 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2431 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33036 DAVID A HEAD 4206 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32469 DAVID T. JOYNT 821 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32490 181315-32459 DENNIS E & ELISABETH V PEDEMONTE DILEEP & AMY DHRUVA 4606 CONESTOGA BLVD 4603 PHAETON PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98998 181315-32510 DONOVAN M & DIANE M YOUNG 913 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 989082423 1 •-33034 DUANE L & CATHY L GARLOCK 4602 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2577 181315-34470 ELAINE M CAMPBELL 4300 MADERA WY # A YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 181315-34419 FLORENCE E. COUNTRYMAN 616 N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2601 181315-32468 GEORGE J & SUSAN G VLAHAKIS JR 819 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 1813 -34496 74E & ANNA M CARROLL 51 3RD AVE YAK , WA 98908 L81315-32437 3ERALD N & DIANA L MELLEN )04 CONESTOGA BLVD 'AKIMA, WA 98908-2422 181315-32494 DOUGLAS B & THERESA ALLEN 4504 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2425 181315-32432 DAVID C IRWIN 4406 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-34482 DELORES ROE 4202 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32491 DONALD & REMONA TRUHLICKA TRU: 4604 SONNESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34494 DOUGLAS L ROETHER 4302 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2683 181315-32508 181315-34458 DUANE R & DOROTHY L BRODRICK KNI EDITH MC ARTHUR 909 CONESTOGA BLVD 4203A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908-2673 181315-33012 181315-24422 ELDA MAE JOHNSON REVOCABLE LIVIN ERIC & BARBARA J CURETON 2805 BRACKETT AVE 4203 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98902 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32434 FRANCES A & THOMAS A CHAPPLE 910 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33415 FRANK T W ET UX COLE 616 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34471 181315-23023 GEORGE W FINDLEY REVOCABLE TRUST GERALD & DOLLY BUSEY 4304 MADERA WAY 4307 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 1:1315-3 497 GE ALD & ANNA 611 N RD AVE YAKI, WA 98908 CARROLL 181315-23018 GERALD W & JUDY ADAMS 4501 FECHTER RD YAKIMA,, WA 989082434 181315-33472 GERALD N & CYNTHIA PERKINS HIN 724 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 DOC, 181315-34418 INDEX GERALDINE M VAINDIVER 701 S 27TH AV YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-34495 GLORIA D HUTCHINSON 703 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32513 GREGORY G CHIN FAMILY TRUST 919 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 181315-34484 181315-32511 HARLAND G & EVELYN M HOFER REV L HECTOR R FELIX 613 N 43RD AVE UNIT B 915 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24447 HAN CHOL & HYONG 0 KIM 4305 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315-33474 HUGH MACGREGOR PO BOX 4585 EL DORADO HILLS, California 9 18 315 47' Q 181315-34b35 181315-34459 HU 6: M• GREG_OR- -' INTERNATIONAL CHURCH FOURSQUARE JACK H & SHIRLEY L BARKER TRU PO 4585 1910 W SUNSET BLVD #200 4203 B GARDEN PARK WAY EL DORADO HILLS, California 9576 LOS ANGELES, California 90026-01 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34480 JACK HARWOOD 4109A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-33407 JAMES & DONNA HOWELL 617 N 47TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32498 JAMES R. LANE 819 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2420 181315-24445 JACK I & MARY H LOVELL 4301 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2208 181315-24412 JAMES D BECKETT 4002 ENGLEWOOD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2619 181315-33484 JAMIE HELGELAND 4500 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33482 181315-3 JASON E GASSELING LIVING TRUST JA 4N E 714 N 44TH AVE 714 N '4 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKI , 181315-34481 JEFFREY & VIVIENNE GAMACHE 4109B GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2629 181315-24464 JACK M & NATALIE G KING 4109 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2431 181315-32465 JAMES L & BONNIE P SCOGGINS 4603 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34491 JANET E CAMPBELL 700 N 43RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 • :3 I 181315-33481 GAS LING LI ANG TRUST JASON P & VIRGINIA M MORGAN TH A 4505 MATTHEWS PLACE WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34463 JEFFREY T & TERESA L LOUMAN 4105 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33436 JERROLD A & SYLVIA JACOBY 4601 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31007 1813 5-3100: c) 181315-33438 JERRY L & MARCIA L BLEVINS JERR L & "AR' A L BLEVINS JOE & DELORES NUNEZ 802 N 40TH AVE 802 N 40T AVE 4605 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2402 YAKIMA, 98908-2402 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34493 181315-32504 JOE D & VERNA-TRUSTE MONTGOMERY JOEL & JOAN WEYHE 610 N 43RD AVE 901 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32430 JOHN E & PEGGY A MAXWELL 4410 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2415 181315-32470 JOHN F & JERRIILYN MAKINS 3305 W VIOLA YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-32447 JOHN & DEBBI SPITLER RE IV 906 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2418 DOC. 181315-32405 INDEX JOHN G & ROBIN W TKINS 4411 CARRIAGE HILL DRCl Q YAKIMA, WA 98908=2TI 18 315-344 5 JO H & 701 TH YAKIMA, WA • INE VADI•VER AVE 98902-4032 181315-34428 JO H & G RALDINE 701 27 YAKI A 98%-2.-24032 VANDIVER 181315-32402 JOSH & JAEL HUIZAR 4405 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 181315-34411 KENNETH LEADER 627 ESTEE CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2628 181315-24444 LARRY & BARBARA KOREIS 4302 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 18IIIP -32433 LEO KAREN LEE 1404 CARRIAGE HILL DR 'AKIMA, WA 98908-2415 L81315-32445 JISA J ZIGLER 310 COACH CT (AKIMA, WA 98908-2418 181315 JO N& GE LD NE VANDIVER 27 70 27TH AV YAKIMA, WA 98902-4032 181315-33039 JOHN J ROME 712 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32435 KATHRYN I BLANKENSHIP 908 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2422 181315-32496 KENT A MC LACHLAN 815 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24420 LARRY R & BETTY DOUGLAS 4201 FLETCHER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24413 LESLIE C RUCKER 1013 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98902 181315-32401 LOIS J WELKE 4403 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 L81315-33435 181315-34465 ,OUIS J & MARGARET E PETERSCHICK LYLE E & HELEN,G BOND 308 N 46TH AVE 4108 GARDEN PARKWAY AKIMA, WA 98908-2401 YAKIMA, WA 98908 .81315-24426 !ANUEL L LOZANO 206 FELLOWS DR AKIMA, WA 98908 8131 -33013 (AR IRK 06 TH AVE AK WA 98908-2610 81315-34416 ERYL R HILL 902 SUNRISE PARK DR AKIMA, WA 98902-2262 181315-33437 MARIO M & JANE VILLANUEVA 4603 MODESTO WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2578 181315-32431 MATTHEW D & HOLLY J CHRISTENSEN 4408 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33473 MICHAEL & SUE GUNDERSON 720 N 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-2610 181 15-34 JOH H & =1:17INE VANDIVER 701 TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98902-4032 181315-34456 JOHNETTE SULLIVAN 4303 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34476 KAY LUCAS REVOCABLE LIVING TRU 225 19TH ST NE # 15 EAST WENATCHEE, WA 98802-4272 181315-24423 KENT C SEELIG 4204 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32497 LEE C & PATRICIA J CLARK 817 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33487 LINDA CHIN 4506 MATTHEWS PLACE. YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34487 LOUIE A & BARBARA HAUSER 4300B MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4305 181315-33035 LYNN & JEANNE SEAWARD REV LIVIi 701 N 47TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32460 MARTIN K & SANDRA M DEVER 4605 PHAETON PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24450 MELICIEN TETTAMBEL 4302 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32404 INDEX MICHAEL R GGEF 4409/G 4409 CARRIAGEH $LL DR L YAKIMA, WA 98900 2416 181315-34414 ' MICHAEL .J & DEBRA L VAN HORN 401 SCHENK RD TIETON, WA 98947 181315-34490 MIKE & SHARON M LOVINING 4300 GARDEN PARK WY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32441 MICHAEL L & CYNTHIA G MCFARLAND 909 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908-2452 181315-32506 MILTON LEE & KARIE LYNN COOPER 905 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34488 MICHELLE FOLLANSBEE 700 N 42ND AVE # A YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 181315-34036 MT ADAMS CATTLE CO 2101 SAINT HELENS ST YAKIMA, WA 98902-4162 181315-24434 181315- 5 1 181315-24446 NOMITA MEHTA NOMITA EH PAJAH LLC 1018 FELLOWS DR 10 ELLOWS DR 805 N FRONT ST YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-32509 PATRICK A TRUE 911 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 181315-33486 RACHEL ADLER 4504 MATTHEWS PL YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32444 RICHARD L & LISA BALDOZ 912 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32439 ROBERT H & KIMBERLY A WILKINS 4503 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33479 RON & TERESA JONES 715 N 46TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34492 ROSIE A STOTSENBERG 4301 MADERA WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-4306 181315-32436 SCOTT M LARSON 906 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-33485 STEVEN B & TERESA A HERRERA 1502 MATTHEWS fAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24449 PAUL F. HAMMERSTAD 805 N FRONT ST YAKIMA, WA 98901-2219 181315-32512 RAYMOND & ANITA A NAVARRO 917 N CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24472 RICK OEHRING 8632 REFUGE POINT CIRCLE NORTH CHARLESTON, South Carolina 181315-32464 ROBERT M & JUNE W WILKES 4601 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2428 181315-32503 RONALD V & LINDA J HATFIELD 829 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34478 RULON C BERGESON 4301A GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908-2684 • 181315-24417 PUCCINELLI REVOCABLE LIVING Ti 4102 DONALD DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32443 RICHARD J & ELIZABETH IRONS 913 COACH CT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32462 ROBERT C MARTIN PO BOX 2667 YAKIMA, WA 98907 181315-32463 ROBERT R & MARIE C NEWSTEAD 814 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2419 181315-32454 ROSEMARY FALON 4506 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2440 181315-34485 SARAJANE GORGURA 613 N 43RD AVE # A YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32403 181315-24415 STAN K & JACQUELINE KORESKI BIRD STEPHEN P & KAREN L HAR 4407 CARRIAGE HILL DR 1019 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2416 YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32505 THERESE C. HAMM 903 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 Doc 181 15-33038 INDE.�J THO AS & 0 M GASSELINC; 714 N 44 AVE 67 YAKI A, A 98908 `' _��+ 181315-32466 .THOMAS E & LOIS H NELSON 815 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 • 181315 -32429 - TIMOTHY G & LYNN M GELLERSON 4506 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-2417 181315-34455 TRAVIS L & SANDRA D RUNDELL REV 4305 GARDEN PARK WAY YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-34486 VERNA E KING 701 N 42ND AVE # B YAKIMA, WA 98908-4317 181315-32500 WAYNE E & COLLETTE M HEFFNER JR 823 CONESTOGA YAKIMA, WA 98908 1 -34489 WIL AM J & GLORIA CHURCH 700B N 42ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908-4316 181315-32461 WILLIAM W & KIMBERLY K FETZER 4604 PHAETON PLACE YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-42406 YAKIMA VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 2811 TIETON DR YAKIMA, WA 98902 '181315-32467 THOMAS R. DDS ROSIER 817 CARRIAGE HILL DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 Envizage Development Group Attn: Dave S'ule 200 GALLOWAY DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-9023 181315-32457 TREVOR L T & MELANIE M GREENE 826 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2421 181315-32453 VIVIAN & SHAWN C LOUDON 4602 SURREY LN YAKIMA, WA 98908-2442 181315-32514 WILLIAM & MACILE-TR COWMAN 921 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32455 WILLIAM M III ELLIS PO BOX 62 LILLIWAUP, WA 98555-0062 1$1315-32495 YkKIMA C 129 N W ST YA WA 98901-2613 181315-32507 YUN G & AE S CHOI 907 CONESTOGA BLVD YAKIMA, WA 98908-2423 toscanna 181315-32438 THOMAS W & SHARON L RIDOUT PO BOX 10974 YAKIMA, WA 98909-1974 181315-34037 TOSCAN 20 LLOWAY DR YAKIMA, WA 98908-9023 181315-24432 TYRONE F RODRIGUEZ 4203 FELLOWS DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32458 WALTER & BARBARA SLATER 824 CONESTOGA YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-32440 WILLIAM D & ANNA M MAHONEY 905 COACH COURT YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-24425 WILLIAM P & TERI L FOSTER 4207 FECHTER RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 181315-31401 YAKIMA COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDI PO BOX 2707 YAKIMA, WA 98907-2707 Toscanna Development Attn: Keith Basham 12419 172nd Street East #103 Puyallup, WA 98374 Casey Group Attn: Paul Casey 5521 100th Street SW, Suite A Lakewood, WA 98499 PLSA Attn: Rick Wehr 1120 West Lincoln Ave Yakima, WA 98902 DOC, Cindy Noble NFRD INDEX 5609 W. Arlington Ave # 6 Yakima, WA 98908 OD -RG. SEPA Reviewer Army Corps PO Box c-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Sheila Ross Cascade Natural Gas 701 S. Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Chamber of Commerce 10 N 9`h St. Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of Transportation Planning Engineer 2809 Rudkin Road Union Gap, WA 98903 Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6`h Ave. MS 623 Seattle. WA 98101 FAA 2200 W. Washington Yakima, WA 98903 Mr. Steven Erickson Yakima Co Planning 128 N 2"d St. Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Vern Redifer Yakima Co Pub. Services 128 N 2"d St.. 4`h Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Bill Bailey Yakima Cnty Dev. Serv. Ctr. 128 N. 2nd St. 4111Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Philip Rigdon Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Natural Resources 713 Bowers Rd Ellensburg, WA 98926 Dept of Soc/Health Service Capital Programs Ofc. Bldg#2 MS OB -23B Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Health Michelle Vazquez 1500 W. 4th Ave. St. 305 Spokane, WA 99204 Tom McAvoy Q -West 8 S. 2"d Ave. Room 304 Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima Co. Commissioners 128 North 2"d Street Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima Co Health Dist Art McKuen 1210 Ahtanum Ridge Drive Union Gap, WA 98903 Department of Ecology Environ Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Chuck Hagerhjelm WA State Emergency Mgmt. Div. Mitigation, Analysis & Planning Mgr Building 20 Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122 Cultural Resources Program Johnson Meninick, Mgr Yakama Indian Nation PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Transportation Planner YVCOG 311 N. 4`'' Street STE 202 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Greg Griffith Div. of Archeol & Hist. Pres. PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 WA State Attorney Gen. Office 1433 Lakeside Ct. Ste102 Yakima, WA 98902 City of Union Gap PO Box 3008 Union Gap, WA 98903 Gary W. Pruitt Clean Air Authority 6 S. 2"d St., Room 1016 Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Lee Faulconer Dept. of Agriculture PO Box 42560 Olympia, WA 98504 Gwen Clear Dept of Ecology 15 W. Yakima Ave. St. 200 Yakima, WA 98902 Nob Hill Water Co 6111 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98908 Pacific Power Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd Yakima, WA 98901 Dept. of CTED Growth Management Services PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Mose Segouches Yakama Indian Nation Environmental Protection Prog. PO Box 151 n c Toppenish, WA 98ig x. • • • Mr. Doug Mayo water Treatment Plant WSDOT Aviation Division John Sambaugh 3704 172nd St. N.E. Suite K -I2 Arlington, WA 98223 Soil Conservation Dist Attn' Ray Wondercheck 1606 Perry St Suite F • Yakima, WA 98902 Martin Humphries Yakima Valley Museum 2105 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima School District Attn: Ben Soria 104 N. 4th Ave •a.WA 98902 Federal Aviation Administration Cayla Morgan, Airport Planner Seattle Airports District Office 1601 Lind Ave. S.W. Renton, WA 98055-4056 Lavina Washines, Chairman Yakama Tribal Council PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Mr. Scott Nicolai Yakama Indian Nation -Fisheries PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 Yakima Greenway Foundation 111 S. 18th St. Yakima, WA 98901 Environmental Coordinator Bureau of Indian Affairs PO Box 632 Toppenish, WA 98948 Mr. Marty Miller Office of Farm Worker Housing 1400 Summitview #203 Yakima, WA 98902 Eric Bartrand Dept. of Fisheries 1701 S. 24`'' Ave Yakima, WA 98902 Mr. Buck Taylor Yakima Airport 2400 W. Washington Ave Yakima, WA 98903 WV School District Attn: Peter Ansingh 8902 Zier Road Yakima, WA 98908 DOC. INDEX # -�� Dayana Sanchez City Legal Codes Mike Antijunti Carolyn Belles Engineering Codes Sam Granato Police Chief Charlie Hines Fire Chief Bill Cook Director, CED DECISIONS ONLY City Clerk DECISIONS ONLY Sandy Cox Codes DECISIONS ONLY Joan Davenport Binder / File /Mail Traffic Engineering Office of Neighborhood and DECISIONS ONLY Development Services Jerry Robertson Codes DOC. INDEX # - • • • Re: 6-13-08 Legal Notice: NO'1.9r't (Jr APPLI(_:A'110N, SEPA, and Pur Hrg- '1oscanna.... Page 1 of 1 Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Sent: To: Legals [legals@yakimaherald.com] Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:47 AM Ibarra, Rosalinda Subject: Re: 6-13-08 Legal Notice: NOTICE OF APPLICATION, SEPA, and PubHrg- Toscanna. Publish on 6-13-08. Acct 11002 I've scheduled the attached legal notice as requested. On 6/11/08 9:19 AM, "Ibarra, Rosalinda" <ribarra@ci. Please publish only once on Friday June, 13, 2008. Send affidavit of publication and invoice to: Acct 11 City of Yakima, Planning Division 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Specialist City of Yakima Planning Division p: (509) 575-6183 ribarra@ci.yakima.wa.us Simon Sizer Legal/Obituary Clerk Yakima Herald -Republic Phone: 509-577-7740 Fax: 509-577-7766 legals@yakimaherald.com 6/12/2008 Legal Notices NOTICE OF,:APPLICATION;, ENVIRONMENTAL"' DATE) RE 3iE200,8ND PUBLIC,HEARING t'' TO Applicant Adjoining Property Owners SEPA. Re. viewingiAgencles rr a FROM: William Cook; CED Director ' APPLICANT Toscanna LLC , File.Number(s).;_ UAZO 'CL (3)#708 CL'(2)#22-08. Adm Adj #16-08 EC #19 08 _; 00 4 Tax Pareel Numbers) 181315 31011', 18131534037 Date oitApplication; March.,18 2008 Date of Determi, nation of:.Completeness June 9 2008.,. PROJECT' DESCRIPTION The proposed developm' ent is a''mixture of ;duplex and `apartment rinds in the,'. R-1 and R-2;'zornng'distnct There': are 84:duplex units!pro. posed for; the R t oned' lot, "arid 96 apartment units proposed;_for the=R-2 zoned jot Based on lot density calculations 6;Class (2) -review iSieguireitflortha du piexes and a Class: (3) review_ is requiredfor the.:apart- merits=,Also proposed is an'adniinistrative•adjustment ofthe rear yard'setbaok andhlot coverage standards.;ori , the R-2'=zoned lot:>SEPA• environmental review'is;re quired forthemumtieriof proposed dwelling unds.; The • subject;; property isam the3vicinity oe R f ,Castlevaload and Seattle Slew Run ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is'.,1o, noti1y all the public;and private agent es' with junsdictiyoniandenvironmental expertise that theCityof IYakima Division of-EnvironmentallPlai ni fig has^beerl established asithelead agency,"pursuant to'the Wash• ingtonI,,State,Erivironmental-Policy Act(SEPA)Jorittiel above.stated project This action is not,exempt from the State Enyironmental'Policy Act under WAC197 11-80.q Cifiga-fiCer Exemptions (1)Minor new constructigrl Flexible thresholds as this actionanvolves the; cony struction`of more than+2okdwelling unds in the R-2 zon- ing distract and 4;;dwelling units in thetR 1 zoning diii tract ';Thus, an €environmental �revlewris required. Th ii City of !akima lis presently ;inclined towards !the issu+ ante of'a Mitigated Determination of: Non Significancd (MDNS)''onithis project TbeoptionaI WAC 197;11-350 • process'; is being used Theiproposal,may include mitia gation`measuresunder applicable codes and the projl ect'review process may.; incorporate;' or+require rnitigaj tion measures .regardless; of wheth'er,an EIS, is pre+ pared: Thm is ayrbe your; only opportunity'to'�com; mme opn the en ronmental impaots of rthis ,prof ro ect. rides tnb'es an Request for Written Comments Age_ d the, public are encouraged; to rewew 'and commenVort • , the proposed project and;its:probable environmental im view `Allhwntten oommentte recti vedtby July 3 2008.wi l be considered prior to issuing the final;detennrnation.o this application Please send wntten.commente-to $WI Ilam Cook CED `Director ;City of Yakima Departmen of Coriimunrty aria Economrc.DeveloPment 129; N 2n Street:',;Yakima, WA 98901 .NOTICE^OF DECISION iA copyY.:of the`+�SEPPA' ,threshold determination ,will bd mailed to you after the endof the 20 -day commentperi+ od. There will be; g14-day`!SEPA appeal g0060:effec live upon the"dati of mailing x } = 3 OT1GE OF PUBLIC HEARING This project require that�the Heating Examiner hold a public hearing This public hearing "has been'' scheduled:'' for -August 141 2008;, beginning Of 9:00 a:m in the, Council Chambers, City: Hall 129N,2nd Street Yakima, WA Any perso desinng:to express, their views on this matter is invitecl to attend the,publlc hearing or. to.sulam written -come merits. Following the public healing, the Hearing Exam= finer' will issue 1115 decision within, ten (10) busrnes9 Ify ,r• you have any question on this pfopOSUl please call Joseph` Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575.61621 The file containing the complete application is available tor public review at theeCity`,of. Yakima Planning Divi; sign. ` (09547136) June 18 2 INDEX # 6 _L/b Legal Notices Press Release NOTICE OF APPLICATION, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 13, 2008 TO: Applicant, Adjoining Property Owners, SEPA Reviewing Agencies FROM: William Cook, CED Director APPLICANT: Toscanna LLC File Number(s): UAZO CL (3)#7-08, CL (2)#22-08. Adm Adj #16-08, EC #19-08 Tax Parcel Number(s): 181315-31011, 181315-34037 Date of Application: March 18, 2008 Date of Determination of Completeness: June 9, 2008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed development is a mixture of duplex and apartment units in the R-1 and R-2 zoning district. There are 84 duplex units proposed for the R-1 zoned lot, and 96 apartment units proposed for the R-2 zoned lot. Based on lot density calculations, a Class (2) review is required for the duplexes and a Class (3) review is required for the apartments. Also proposed is an administrative adjustment of the rear -yard setback and lot coverage standards on the R-2 zoned lot. SEPA environmental review is required for the number of proposed dwelling units. The subject property is in the vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This is to notify all the public and private agencies with jurisdiction and environmental expertise that the City of Yakima Division of Environmental Planning has been established as the lead agency, pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the above stated project. This action is not exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act under WAC 197-11-800 Categorical Exemptions (1) Minor new construction — Flexible thresholds as this action involves the construction of more than 20 dwelling units in the R-2 zoning district and 4 -dwelling units in the R-1 zoning district. Thus, an environmental review is required. The City of Yakima is presently inclined towards the issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance (MDNS) on this project. The optional WAC 197-11-355 process is being used. The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared. This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of this proposed project. Request for Written Comments: Agencies, tribes, and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed project and its probable environmental impacts. There is a 20 -day comment period for this review. All written comments received by July 3, 2008 will be considered prior to issuing the final determination on this application. Please send written comments to: William Cook, CED Director; City of Yakima, Department of Community and Economic Development; 129 N 2°d Street, Yakima, WA, 98901. NOTICE OF DECISION: A copy of the SEPA threshold determination will be mailed to you after the end of the 20 -day comment period. There will be a 14 -day SEPA appeal period effective upon the date of mailing. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: This project requires that the Hearing Examiner hold a public hearing. This public hearing has been scheduled for August 14, 2008 beginning at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. Any person desiring to express their views on this matter is invited to attend the public hearing or to submit written comments. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue his decision within ten (10) business days. If you have any question on this proposal, please call Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575-6162. The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division. DOC, INDEX # 6_Lla_ • Page 1 ot 1 Ibarra, Rosalinda From: lbarra, Rosalinda Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:04 AM To: Barbara Serrano - YHR; Bob Crider - Yakima Herald Republic; Brown, Michael; Bruce Smith - Yak. Business Times; Chris Bristol - YHR; Christine Ermey; Claudia Moreno - Noticias Locales; Criag Troianello - Yakima Herald Rep.; Erin Snelgrove - Yak. Herald Rep; Gabriel Martinez - KDNA; George Finch - Business Journal; lbarra, Rosalinda; Jeff Peters (website posting); Jenny Escobar; KDNA; KNDO News; Kylie Meyer; Lance Tormey; Lindsay France; Lou Bartelli; Lozano, Bonnie; Mai Hoang; Mark Morey; Marta Isabel Sanchez - Univision; Mike Balmelli - KAPP; Mike Bastinelli; NWCN; Randy Beehler - YPAC; Stacie Vasko; Valerie Hurst; Yakima Business Journal; Yakima Herald Republic Newspaper Subject: 6-16-08 Press Release: Notice of application, SEPA, and Pub Hrg-Toscanna Attachments: NOTICE OF APPLICATION, SEPA, and Pub Hrg- Toscanna_press release.doc Jeff, please post to the planning website. Thanks! Rosalinda Ibarra ' Planning Specialist City of Yakima Planning Division p: (509) 575-6183 ribarra@ci.yakima.wa.us 12/15/2008 DOC. INDEX # 6- 4a. NOTICE OF APPLICATION, PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DATE: June 13, 2008 TO: Applicant, Adjoining Property Owners, SEPA Reviewing Agencies FROM: William Cook, CED Director APPLICANT: Toscanna LLC SUBJECT: Notice of Class (3) and (2) land use review, Administrative Adjustment, and SEPA Environmental Review File Number(s): UAZO CL (3)#7-08, CL (2)#22-08 Adm Adj #16-08, EC #19-08 Tax Parcel Number(s): 181315-31011, 181315-34037 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development is a mixture of duplex and apartment units in the R-1 and R-2 zoning district. There are 84 duplex units proposed for the R-1 zoned lot, and 96 apartment units proposed for the R-2 zoned lot. Based on lot density calculations, a Class (2) review is required for the duplexes and a Class (3) review is required for the apartments. Also proposed is an administrative adjustment of the rear -yard setback and lot coverage standards on the R-2 zoned lot. SEPA environmental review is required for the number of proposed dwelling units. The subject property is in the vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is to notify all the public and private agencies with jurisdiction and environmental expertise that the City of Yakima Division of Environmental Planning has been established as the lead agency, pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the above stated project. This action is not exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act under WAC 197-11- 800 Categorical Exemptions (1) Minor new construction — Flexible thresholds as this action involves the construction of more than 20 dwelling units in the R-2 zoning district and 4 - dwelling units in the R-1 zoning district. Thus, an environmental review is required. The City of Yakima is presently inclined towards the issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance (MDNS) on this project. The optional WAC 197-11-355 process is being used. The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared.- This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of Toscanna LLC Notice of Application and Environmental Review 1 DOC, INDEX # G • 4110 this proposed project. The following conditions have been identified that may be used to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposal: 1. The proponent/developer must address the air emission impact, in particular PM25 prior to any SEPA approval. Air emission from such a large development, if using solid fuel devices during the winter season at one time, may violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for, the 24 hours average. 2. Contractors doing clearing, grading, paving, construction or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA). Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. 3. Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater . Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. If Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are used in the drainage design, the UIC wells must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and a copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and registration number(s) shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer. 4. Public waterlines are required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall be placed in the street connect to the existing waterline in Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependent on the required fireflow for the buildings. 5. All public utility lines on private property shall be located in a minimum 16 -foot easement. 6. Fire Department Access Roads shall be installed and designed to the standards of the 2006 International Fire Code (IFC). 7. The proposed gates shall comply with the 2006 IFC standards and be equipped with a Knox Box rapid entry system or Opticom system which will be approved by the fire code official 8. Where required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying with Figure D103.6 of the IFC. 9. The Yakima Valley Canal Company (YVCC) will not allow any excavation or construction within their right-of-way. Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way. 10. In accordance with YMC § 12.03.020, sewer is to be extended along the east edge of the property to provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer pipe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly finger of the development to provide gravity sewer to existing residences on the west and south sides of the canal. 11. Title 12 development standards shall be applied to this project including streets built to city standards with curb, gutter, five-foot sidewalks and streetlights. Public easements will be recorded where needed. 12. During project construction, all contractors shall adhere to the City of Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. These hours are 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends and holidays. Required Permits — The following local, state and federal permits/approvals are needed for the proposed project: Building Permit, Grading Permit, Dust Control Plan (Yakima Clean Air Toscanna LLC Notice of Application and Environmental Review 2 DOC. INDEX G.y Authority), New Source Review (Yakima Clean Air Authority). Additional permits may be required. Required Studies: Traffic Concurrency Review. Existing Environmental Documents: None known. Preliminary determination of the development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and consistency: International Building Code, City of Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan, and City of Yakima Title 12 Development Standards. Request for Written Comments: Agencies, tribes, and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the proposed project and its probable environmental impacts. There is a 20 -day comment period for this review. All written comments received by July 3, 2008 will be considered prior to issuing the final determination on this application. Please be sure to reference the file number(s) (UAZO CL (3)#7-08, CL (2)#22-08, Adm Adj #16-08, EC #19-08) or applicant's name (Toscanna LLC) in your correspondence. NOTICE OF DECISION A copy of the SEPA threshold determination will be mailed to you after the end of the 20 -day comment period. There will be a 14 -day SEPA appeal period effective upon the date of mailing. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This project requires that the Hearing Examiner hold a public hearing. This public hearing has been scheduled for August 14, 2008 beginning at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. Any person desiring to express their views on this matter is invited to attend the public hearing or to submit written comments. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue his decision within ten (10) business days. If you have any question on this proposal, please call Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575-6162 or e-mail at jcalhoun@ci.yakima.wa.us. Encl.: Written Narrative for Class (2) and Class (3) Land Uses and Administrative Adjustment, SEPA Environmental Checklist, Site Plan, Vicinity Map and Mailing Map Toscanna LLC Notice of Application and Environmental Review 3 DOC. INDEX GY • DEPARTML 9F C'OMMUNITYAND ECONOMIC IS.LOPMENT Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 (509) 575-6183 o Fax (509) 575-6105 a www.ci.yakima.wa.us June 9, 2008 Toscanna Development Attn: Keith Basham 12419 172nd Street East, #103 Puyallup WA, 98374 COPY Determination of Application Completeness for a Class (3) and Class (2) Land Use, Administrative Adjustment, and Environmental Review. UAZO CL(3) #7-08, CL(2) #20-08, ADM ADJ#16-08, EC #19-08 Your application for a Class (2) and Class (3) Land Use, Administrative Adjustment, and Environmental Review was submitted on March 18, 2008. A Notice of Incomplete Application.. was sent on April 14, 2008 and on May 1, 2008. Following review of the requested materials, this application has been determined to be complete as of June 9, 2008. Continued processing of your request will include, but is not limited to, the following actions: 1. A Notice of Application will be sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. A 20 -day comment period is provided by the City of Yakima for public comments. 2. Following the comment period, a SEPA Threshold determination will be issued and followed by a 14 day SEPA appeal period. 3. An open record public hearing is tentatively scheduled for August 14, 2008. The Hearing Examiner will render his decision within 10 business days of the hearing date. The decision will be followed by a 14 -day appeal period. 4. At the end of the appeal period, a Certificate of Zoning Review will be issued, provided that any conditions of approval are completed. A final site plan may be required. You may contact me at (509) 575-6162 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner cc: Envizage Development Group, Dave Sjule Paul Casey, The Casey Group Rick Wehr, PLSA DOC. INDEX Yakima RECEIVED MAY 2 3 ?008 CITY OF YAlip CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING LAND USE ACTION INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE Project Number: i9-1;,tit/1132414A aim Date of Installation: Site Address: : ro , Fnvm 4 „.{-1 €. vat r Location of Installation (Check One) Land Use Action Sign is installed per standards described in Y UAZO § 15.11.090(C). Land Use Action Sign is installed in an alternate location on the site. Note: this alternate location (if not pre -approved by the Code Administration and Planning Manager) may not be acceptable by the Code Administration and Planning Division and is subject to relocation (at the owner's expense) to a more visible site on the property. The alternative location is: I hereby testify that the sign installed fully complies with the Land Use Action sign layout specifications and installation standards, and that the sign will be maintained until a decision has been rendered. Applicants Name (please print) tio0 s ut,L= Date Applicants Signatu Telephon S-67 Numb r of Applicant — (6— R-cf/ f. The qui tred comment period will begin when the Code Administration and Planning Division have received the Land Use Action Sign Installation Certification. The date of installation certificate receipt will begin the notice period. Failure to post a Land Use Action sign and return this form in a timely manner will cause a delay in the application review. Please remit the above certification and deliver; FAX at 509-575-6105; or mail to: City of Yakima, Code Administration and Planning Division, 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901. DOC. INDEX • DEPARTME l` 'r OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC D r'7ELOPMENT Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 (509) 575-6183 o Fax (509) 575-6105 www.ci.yakima.wa.us May 1, 2008 Envizage Development Group Attn: Keith Basham 200 Galloway Drive Yakima WA, 98908 Your application for a SEPA Environmental review was initially submitted on March 18, 2008. A Notice of Incomplete Application was issued on April 14, 2008. New information was submitted on April 17, 2008, which included an updated site plan and a Class (2) Land 'Use Review Application and an Administrative Adjustment request. After review of the newly submitted information, the application is considered to be incomplete 'as of May 1, 2008. In order to continue processing your application, the following issues must be resolved: Administrative Adjustment: The request for an administrative adjustment requires a separate application and written narrative • (see attached). Additional fees are not required since a Class (2) has already been paid for. • Incomplete Site Plan: There are some inconsistencies in the newly submitted site plan. Please update as follows: 1. Boundary Lines: The boundary lines, as shown on the new site plan, do not conform to the preliminary plat approval dated March 21, 2008. One of the conditions of preliminary plat approval was: 5. The proposed access easement shall be dedicated as public right of way and built to Title 12 standards. This condition is in place so that each lot has at least 20 -feet of frontage onto a public road. It is not clear on the submitted site plan where the property lines are and if all lots have adequate frontage onto a public right-of-way. The boundary lines can change slightly from the preliminary plat approval so long as the changes are not substantial and the conditions can still be met. Property dimensions need to be shown as well. Dwelling Units Calculation: Please verify how the calculation was drawn up. On the first site plan, the areas of streets, right- of-ways, and access easements in acres is indicated. Those items are not included in the dwelling units calculation on the recently submitted site plan. The calculation is as follows: Yakima DOC. pler INDEX - 1 199' THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS PERMITTED ON A SITE _ (the total site area in acres) MINUS (the area of streets, right-of-ways access easements, in acres) MULITPLIED BY (the maximum number of dwelling units permitted per net residential acre) (YMC § 15.05.030(B)). Please modify, if needed, the calculation to reflect the above formula. SEPA Checklist: The SEPA Checklist needs to be modified to reflect your recent changes. For example: Your answer to Background Question number 5 says that the proposed development is a: "100 unit apartment on 8.24 acre proposed Lot 1 and 86 residential condominium duplexes on 15.90 acre proposed Lot 2". Please modify and update your SEPA checklist answers as needed to incorporate the proposed changes. You may contact me at (509) 575-6162, or email at jcalhoun@ci.yakima.wa.us if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, cif Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner 509-575-6162 DOC. INDEX • • • TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER H Public Comments EXIII «.,..„_'llT..._-..} ry „. .-., ,z. .... �a.,�' al: .,....,�.. _.tea ^tea. .- _. •..' '.";3. _.y - ..�P DATE ,... .,c ..._.i. H-1 Letter from Mike & Sue Gunderson 6/23/08 H-2 Letter from Duane Knittle 6/25/08 H-3 Petition Signed by Jack & Shirley Barker, Rueben & Laure Bergeson, Edith McArthur, Blanche Fortier, and Caroline Purdon 6/30/08 H-4 Letter from Therese Hamm -Sexton 7/01/08 11-5 Letter from Ron & Linda Hatfield 7/01/08 11-6 Letter from Betty Douglas 7/01/08 H-7 Letter from Gerald Hino 7/02/08 H-8 Letter from Joel & Monica Weyhe 7/02/08 11-9 Letter from Kent McLachlan 7/02/08 H-10 Letter from James & Marilyn Lane 7/02/08 H-11 Letter from Lee & Patricia Clark 7/02/08 H-12 Letter from Patrick True & Sonia Rodriguez 7-02-08 H-13 Letter from Sonny Cooper 7/03/08 H-14 Letter from Delmar Pearson 7/07/08 H-15 Letter from Kent & Gail McLachlan 7/17/08 H-16 Letter from Gloria Hutchinson 08/08/08 H-17 Letter from Jim Scoggins 08/11/08 H-18 Letter from Ron Hatfield 08/13/08 H-19 Letter from Lis Pedemonte 08/13/08 EXHIBITS�5 334 . ,..•' �a w,a DOCUMENT �� �' #� �. � � t -j c`C a -.`.. i e'$$ o -n wY n +rvefA'{'f.'t ^ F+4 'Lv'b tl '._. ? y,Yw`K 3 '.Yz. t ' DATE`� : _ .�5,kC��Y H-20 Letter from Ronald B. Jones 08/14/08 H-21 Letter from Samantha & Patrick Knittle 08/14/08 H-22 Newspaper article submitted by Ron H. 08/18/08 H-23 Letter from Ron Hatfield with copy of newspaper article published in the Yakima Herald on August 15, 2008 08/19/08 H-24 Letter from Chad Hatfield, Velikanje Halverson 08/20/08 H-25 Letter from Dorothy & Duane Knittle 08/21/08 H-26 Letter from Chad Hatfield 08/21/08 H-27 Letter from Monica and Joel Weyhe 08/21/08 H-28 Letter to the Editor — Submitted to Yakima Herald by Dennis Pendemonte and published on August 27, 2008 8/27/08 H-29 Letter from John and Peggy Maxwell 08/29/08 H-30 Letter from John Puccinelli 09/08/08 H-31 Letters submitted by Gary Cuillier for the record from Mr. John Puccinelli 11/03/08 11-32 • Letter from Thomas and Dolores Gasseling 12/03/08 H-33 Request for Extension received from Mr. Chad Hatfield (faxed and mailed) 12/04/08 H-34 Letter from Larry and Barb Koreis 12/05/08 H-35 Letter from Therese and Patrick Hamm -Sexton 12/05/08 H-36 Letter from Mike and Sue Gunderson 12/05/08 H-37 Letter from Timothy and Nancy Gavin 12/08/08 H-38 Letter from Ron and Linda Hatfield 12/08/08 H-39 Letter from Macile M. Cowman 12/09/08 H-40 Letter from William P. Foster 12/09/08 H-41 Letter from Don Young 12/09/08 H-42 Letter from Gregory Chin 12/11/08 H-43 Letter from Monica and Joel Weyhe 12/11/08 H-44 Letter from Jim Scoggins 12/11/08 H-45 Letter from Chad Hatfield 12/26/08 H-46 Memorandum submitted by Alison Moss, Dearborn & Moss PLLC 12/26/08 DEARBORN & MOSS P L.L.C. Attorneys at Law December 26, 2008 Joseph Calhoun Planning Division Department of Community and Economic Development 129 North Second Street, 2°d Floor Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Appeal Memorandum - UAZO CL(2) #20-08, UAZO CL(3) #7-08, UAZO ADM ADJ #16-08 Dear Mr. Calhoun: Enclosed please find the original of Envizage Development Group's Appeal Memorandum in this matter. Mr. Sjule hand -delivered eight copies to the Department on December 26: seven for the Council and one for the Department. We have also emailed an electronic copy to Mr. Hatfield. Enclosure 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 DOC. INDEX # RECEIVED DEC 2 6 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. BEFORE THE YAKIMA CITY COUNC APPEAL BY ENVIZAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONS DENYING THE TOSCANA PROJECT Files UAZO CL(2) #20-08 UAZO CL(3) #7-08 UAZO ADM ADJ #16-08 Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group APPEAL MEMORANDUM OF APPLICANT ENVIZAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP DOC. INDEX # DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • • • 2 • • 3 • 4 • 5. • • 6 • • • • 9 • 10 • 11 • • 12 • • • 15 • 16 • 17 • • 18 • 19 • 20 • • 21 • 22 • 23 • • 24 • 25 • • • ,• • • BEFORE THE YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL APPEAL BY ENVIZAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONS DENYING THE TOSCANA PROJECT RECEIVED DEC 2 6 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Files UAZO CL(2) #20-08 UAZO CL(3) #7-08 UAZO ADM ADJ #16-08 APPEAL MEMORANDUM OF APPLICANT ENVIZAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group r DOC. INDE # �f DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 (206)923-0814 • 2 0 ® 3 ® 4 0 O 6 U 7 Q 8 0 O 9 O 10 ® 11 0 11 12 O 4110 0 • 15 O 16 40 1 • • 18 O 19 . 20 11 • 21 0 22 0 U 23 0 24 O 25 0 0 0. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. The Issues. B. The Setting C. The Toscana Project. D. The Procedural History 1 1 2 2 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 4 III. THE LOCAL PROJECT REVIEW ACT „5 IV. THE MEANING OF COMPATIBILITY 5 A. Factors Contributing to Compatibility 5 B. Compatibility is,Measured Against the Purposes of the Districts and the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan 7 1. The Intent of the R-1 District. 7 2. The Intent of the R-2 District. 10 C. Factors That May Not Be Considered. 10 V. THE EVIDENCE ON THE COMPATIBILITY FACTORS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION 12 A. Characteristics of the Uses. B. Proximity. C. Project Siting/Location. 13 14 15 D. Visual Appearance and Building Size. 16 E. Building Height. 17 Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - i DEA,RBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 O O 0 LI • O 2 O O ® 4 O 5 O 6 O 7 O 8 O 9 O l0 O 11 0 O 12 0 Ail O O 15 O 16 O 17 O O 18 0 19 O 20 0 0 21 O 22 O 23 0 O 24 0 25 O • 0O 0 O F. Traffic Generation. 18 G. Noise. 19 H. Dust and Light. 21 I. Economic Value. 22 J. Site Design 22 1. Site Screening. 22 2. Setbacks and Open Space. 23 3. All Units Will Have an Attached Garage. 23 4. Professionally Installed and Maintained Landscaping and Trails. 23 K. Building Design. 23 L. Other Factors. 24 VL THE HEARING EXAMINER ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT TOSCANA IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 24 A. Improper Basis 24 B. The Comprehensive Plan Hierarchy 25 C. Policy H.1.6.2. 26 D. Objective H3.1 26 E. Objective L2. 27 F. Policy G9.3. 27 G. The Hearing Examiner Ignores Many More Policies Supporting the Toscana Proposal 28 VII. SEPA 29 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - ii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 5 0 O 6 ® 7 0 8 0 O 9 O I0 11 0 O 12 0 0 0 O 15 O 16 ® 17 0 0 18 19 0 20 0 O 21 O 22 0 it 2� ® 24 41 25 0 0 41 0 �1 0 2 A. The Law is Clear - Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan is an Element of the Environment 29 B. Only One Administrative Appeal is Allowed. 30 VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS ARE REQUESTED TO ACCOMMODATE AMENITIESNOT DENSITY 30 IX. CONSISTENCY OF USES WITH YMC 16.06.020.B. 31 X. ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISIONS 31 XL CONCLUSION 32 Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - iii DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206)923-0814 0 0 4 O TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 0 O Cases 3 Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, O 4 146 Wn.2d 685, 49 P.3d 860 (2002) 5 O 5 Cingular Wireless v. Thurston County, ® 131 Wn. App. 756, 129 P.3d 300 (2006) 30 6 Indian Trail Property Owners' Ass 'n v. City of Spokane, O 7 76 Wn. App. 430, 886 P.2d 209 (1994) 10 O 8 Kenart & Assoc. v. Skagit County, O 37 Wn.App. 295, rev. denied 101 Wn.2d 1021 (1984) 12, 13, 16, 24 9 ® Landmark Dev. Inc. v. City of Roy, O 10 138 Wn.2d 561, 980 P.2d 1234 (1999) 5 2 O 11 Maranatha Mining Inc. v. Pierce County, O 59 Wn.App. 795 (1990) 12 0 12 McTavish v. City of Bellevue, O 41) 89 Wn. App. 561, 949 P.2d 837 (1998) 8 11 Sunderland Family Treatment Servs v. City of Pasco, 0 127 Wn.2d 782, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) 10, 11, 25, 26 O 15 Tugwell v. City of Ellensburg, 0 16 90 Wn. App. 1, 951 P.2d 272(1997) 10 0 17 Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass 'n v. Chelan County, 0 141 Wn.2d 169, 4 P.3d 123 (2000) 5 O 18 Whatcom County v. City of Bellingham, 0 19 128 Wn. 2d 537, 909 P. 2d 1303 (1-996) 8,26 0 20 Statutes O O 21 RCW 36.70B 5 O 22 RCW 36.70B.030(1) 5 O 23 RCW 36.70B.030(2) tl 5 O 24 RCW 36.70C 4 O 25 RCW 36.70C.130(1)(e) 25 0 ® • DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 0 Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - iv Phone: (206) 923-0816 O Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • '� • 2 • • 3 • 4 • 5 • • 6 • 7 • 8 • • 9 • . 10 • 11 • • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • 17 • • 18 • 19 • 20. • • 21 • 22 • 23 • • 24 • 25 • • • • Regulations WAC 197-11-680(3)(iv) 30 Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - v DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone:. (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • 2 • • 3 • 4 • 5 • • • 7 • 8 • • 9 • 10 • 11 • • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • 17 • • 18 • 19 • 6 • • 21 • 22 • 23 • • 24 20 • 25 • • • • • • I. INTRODUCTION A. The Issues. This appeal is about what the term "compatibility" means. It is also about the fundamental planning choices the City Council made when it made the following legislative determinations: • Densities of up to 7 dwelling units/acre are presumed to be compatible in the R-1 District. • Apartments of up to 12 dwelling units/acre are presumed to be compatible in the R-2 District. • Proper siting and design can make apartments of 13-18 dwelling units/acre compatible m the R-2 District. B. The Setting. The Toscana Project is located at the far eastern edge of a large R-1 zoned area. It is comprised of an approximately 17 acre parcel zoned R-1 on the west and an approximately 7.5 acre parcel zoned R-2 on the east. An irrigation canal operated by the Yakima Valley Canal Company ("Irrigation Canal") separates the R-1 zoned portion of the property from the existing single-family homes and duplexes to the west and south. The R-2 zoned portion of the property is adjacent to an existing mobile home park on R-3 zoned property and a large Business District with B-1 and B-2 zoning on the east and northeast. See, Attachment 1, Toscana Conceptual Site Plan with surrounding zoning and uses. The R-1 zone buffers the existing single family and duplex uses from the R-2, R-3, B-1, and B-2 Districts: The 1997 Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan ("Comprehensive Plan") Future Land Use Map (Map III -3) designates theproperty as suitable for Medium Density Residential development. Both Medium and High Density Residential Uses are "generally compatible" in a Medium Density Residential designation. Land Use Compatibility Chart, Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 1 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave.. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • 40. • Z • • • • • • • • • • • • • • O. • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • Figure 11I-2. Medium Density is defined as 7-11 dwelling units/acre; High Density is 12 or more dwelling units/acre. C. The Toscana Project. The Toscana project is a gated community consisting of one-story duplexes adjacent to the Irrigation Canal; two story duplexes in the interior of the R-1 zone; and two story apartments and significant recreation and open space amenities in the R-2 zone. The duplexes have a density of 5.6 dwelling units/acre; the apartments a density of 14.6 dwelling units/acre. Based on the proposed densities, the duplexes are a Class (2) use and the apartments are a Class (3) use. Class (2) uses are generally permitted throughout the zoning district. However, site plan review is required to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objectives of the Coraprehensive Plan.. In contrast, Class 3 uses are generally incompatible with their neighbors because of their size, emissions, and traffic generation. However, compatibility may be achieved through proper siting and design: The Toscana project also includes two administrative adjustments for the R-2 zoned portion of the property: a reduction of the rear yard setback for one building along the R -1/R- 2 zoning district boundary and an increase in the impervious surface coverage primarily resulting from recreation facilities. Casey Testimony, September 22, 2008 Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision, p. 11. D. The Procedural History. The Division of Environmental Planning evaluated the project's impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"). It received and considered comments stating that: (a) Views from houses along the canal will be altered; (b) Proposed densities are too high for the subject property; (c) Traffic will increase; (d) The property values of surrounding homes will decrease; Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 2 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • 111 • 2 • • 3 • 4 • 5 • • • 7 • g • • 9 • 10 • 11 • • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • 17 • • 18 • 19 • • • 21 • 22 • 23 • • 24 • 25 • • • • • 20 The proposed use is not compatible with the current zoning district or the surrounding neighborhood; Noise from the recreation facility, proposed pool, and traffic will be detrimental to neighborhood; Toxins are likely present from past orchard use; Possible safety issues with the canal; Adjustments should not be allowed; Smog/air quality issues; Proposed interior streets do not meet standards; and Lighting should be directed away from homes uphill. November 4, 2008 Hearing Examiner's Decision, Finding VIII(1), p. 5. The Responsible Official determined that, as conditioned by 18 conditions, the Toscana Project would not cause significant adverse environmental impacts and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS"). The Environmental Division also recommended that the Class (2) and (3) uses be approved subject to 6 additional conditions. Staff Report to Hearing Examiner for Public Hearing August 14, 2008 ("Staff Report"). Ron Hatfield, on behalf of an informal group of neighbors calling itself "Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill," appealed the MDNS. He alleged 10 errors, including transportation, noise, light and glare, aesthetics, and inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on August 14, 2008. He issued an Interim Decision allowing interested persons to provide evidence of the legislative history of the zoning of the Toscana property. After reviewing the information submitted, he issued a second Interim Decision dated September 22, 2008 summarizing the testimony offered at the hearing and allowing the parties time to discuss the possibility of resolving compatibility issues through a Development Agreement ("Interim Decision"). Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 3 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • • • 3 • 4 • 5 • • 6_ • 7 • 2 • • 9 • 10. • 8 • • • • • • • 16 • 17 • • 18 • 19 • 20 • • 21 • 22 • 23 • • 24 • 25 • 11 12 411 15 • • • • • e • At the reconvened hearing on October 21, 2008, the Applicant advised the Hearing Examiner that it is willing to enter into a Development Agreement committing to the design of the project. It also offered conditions to address concerns raised at the August 14 hearing. However, the neighbors had made clear that they oppose any apartments on the Toscana property, not a particular density. Testimony confirmed this. Testimony of Chad Hatfield, attorney for "Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill," Ron Hatfield, Tom Gasseling, and Lee Clark at October 21, 2008 hearing. Staff presented a supplemental Staff Report addressing several issued raised at the August 14, hearing ("Supplemental Staff Report"). Staff continued to recommend that the project be approved subject to conditions. The MDNS Conditions, Conditions recommended in the Staff Report and Supplemental Staff Report and the conditions offered by the Applicant are summarized in Attachment 2. On November 4, 2008, the Hearing Examiner issued his decision on the MDNS appeal and the applications ("Decision"). He upheld the MDNS, expressly finding that the Toscana Project would not generate significant transportation, noise, light and glare, or aesthetics impacts. Nevertheless, he denied the Class (2) and (3) uses and administrative adjustments, finding that the proposed density and intensity created incompatibility in the same areas in which he had found that there were insignificant impacts and inconsistency with two Comprehensive Plan policies and one objective. The Applicant appeals his denial of the Class (2) and (3) uses and the administrative adjustments. H. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW ("LUPA"), provides a helpful framework for the Council's review of this appeal. Under LUPA, the review process involves two steps: (1) the reviewing body, here the City Council, must first determine if the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record; and (2) if so, whether those findings of fact support the conclusions of law. Landmark Dev. Inc. v. City of Roy, 138 Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 4 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-08I6 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Wn.2d 561, 573, 980 P.2d 1234 (1999). "Substantial evidence" is a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order. Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 146 Wn.2d 685, 694, 49 P.3d 860 (2002). Legal conclusions are overturned if they are "clearly erroneous," which means that the reviewing body is left with "the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass 'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000). The errors of fact we allege should be reviewed under the substantial evidence test; the errors of law we allege should be reviewed under the clearly erroneous test; and the Examiner's Decision should be reversed for the reasons discussed below. III. THE LOCAL PROJECT REVIEW ACT Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations serve as the foundation for project review. RCW 36.70B.030(1). Applicable regulations are determinative of the type of land use permitted at the site, the density of residential development in urban growth areas, and availability of public facilities. RCW 36.70B.030(2). During project review, the local government may not reexamine alternatives to or hear appeals on these three items. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Hearing Examiner did. The Decision denying the Class (2) and (3) uses based on density conflicts with Chapter 36.70B RCW, the Local Project Review Act. IV. THE MEANING OF COMPATIBILITY A. Factors Contributing to Compatibility. Many provisions of the Yakima Municipal Code ("Code" or "YMC") provide guidance on the meaning of the term "compatibility." The Code defines compatibility as: "Compatibility" means the characteristics of different uses or development that permit them to be located near each other in harmony. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 5 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • • • 3 • 4 5 • • 6 • 7 • 8 • • 9 • 10 • 11 • • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • 17 • • 18 • 19 • 20 • • 21 • 22 • 23 • • 24 • 25 • • • • • • • • YMC 15.02.020. This definition suggests that proximity is a factor to be evaluated in determining whether uses are compatible. The Code also defines "intensity:" "Intensity" is the combination of factors (such as visual appearance and building size, traffic generation, noise dust and light and economic value) associated with a particular use that determines the potential impact of that use on neighboring land uses. The higher the intensity the greater the possible impact on neighboring land uses. Generally the intensity of a land use will determine its compatibility with other types of land uses. YMC 15.02.020 (Emphasis supplied). The definition of Class 3 uses also identifies size, emissions, and traffic generation as factors which may lead to incompatibility: "Class (3) uses" are ... generally incompatible with their neighbors because of their size, emissions, and traffic generation or for 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 provision of public services, and the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan objectives have been adequately resolved. YMC 15.02.020 (Emphasis supplied). YMC 15.04.010 also emphasizes the importance of site design: For any particular district, there are some uses that are consistent with the intent and character of the zoning district; some uses that may be consistent if careful site design neutralizes the adverse characteristics of the use or site; and other land uses that, regardless of site design, are not consistent with the intent or character of the district. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the degree to which each land use is permitted in each district and establish the appropriate level of review for each land use in terms of the specific standards and requirements of each district. (Emphasis supplied). See also, YMC 15.03.030.2 and 15.03.030.3 which explain that a project's location and site plan may make a Class (3) density compatible with neighboring land uses. YMC 15.04.020.2 directs attention to a project's particular location: 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 Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 6 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • 2 • • 3 • • 5 • • 6 • 7 • 8 • • 9 • 10 • 11 • • 12 • 0 • • 15 • 16 • 17 • • 18 • 19 • 20 • • 21 • 22 • 23 • • 24 • 25 • • • • • • 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. (Emphasis supplied). Finally, YMC 15.05.020.F suggests that height is relevant: Maximum building height is intended to maintain building heights compatible with the character and intent of the district... Thus, the following factors should be weighed in determining whether a project is compatible: • Characteristics of the uses • Proximity • Project siting • Visual appearance • Building size • Building height • Traffic generation • Noise • Dust and light • Economic value • Site design • Building design • Location We discuss how these factors apply to the Toscana project in § V below. B. Compatibility is Measured Against the Purposes of the Districts and the Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The City may condition Class (2) and (3) uses to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district (in this case the R-1 and R-2 Districts) and the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. YMC 15.02.020 definition of "Class (2) uses;" 15.04.020.2 and 15.04.020.3. Thus, the intent of each of these Districts is key. 1. The Intent of the R-1 District. The R-1 District is intended to: a. Establish and preserve residential neighborhoods for detached single- family dwellings free from other uses except those which are compatible with, and serve the residents of, this district; and Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group . 7 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • • • 2 • 3 • 4 • • 5 • 6 • ,7 • • 8 • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • 25 • • • • • • b. Locate moderate -density residential development, up to seven dwelling units per net residential acre, in areas served by public water and sewer. Detached single-family dwellings are the primary use in this district. The district is characterized by forty-five percent lot coverage; access to individual lots by local access streets; large front, rear, and side yard setbacks; and one and two story structures. The density in the district is generally seven dwelling units per net residential acre or less. YMC 15.03.020.2. (Emphasis supplied). In Finding X(3)(d), Decision, p. 22, the Hearing Examiner attempts to apply the intent of the R-1 zone: Even though the density of the proposed duplex development at 5.67 dwelling units per net residential acre is within the permissible density of the Low Density Residential designation, the 84 duplex units in 42 duplex structures proposed for the Single -Family Residential District (R-1) on the property are not "primarily single family, detached residences." Rather, the Class (2) use application involves solely duplex units without any single-family residences. This Finding suffers from two fundamental flaws. First, it applies the intent of the R-1 District to one specific parcel of land rather than to the District as a whole. Literally applied, this Finding would prohibit any duplex that is not accompanied by a single family home. Thus, it would prohibit one duplex on an 8,000 square foot lot, even though it would comply with all of the development standards in the R-1 zone. This Finding misconstrues the purpose of the R-1 zone by applying it on a site -by -site basis rather than to the R-1 District as a whole. Second, it ignores subsection (b) entirely. Subsection (b) expressly allows moderate density of 7.0 units/acre - considerably more than is proposed - with no requirement that it be a smaller component of a single family project. Principles of statutory construction require that a statute be interpreted so that no portion is rendered meaningless or superfluous. Whatcom County v. City of Bellingham, 128 Wn.2d 537, 909 P. 2d 1303 (1996)("Whatcom County"). Municipal ordinances are evaluated under the same rules of construction as a statute. McTavish v. City of Bellevue, 89 Wn.App. 561, 565,249 P.2d 837 (1998). Finding 0 Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 8 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206)923-0814 • • • • • • • 2 • 3 • 4 • • 5 • 6 • 7 • • 8 • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • • 25 • • MIIF • • • • X(3)(d) renders YMC 15.03.020.2.b meaningless and is an erroneous interpretation of the law. The Hearing Examiner relies on former Hearing Examiner Lamb's decision in City of Yakima No. CL (3) #6-99. Finding X(4)(d)(ii), Decision, pp. 23-27. However, that decision is not applicable to the facts presented in this case and does not provide precedent for interpreting compatibility of the proposed duplexes with the intent and character of the R-1 District. hi that case, the property was designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Low Density (fewer than 7 units/acre) and zoned R-1. That is where the similarities between that project and the Toscana project ends. In that case, the property was surrounded on all four sides by R-1 zoned property with R-2 further to the east; here the duplex portion of the property is zoned R-1 and adjacent not only to R-1 zoned property to the west and a portion of the south boundary, but also R-2 zoned property to the east and south with R-3 zoning further to the east and B-1 zoning to the northeast. In that case, the applicant, Loveless, proposed a short plat dividing his property into four 8,000 square foot lots and a larger lot. Duplexes at a density of 10.5 dwelling units/acre were proposed on the 8,000 square foot lots and also planned for the larger lot. Here the proposed density is approximately half of the Loveless project - 5.6 units/acre. The Hearing Examiner concluded that the Loveless proposal was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property for low density. Here the density of the proposed duplexes is entirely consistent with the Low Density designation. The Hearing Examiner also concluded that the density proposed was far more consistent with the R-2 zone than the R-1 zone. Here the density is entirely consistent with the R-1 zone which specifically allows moderate -density residential development, up to seven dwelling units/acre. YMC 15.03.020.2.b. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 9 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • •• •• • 2 • 3 • 4 • • 5 • 6 • 7 • • 8 • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • 25 • • Ali • • • • • 2. The Intent of the R-2 District. YMC 15.03.030.3 describes the intent of the R-2 District in part by describing typical uses: The district is characterized by up to fifty percent lot coverage, access via local access streets and collectors, one and two story buildings, some clustering of units, and large front, rear and side yard setbacks. Typical uses in this district are single-family dwellings and duplexes. The density in this district generally ranges from seven to twelve dwelling units per net residential acre. However, development up to eighteen dwelling units per net residential acre may be allowed in accordance with Table 4-1 in Chapter 15.04. This higher density development shall be allowed only on those limited occasions when, after Class 3 review, the reviewing official finds that the location and site plan of the project is such that the higher density would be compatible with neighboring land uses and the level of public services, and is consistent with the goals and objectives in the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan. Finding IX(3)(d), Decision, p. 14 states: The apartments proposed for the Two -Family Residential District (R-2) are not a mixture of single family detached residences and duplexes, with a variety of other housing types at a residential density ranging between 7.0 and 11 dwelling units per acre [The Comprehensive Plan definition of Medium Density] .... This Finding is subject to the same two fundamental flaws as Finding X(3)(d). First, it applies the intent of the overall R-2 District to one specific parcel of land rather than to the District as a whole. Literally applied, this Finding prohibits an apartment building of any size or density if it is not accompanied by single family residences and duplexes. But YMC 15.03.030.3 contains no such requirement. C. Factors That May Not Be Considered. Neighborhood opposition may not be the basis of a land use decision. Tugwell v. City of Ellensburg, 90 Wn.App. 1, 951 P.2d 272(1997), citing, Sunderland Family Treatment Servs v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 797, 903 P.2d 986 (1995) (" Sunderland "); Indian Trail Property Owners ' Ass 'n v. City of Spokane, 76 Wn.App. 430, 439, 886 P.2d 209 (1994). Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 10 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • •• • 2 • 3 • 4 • • 5 • 6 • 7 • . 8 • 9 • 10 • . 11 • 12 i • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • . 23 • 24 • 25 • • • • • In Sunderland, local officials denied a permit for a home for abused and neglected youth based on the unsubstantiated, generalized fears of area residents that the youth would frighten elderly residents, engage in criminal activity, bring other "nuisance activity," and reduce property values. In reversing that decision, the Supreme Court found that unsubstantiated fears of area residents could not provide substantial evidence in support of the land use decision. 127 Wn.2d at 795. Yet, the Decision in this case is riddled with Findings that demonstrate that is precisely the basis of the Examiner's Decision. Finding IX(3)(e): The weight of credible evidence presented by the neighbors in their letters and testimony indicates that the proposed apartments fail to comply with Comprehensive Plan Objective H3.1 which is to stabilize existing viable neighborhoods and with Comprehensive Plan Policy H1.6.2 which is to encourage compatible infill of existing neighborhoods. . Finding IX(4)(c): [T]he neighbors were united in opposition to the proposed density of the apartments.' Finding X(3)(e): The weight of credible evidence presented by the neighbors in their testimony and letters was to the effect that the proposed duplexes would fail to comply with Comprehensive Plan Objective L2 which is to establish a pattern of development that supports a sense of community, with Comprehensive Plan Policy H1.6.2 which is to encourage compatible infill of existing neighborhoods and with Comprehensive Plan Policy G9.3 which is to encourage infill development with new construction that is compatible with the scale and density of the surrounding housing.... Finding X(4)(d)(iii): ....[T]there would be no effective way to effectively screen the different... living styles of the duplex structures.... Finding X(4)(d)(iv): The expectations of some of the neighbors which helped form their view as to compatibility of the proposal originated in 1996 when they withdrew their opposition to Comprehensive Plan revisions on the property on the understanding that single-family residences, which they considered to be compatible on the Single -Family Residential property, would be allowed there rather than duplexes. Finding X(4)(d)(v): ...A blending [of single family and duplex uses in the R-1 zone} would preserve the expectations of any property owners who were told I As discussed in § I, this Finding is not correct. The testimony shows that they were opposed to any apartments, not the density proposed. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 11 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 . . . . • • 4 . • 5 • 6 • 7 . . 8 . 9 . 10 . • 11 . 12 • . . • 15 . 16 • . 17 . 18 ® 19 • . 20 . 21 ® 22 . • 23 • 24 . 25 •. . . . . there would be single -dwelling houses there or who purchased their residences in reliance on those types of assurances.... For these reasons, the Council should reverse the Hearing Examiner's Decisions on the Class (2) and (3) uses and Administrative Adjustments and approve the Toscana project as recommended by staff with the additional conditions offered by the Applicant. Similarly, the "expectations" of some of the neighbors in 1996 is not relevant to the determination of whether the proposed Class (2) use is compatible with the intent and character of the of the R-1 district. Giving any weight to such "expectations" is outside of the Hearing Examiner's authority and constitutes a misinterpretation of the law and a misapplication of the law to the facts. V. THE EVIDENCE ON THE COMPATIBILITY FACTORS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION In his Interim Decision, the Hearing Examiner observed that there is no assurance of quality and design standards for Class (1) uses. Interim Decision, p. 9. Class (2) or (3) review is required to impose conditions to promote compatibility. The Applicant is willing to enter into a Development Agreement incorporating the design features discussed below. Indeed, as the discussion below demonstrates, the Applicant has shown both a willingness and an ability to mitigate each impact of concern to the opponents. Maranatha Mining Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn.App. 795, 804 (1990) ("Maranatha Mining"); Kenart & Assoc. v. Skagit County, 37 Wn.App. 295, 302-303 rev. denied 101 Wn.2d 1021 (1984) ("Kenart"). In Maranatha Mining, the county council denied a permit for gravel mining and asphalt production even though the applicant demonstrated a willingness and an ability to mitigate each and every adverse impact opponents raised. In reversing the county council, the Court of Appeals noted that it could not escape the conclusion that the council "based its decision on community displeasure and not on reasons backed by policies and standards as Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 12 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 0 • 40 • 2 40 3 • • • 5 • 6 7 • • • 9 O 10 0 O 11 • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • O 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • • i • • • • • 25 • the law requires." 59 Wn.App. at 805. In Kenart, the Planning Commission denied a Planned Unit Development permit based on a number of findings that either lacked factual support or did not provide a reason for denial. For example, it found there would be increased traffic, but did not address the applicant's mitigation proposal. 37 Wn.App. at 302-03. In reversing, the Court of Appeals stated: Our concern in this case is that the planning commission may have denied approval of the [Planned Unit Development] as a result of community displeasure rather than for the reasons stated. In every instance the developer either satisfied, or offered a change to satisfy, the concerns raised; yet its application was denied based on findings which are virtually unreviewable. 37 Wn.App. at 303 (Emphasis supplied). The findings the court deemed "unreviewable" were that the project would not serve the public interest and would interfere with rural lifestyles. 37 Wn.App. at 302. A. Characteristics of the Uses. Existing uses to the north, west, and south are largely single family homes with several duplexes at the south end. The neighborhood is well maintained. Finding IX(4)(d)(i), Decision, p. 18. The existing duplexes look like nice, well-maintained homes on individual parcels. Casey Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 15. Similarly, the proposed uses are residential and will be located in a gated community that will be well maintained by a Homeowners' Association. The duplexes are side-by-side units and could be classified under the Code as Single Family Attached Dwellings. They are intended to be condominiums, not rental units. Casey Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 12. The principle difference between them and a detached single family residence is that they share a common wall instead of a narrow yard area between the homes. As a consequence the side yard setbacks are 20' or greater, twice the typical separation of single family homes. One story duplexes are proposed along the Irrigation Canal, closest to existing single family and duplex uses. The rear yards of the single story duplexes face the rear yards of the Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 13 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206)923-0814 • • • • • • • 2 • • • 5 • • 6 • 7 • 8 •. • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • qp• • • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 I 22 • • 23 • 24 • 25 • • a• • • • single family homes and duplexes. Two-story duplexes are located in the center of the site at a lower elevation. See, Attachment 3, Cross Sections? As explained above in § IV.B, the R-1 District is characterized by forty-five percent lot coverage; access to individual lots by local access streets; large front, rear, and side yard setbacks; and one and two story structures. The proposed duplexes share all of these characteristics. Several small apartment buildings ranging from 3 to 8 units are located adjacent to the existing mobile home park and B-1 zone. An existing tall hedge will screen the apartments and mobile homes from each other. The architecture and planning are of high quality. Finding IX(4)(d)(vii), Decision, p. 19; Puccinelli Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 25. As explained above in § IV.B, the R-2 District is characterized by up to fifty percent lot coverage, access via local access streets and collectors, one and two story buildings, some clustering of units, and large front, rear and side yard setbacks. The apartments share all of these characteristics with the exception of the lot coverage, which is somewhat higher than typical largely as a result of the recreation facilities which are more significant that typically provided in an apartment project. Casey Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 11. B. Proximity. The duplexes are located a minimum of 80 feet from the single family homes and duplexes across the Irrigation Canal (the 60 -foot wide canal right-of-way plus the 20 -foot yard setback). The apartments are at least 400 feet from the nearest single family homes. They are separated from those homes by the rear yard setback of those homes, the canal right- of-way, and the duplexes. 2 This Exhibit was developed to assist Staff in evaluating a request that some of the duplex buildings adjacent to the Irrigation Canal be allowed to have a partial second story. As explained in § V.F, Staff recommended that all duplexes along he Irrigation Canal be limited to one story and 18 feet in height. Supplemental Staff Report, Recommended Conditions 4 and 5, p. 5. The Applicant accepts and supports those conditions. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 14 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • • 2 • •3 4 • • 5 • • 6 7 • • 8 • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • • 9 • • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 3 8 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 24 • 25 • • • • • • 23 The recreation facilities are placed in the north -central area of the site so that the duplexes and apartments screen them from the existing homes and the mobile home park. As the Hearing Examiner acknowledged, the location of the larger swimming pool for the apartments, nearly 400 feet from the nearest existing residence, would promote compatibility with the neighborhood. Finding IX(4)(d)(vii), Decision, p. 19. C. Project Siting/Location. The project is located on the very edge of an existing neighborhood on Castlevale Road, a collector arterial, off of N. 40th Avenue, a primary arterial. According the Public Works' website, N. 40th from Castlevale to Englewood carried 26,600 trips/day in 2004. The project site and design were carefully chosen to preserve views from existing homes. The project site is 10-70' below the properties across the Irrigation Canal. See,. Attachment 3. The lots to the north and west of the Toscana project are at elevation 1260- 1270. The approximate lowest floor elevation of the homes on these lots ranges from 1262 to 1272. The elevation of the Toscana property is approximately 1250 along the canal, sloping down to 1200 at the eastern edge of the property. The project design has been able to use the topography to protect views from neighboring homes and to minimize impacts. One story duplexes are located at the highest elevation (their foundations will be at elevation 1246); two story duplexes below the one story duplexes (their foundations will be at elevation 1234 or lower); with the apartments at the lowest elevation. See, Two -Story Duplex View Impact Analysis, Casey Architects. August 1.2, 2008 ("View Analysis"), Attachment 4. The grade for the apartments will be cut down significantly to protect views in the project and views from neighbors. Sjule Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 15. The grade of the duplexes along Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 15 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • • • • • • • • • • • 4` the Irrigation Canal would also reduced, by about six feet. Sjule Testimony, Interim Decision, p: 16. D. Visual Appearance and Building Size. In upholding the MDNS, the Hearing Examiner expressly found that the project does not create significant adverse aesthetic impacts. Finding VIII(3)(h), Decision, p. 11. The Hearing Examiner also found that the architectural details and the high quality building standards would promote compatibility with the neighborhood. Finding IX(4)(d)(vii), Decision, p. 19. At the hearing, several people remarked on the quality of the design, but felt that they had no assurance that, when built, the project would actually have the high quality shown in the exhibits. Testimony of Chad Hatfield, John Puccinelli, Bruce Crockett, and Macille Cowman, Interim Decision, pp. 18, 25-26, 28, 29. In response, the Applicant offered to enter into a Development Agreement. Testimony of Alison Moss, October 21, 2008 Hearing. As is true of the existing duplexes, the proposed duplexes will have the appearance of a single family home. The apartment buildings are of modest size ranging from 3 to 8 units. Despite these facts, the Hearing Examiner found that the density and intensity of the proposed apartments present compatibility problems with visual appearance and building size. Finding IX(4)(d)(iii), Decision, p. 18. There is no evidence to support this Finding. He also found that, due to the topography, there would be that no way to effectively screen the different "visual design characteristics" and "living styles" of the duplex structures. Finding X(4)(d)(iii), Decision, p. 25. This Finding, of course, is based on the assumption that the duplexes present a visual design that should not be seen by the homes above. There is nothing in the record tosupport this Finding. Nor is there any evidence in the record that the owners of the duplexes would have different "living styles." This Finding is also "unreviewable" and, improper for that reason as well. Kenart, cited above. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 16 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • • • 3 • 4 • 5 • • 6 • 7 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 • 19 • 20 • • 21 • 22 • 23 • • 24 • 25 • • • • • • E. Building Height. As discussed in § V.D above, the Toscana property is significantly lower than the homes to the west and south. The building heights have been matched to the topography to protect views from those homes. Casey Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 11. Neighbors submitted a petition requesting that "the duplex's all along the Yakima Valley Canal be limited to one (1) story and that the two (2) story units would be constructed further down grade. We believe this would not obscure any of our current views." Envizage prepared a view analysis demonstrating that some of the duplexes adjacent to the Irrigation Canal could be two stories in height without interfering with views. Casey Testimony, Interim Decision, pp. 13-14; View Analysis. Nevertheless, Staff recommends that all duplexes along the Irrigation Canal be limited to one story and 18 feet in height. Supplemental Staff Report, Recommended Conditions 4 and 5, p. 5. The Applicant accepts and supports those conditions. The Code explains that maximum building height is intended to maintain compatibility. YMC 15.05.020.F. The R-1 and R-2 zones allow a height of 35 feet. Thus, structures of those heights are presumed to be compatible. The height of the duplexes along the Irrigation Canal will be limited to 18 feet or approximately 50% of the height allowed by the Code. Other duplexes will have a maximum height of 25 feet - 10 feet less than permitted by the Code. The apartment buildings will be two stories with a height of 32 feet. The grade for the apartments will be cut down significantly to protect views in the project and views from neighbors. Casey Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 15. In upholding the MDNS, the Examiner found that the project would not create significant height impacts. Finding VIII(3)(h), Decision, p. 11. Ile also found that the stricter duplex height limit promotes compatibility with the neighborhood. Finding X(4)(d)(vi), Decision, p. 26. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 17 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • •• • • • 4 • 5' • • • 7 • 8 . • 9 • 10 • • 1] • 12 • . • • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 20 • 21 • 22 • .. 23 • 24 • 25 . • i . • • 2 R • . F. Traffic Generation. The City's Transportation Concurrency Analysis, Attachment 5, indicates that the duplexes will generate 44 trips in the evening peak hour ("PM peak hour")(0.52 trips/unit); the apartments will generate 60 PM peak hour trips (0.96 PM peak hour trips). The Transportation Concurrency Analysis concludes that Castlevale Road will continue to have excess capacity following construction of the project, operating at Level of Service "C." The Traffic Engineering Division relies on SEPA review for site development and safety issues and submits SEPA comments if any such issues are presented. Public Works' website, Transportation Concurrency. The Traffic Engineering and Engineer Divisions recommended conditions on fire access, frontage improvements on Castlevale Road, and improvements on Kern Road, which were incorporated as MDNS Conditions 11-14 and 16. Traffic Engineering did not find any safety issues. The MDNS reviewed traffic and fire and life safety issues and concluded, as conditioned, that the project would not create a significant averse impact. The Hearing Examiner upheld the MDNS. The internal roads are located away from the adjacent uses wherever possible and generally are screened by buildings. For purposes of comparison, we have calculated the number of PM peak hour trips that would be generated by a project consisting of single family homes in the R-1 zone. A single family home typically generates 1.01 PM peak hour trips. Public Works' website, Transportation Concurrency. The R-1 portion of the property could accommodate 69 homes, generating 70 PM peak hour trips, 60% more than the number of trips that will be generated by the proposed duplexes. Despite this undisputed evidence, Finding X(4)(d)(v) states: There are 16 individual homes on the Conestoga side of the property and 28 units are proposed on the other side. That is almost doubling the units from one side to another. There would be a stark contrast just from one property to Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 18 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • : • • 4 • • 5 • 6 • 7 • • 8 • 9 • 10 1 • 11 • 12 • 1 • 15. • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • . 24 • 25 • • • • • • • 2 • the next with about a 75% increase in traffic for the duplex uses with a corresponding increase in activity, noise, light and glare from just one property to the next. There are several problems with this Finding. First, the math is incorrect. The View Analysis documents that there are, in fact, 20 homes across from the 14 duplex buildings (28 residences) proposed on the west side of the Toscana property. Second, the Finding is wholly unsupported by the evidence. Twenty single-family homes generate 20 PM peak hour trips; 28 duplex residences generate 15 PM peak hour trips, 25% fewer than the existing single family homes. The uncontested evidence demonstrates that the.duplexes are compatible in terms of traffic generation. The Examiner also found: ... The increased density and intensity of apartment use would create more noise from the increased traffic which also would contribute to traffic congestion on Castlevale Road and at the intersection of Castlevale Road with 40th Avenue. It would exacerbate potential safety issues when the hilly access street is icy during winter months. Finding IX(4)(d)(iii), Decision, p. 18. This Finding is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and conflicts with the MDNS which the Examiner upheld. G. Noise. In upholding the MDNS the Hearing Examiner concurred that the proposal will not cause significant noise impacts. Nevertheless, he entered findings that both the duplexes and the apartments would generate noise levels incompatible with the neighborhood. Finding IX(4)(d)(3), Decision, p. 18 states: The density and intensity of the proposed apartments present compatibility problems with visual appearance and building size, traffic generation, noise and light. The topography of the area exaggerates these problems. This area is different from a lot of other areas because it is shaped like an amphitheater...Noise gets magnified and travels up the hill. Residents can often hear skating at a skate park that is located some considerable distance away. The increased density and intensity of the apartment use would create more noise from the increased traffic which also would contribute to traffic congestion on Castlevale Road and at the intersection of Castlevale Road with Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 19 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • io• • • 2 • 3 • 4 • • 5 • 6 • 7 • • 8 • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 1 • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • 25 • • • • • • 40th Avenue. ... The increased density would also result in more noise from recreational and other activities of the residents of the apartments at their swimming pool or elsewhere on the site. Due to the amphitheater -like topography of the area to the north, west and south of the proposed apartments, the noise and visual appearance created by the increased density of the apartments could not be effectively buffered by fences, plantings, walls, berms or other methods.... There is no evidence in the record whatsoever to support the Examiner's conclusion that the property will act like an amphitheater. Some neighbors commented that they could hear noise from the skate park. That may be true, but it tells us nothing about whether entirely difference uses at a different location on a property with entirely different features will have a similar noise impact. The only evidence in the record regarding this project is testimony that: (1) the recreation facilities were intentionally located in the interior of the project more than 400 feet away from the single family homes on Conestoga to be a good neighbor; and (2) as the duplexes are built out, they will screen residences to the west from noise generated in the outdoor recreation facilities. Finding IX(4)(d)(vii), Decision, p.19; Casey Testimony, Interim Decision, pp. 12, 13. The finding regarding noise generated by traffic from the apartments is similarly unsupported by the record. As to the duplexes, the Examiner found: There are 16 individual homes on the Conestoga side of the property and 28 units are proposed on the other side. That is almost doubling the units from one side to another. There would be a stark contrast just from one property to the next with about a 75% increase in traffic for the duplex uses with a corresponding increase in activity, noise, light and glare from just one property to the next. This incompatibility can be rectified by requiring blending and a mirror image so that the Conestoga residents would see the same lot sizes and the same type of structures. Finding X(4)(d)(v), p. 26. We have discussed the errors in this Finding in § V.F, above. The duplexes to which he refers would actually generate 25% fewer trips than the existing single family homes on Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 20 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 ....00.000.0.1100.00.00.0.....000000110011•0000 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Conestoga. If the applicant were to follow the Examiner's suggestion regarding "mirror images," it could construct 30 single family homes instead of these the 28 duplex residences. The single family homes would generate 28 PM peak hour trips, 13 more than will be generated by the 28 duplex residences. In short, this Finding is not supported by evidence in the record. H. Dust and Light. In upholding the MDNS, the Examiner expressly found that the project does not create significant light and glare impacts. He observed: Although Section 15.06.100 of the Yakima Municipal Code only applies to parking lots and loading spaces used at night, the SEPA Checklist indicates that shielded light fixtures and perimeter buffer planting will be used to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. The applicant's representative, Paul Casey, further indicated during the hearing of August 14, 2008, that all the on- site exterior lighting would be shielded to avoid night glare and glare to the adjacent properties or even to the units themselves, which would be a condition of the project. Finding VIII(3)(g), Decision, pp. 10-11. Yet, Finding IX(4)(d)(iii), Decision, p. 18, concludes that the density and intensity proposed apartments present compatibility problems with light. This Finding is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Finding X(4)(d)(v) concludes that the 28 duplexes will generate greater traffic and, therefore, greater light and glare that the 16 individual homes on the Conestoga side of the property. As discussed in § V.F above, this Finding is simply wrong and is not supported by any evidence in the record, much less substantial evidence. The duplexes will generate fewer trips than the single family homes. Thus, to the extent that vehicular trips cause light and glare impacts, those impacts are not significant and are less than the light and glare generated by the existing single family homes. Appeal Memorandum of.Applicant Envizage Development Group - 21 DEARBORN & Moss PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16 • • • • • • 21 • 22 • 23 • • 24 • 25 • • • • • • I. Economic Value. The project is designed as a high quality gated community providing significant economic value to the City. David Sjule, a 15 -year Yakima resident and owner/CEO of Envizage Development Group, estimates that the pools will cost $500,000 to construct. The landscaping will cost approximately $1,000,000. Sjule Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 15. As with his other 4 projects, he intends to maintain ownership of and manage the apaiiments. The duplexes are intended to be condominiums owned by the occupants. Casey Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 12. J. Site Design. We have discussed many elements of the site design above. In addition to those elements, the site screening standards, setbacks and open space, and landscaping promote compatibility. 1. Site Screening. The Code requires site screening standard "A" along the Irrigation Canal property line.3 Table 7-1, Chapter 15.07 YMC. However, the highest level prescribed by the Code, site screening standard "C," will be provided and will consist of a 6 -foot -high matte black chain-link fence and a 6 -foot -wide landscaped buffer with trees at 20 to 30 foot centers, shrubs and groundcover. Finding VIII(3)(i), Decision, pp. 11-12; Supplemental Staff Report Recommended Condition 1, p. 5. The fence will be similar to the fences of two neighbors. Casey Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 12. The proposed recreation/pool facilities will be screened by a 6 -foot wrought iron fence and 3 -foot wide landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Finding VIII(3)(i), Decision, pp. 11-12; Supplemental Staff Report Recommended Condition 2, p. 5. 3 Standard "A" requires a 10 -foot -wide landscaped buffer with a combination of trees at 20- to 30 -foot centers, shrubs, and groundcover. Appeal. Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 22 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206)923-0814 • • • • • • • • 3 • • • 5 • • 7 • • 8 • 9 2 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • • • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • 25 • • • • • • • 2. Setbacks and Open Space. The duplexes will have substantially larger side yard setbacks that would be provided if the R-1 property were developed with single family homes, providing more open space. While the R-1 District allows an impervious surface coverage of 45%, the impervious surface overage in the R-1 zone will be 37%; the impervious surface for the project as a whole is 45%. Setbacks meet or exceed the Code with one exception. An administrative adjustment would allow one building in the R-2 zone to be set back 5' from the rear property line (the R - 1/R -2 zoning district boundary within the project). Finding VIII(3)(h), Decision, p. 11. That building will be 90 feet from the closest structure in the R-1 zone. Staff Report, p. 4. 3. All Units Will Have an Attached Garage. Every unit will have a dedicated two -car attached garage. The garages will face away from the street so that passers-by do not see a lot of garage doors. Instead, they will see front doors, porches, plants on patios, and the like. Casey Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 10. 4. Professionally Installed and Maintained Landscaping and Trails. The entire project will be professionally landscaped. The landscaping will be maintained by a Homeowners' Association. Walking trails are provided throughout the project. K. Building Design. The roofs of Duplex Buildings A, C, E, G, J, L, N, T, and V, all of which are located across the canal from the homes on Conestoga, will have a slope of no greater than 4:12 and will be comprised of concrete tile or heavy grade composition shingle. The low slope (flat) portions of the roof will be constructed of tan colored matte finish. Primary wall colors will be muted earth tones to complement the surrounding natural hillsides. None of the residential units will have an exterior blank wall. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 23 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. • SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206)923-0814 • • • • • • • • • 4 • • 5 • 6 • 7 • • 8 • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • 25 • • • • • • • 2 The apartment design is based on the Sierra Sun4 community in Puyallup, Washington, which was awarded "Winner Grand Prize Overall" for best community by For Rent Magazine in 2007 and was a finalist for this award in 2008. Sjule Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 15. L. Other Factors. Finding IX(4)(d)(iv), p. 19, states that, since there are no apartments in the immediate area, the proposed density of the apartments would stand out and that the level of activity would be in "sharp contrast" to the level of activity in the existing neighborhood of single- family homes. This Finding is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. First, the only existing uses adjacent to the proposed apartments are a mobile home park and a church. Second, there is no evidence in the record which would allow one to compare the level of activity in the single family homes with the apartments. Third, even if it were accurate and supported by substantial evidence, this finding would apply to any apartments, not just those with a density greater than 12 units/acre. It misinterprets and misapplies YMC 15.03.030(3). Finding X(4)(d)(iv), p. 19, states "different living styles of the duplex structures" cannot be effectively screened. There is no evidence whatever in the record regarding "living styles." Even if there were, it would not be a relevant or permissible consideration. Finally, this Finding strongly suggests that the Decision is a result of community displeasure rather than the reasons stated. It is "unreviewable" and improper. Kenart, cited above. VI. THE HEARING EXAMINER ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT TOSCANA IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A. Improper Basis. Based solely on testimony of neighbors, the Hearing Examiner found that: 4 The Exhibits provided in the Hearing include pictures of Sierra Sun. Many of the apartments in that community are 3 stories. The Toscana apartments will be 2 stories. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 24 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206)923-0814 • • • • • 0• • 2 • 3 • 4 • • 5 • 6 • 7 • • 8 • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • a • • 'if • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • 25 • • • • • • • • The proposed apartments and duplexes would not comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy H1.6.2. • The apartments would not comply with Objective H3.1 (but, presumably, the duplexes do comply with this Objective). • The duplexes would not comply with Objective L2 and Policy G9.3 (but, presumably, the apartments do comply with this Objective and Policy). Decision, Finding IX(3)(e), p. 15 and Finding X(3)(e), p. 22. His exclusive reliance on this testimony as the foundation of his Decision presents several fundamental flaws. First, it violates well established case law holding that neighborhood opposition may not be the basis of a land use decision. See, § IV.C, above. Second, while the neighbors' fears are obviously sincerely held, they are not supported by any factual evidence. Unsubstantiated fears of area residents are not substantial evidence in support of a land use decision. Sunderland, cited above. Third, the Hearing Examiner essentially delegated to neighbors his authority to interpret the Comprehensive Plan. These Findings are, therefore, outside of his authority and should be reversed by the Council. See, e.g. RCW 36.70C.130(1)(e)(decision is outside of authority of body or officer making the decision). Fourth, his interpretation of Policy H1.6.2 and Objective L2 directly conflicts with the MDNS, which he upheld. The Responsible Official expressly found that the proposal is compatible with Goal 111 (encourage diverse and affordable housing choices) which Policy H1.6.2 implements and with Objective L2. MDNS, p. 5. B. The Comprehensive Plan Hierarchy. The Comprehensive Plan is based on a hierarchy of Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Implementing Actions. The Goals serve as the generalized framework of the desires of the community. Objectives more specifically define the community's intent in attaining the Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 25 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • • • 3 • 4 • • 5 • 6 • 7 • • 8 • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • 25 • • • • • • • 2 goals. Polices implement the goals and objectives. Implementing Actions are the specific activities chosen to implement the policies. Comprehensive Plan, p. II -2. C. Policy 11.1.6.2. Goal H1 (encourage diverse and affordable housing choices) is more specifically defined by six Objectives, including Objective H1.6 (foster regulatory incentives to encourage construction of affordable housing). Objective H1.6 is, in turn, implemented by two Policies, including Policy H.1.6.2: Encourage compatible infill of existing neighborhoods to promote lower land development and costs of facilities. (Emphasis supplied). The Examiner found that neither the duplexes nor the apartments comply with Policy 141.6.2. In his Decision, the Hearing Examiner cites only the first six words of this policy, ignoring entirely the purpose of the policy, that is, "to promote lower land development and costs of facilities." His interpretation of Policy H1.6.2 renders the phrase "to promote lower land development and costs of facilities" meaningless and constitutes an erroneous interpretation of the law. Whatcom County, cited above. D. Objective 113.1. Objective 113.1 provides: Stabilize existing, viable neighborhoods. The Implementing Actions for Objective H3.1 make clear that this Objective is directed to repair and maintenance of existing housing stock. Thus, it is not applicable to the proposal which will provide new apartments with substantial amenities. Even if the policy were applicable, there is no evidence that the proposal will destabilize an existing neighborhood. Unsubstantiated fears of area residents are not substantial evidence in support of a land use decision. Sunderland, cited above. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 26 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 S S S S S. • 2 S • 3 • 4 • 5 • • 6 • 7 • • • 9 • 10 • 11 • • 12 S • 15 • 16 • 17 • • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • 25 S • S • S • • E. Objective L2. The Hearing Examiner found that the proposed duplexes would not comply with Comprehensive Plan Objective L2, which provides: Establish a pattern of development that supports a sense of community. Three Policies implement Objective L2: Policy L2.1 Seek opportunities for common public use of school/park sites, fire/police/community centers and other community based facilities as a means of creating a public center to neighborhoods. Policy L2.2 Foster the preventive maintenance and appropriate investment in the older residential areas of the community. Policy L2.3 Promote the preservation, restoration and enhancement of our historic, cultural, and archaeological resources, tangible and intangible, to provide a living link with our past... The Policies demonstrate that the Hearing Examiner entirely misinterpreted Objective L2. F. Policy G9.3. Comprehensive Plan Policy G9.3 is one of five Policies implementing Objective G9, which reads: Encourage quality design while achieving economic growth patterns. The undisputed evidence is that the proposal exemplifies both quality design and economic growth. Policy G9.3 provides: Encourage infill development with new construction that is compatible with the scale and density of the surrounding housing. Policy G9.3 is implemented by one Implementing Action: Develop design guidelines for infill development. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 27 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • •' • • 3 • 4 • • 5 • 6 • • • 8 • 9 • 10 • . 11 • 12 11, • • 15 • 16 • 2 . 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • . 23 • 24 • 25 • • • • • • • The Applicant has offered to enter into a Development Agreement to ensure that the quality design presented in the hearing will be provided. The Examiner misinterpreted and misapplied. Policy G93 in his finding that the duplexes are not consistent with Policy G9.3. G. The Hearing Examiner Ignores Many More Policies Supporting the Toscana Proposal. The Decision simply ignores many applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies, including the following: Goal Gl: Strengthen the Urban Area's role as the focal point for activities in Central Washington. Policy G1.4 Ensure that new development in the urban area enhances the "quality of life" within the urban area and that any environmental problems that arise from such development are corrected by the developer through the enforcement of subdivision controls and regulations. Objective G4 Manage the location and design of new development to minimize initial and future public and private costs. Policy G4.15 New urban development should be encouraged to locate first, within the City limits... Policy G4.2 New urban development should be encouraged to be contiguous to existing development to avoid the inefficient "leap -frog" pattern of growth. Policy G4.7 Encourage development that shortens the distance between residential areas, schools, shopping and employment centers. Objective G55 Recognize the transitional nature of agricultural uses within the urban growth area. Policy G8.45 Encourage major commercial, industrial, and multi -family developments to locate inside city limits. Objective G9 Encourage quality design while achieving economic growth patterns. 5 These Goals, Objectives, and Policies are specifically discussed in the MDNS. The Responsible Official found that the project is compatible with them. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 28 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • 2 • • . 3 • 4 • 5 • • 6 • 7 • 8 • • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • • • • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • 25 • • •• • • • Policy G9.4 Objective Ll Goal H15 Objective H1.1 Objective 111.2 Policy H1.25 Goal 112 Objective E15 Encourage commercial, industrial, office, and multi -family developments to locate in distinct clusters in planned growth areas. Permit only those land developments and activities that are within the sustainable limits of the land and services. Encourage diverse and affordable housing choices. Encourage affordable housing development. Encourage a range of affordable homeownership options. Facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single family lots, condominiums, clustering and other options which increase the supply of affordable homeownership options. Provide homeownership opportunities. (Vision p.71). Encourage development in areas with few environmental hazards to minimize the loss of natural resources due to urbanization. VII. SEPA A. The Law is Clear - Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan is an Element of the Environment. The Hearing Examiner found that: The compatibility of the project with the Comprehensive Plan is not one of the 16 Environmental Elements to be addressed by a SEPA Checklist and mitigated by a SEPA MDNS. Finding VIlI(3)(j), Decision, p. 12. This finding is simply wrong. The SEPA rules identify "relationship to existing land use plans and to estimated population" as an element of the environment. WAC 197-11-444(2)(b)(i). Under the heading "Land and Shoreline Use" the SEPA checklist asks: "What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?" and asks the applicant to identify "Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any." See, SEPA Checklist, Questions B.8.f and Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 29 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206)923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • 1 • • 2 • 3 4 • • 5 • 6 • 7 • • • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • OP • • 14 • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • • 22 • 23 • 24 • • • • • • • • 25 B.8.1. Thus, compatibility of the project with the Comprehensive Plan is clearly an element of the environment addressed by SEPA. In this case, the Responsible Official issued an MDNS, a determination that, as conditioned, the project would not create a significant adverse impact on the environment. The MDNS necessarily determined that there would not be significant inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The MDNS, which is 7 pages long (not counting the signature page), devotes an entire page to the Comprehensive Plan and expressly finds that the proposal is consistent with nine enumerated Policies and Objectives. Finally, the Hearing Examiner's reference to Cingular Wireless v. Thurston County, 131 Wn.App. 756, 129 P.3d 300 (2006) ("Cingular") is an erroneous interpretation of the law and a misapplication of the law to the facts. Finding VIII(5), Decision, p. 12. Cingular does not address the question of whether compatibility with a comprehensive plan is an issue to be considered under SEPA. Moreover, in that case, the Thurston County Hearing Examiner expressly discounted unsubstantiated neighborhood fears about radio frequency emissions, environmental impacts, and declining property values. 131 Wn.App. at 786. In contrast, in this case, the Examiner improperly placed great weight on unsubstantiated fears. B. Only One Administrative Appeal is Allowed. Decision (4), Decision, p. 29 is an error of law. The MDNS was appealed and upheld by the Hearing Examiner. No further appeal to the City Council is permitted. WAC 197-11- 680(3)(iv); YMC 6.88.170. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS ARE REQUESTED TO ACCOMMODATE AMENITIES NOT DENSITY As discussed in § I.0 above, Envizage requested two administrative adjustments for the R-2 zoned portion of the property. The Decision finds that adjustments are requested solely to incorporate residential uses in the development that have a higher density than would Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 30 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • 14. • • 2 • 3 • 4 • • 5 • 6 • 7 • • 8 • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • • • 14 • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • 19 • • 20 • 21 • 22 • • 23 • 24 • 25 • •• • • • • otherwise be permitted. Findings IX(4)(d)(ii) and IX(4)(d)(vi), Decision, pp. 18-19. These Findings are erroneous and are not supported by any evidence in the record, much less substantial evidence. A reduction of the rear yard setback is requested for one building on the western edge of the R-2 District, along the R -1/R-2 zoning district boundary. That building will be 90 feet from the closest structure in the R-1 zone. Staff Report, p. 4. An increase in the impervious surface coverage is requested in the R-2 zone. The undisputed testimony is that it results primarily from the recreation facilities, which are substantially more significant than provided in a typical apartment project. Casey Testimony, Interim Decision, p. 11. The impervious surface coverage will be 37% in the R-1 zone and 45% for the project as a whole. If the Council finds that an administrative adjustment should not be approved, the area of impervious surface can be reduced by use of pervious materials. IX. CONSISTENCY OF USES WITH YMC 16.06.020.B. Findings XII(1)-(4), pp. 27-28 are in error for all of the reasons identified above. X. ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISIONS Conclusion (3) and Decisions (1) and (2) uphold the MDNS, deny the SEPA appeal, and deny the Class (2) and (3) Uses and Administrative Adjustments. The portions of Conclusion (3) and Decision (2) which deny the Class (2) and (3) Uses and Administrative Adjustments are in error for all of the reasons identified above. Conclusion (4) determines that the Class (2) duplex uses and the Class (3) apartment uses are not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the zoning districts in which they would be located, and with YMC 16.06.020.B. Conclusion 4 is in error for all of the reasons identified above. Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 31 DEARBORN & Moss PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • • • • • 2 • 3 • 4 • • 5 • • • • 8 • 9 • 10 • • 11 • 12 • ' • . • 14 • 15 • 16 • • 17 • 18 • • 19 • 20 • 21 • • 22 • 23 • 24 • • 25 • id!' • • • • • Decision (4) states that if the applicant appeals the Hearing Examiner's Decision, "the opponent(s) may also appeal the denial of their SEPA appeal." As discussed in § VII.B above, no further administrative SEPA appeal is available. Decision (4) is an error of law. XL CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we ask that the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's Decision denying the Toscana project and approve the Class (2) and (3) uses and Administrative Adjustments subject to the conditions recommended by the Division of Environmental Planning, the MDNS conditions, and the additional conditions offered by the Applicant. DATED this e' Q day of December, 2008. Respectfully submitted, DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC Alison Moss, WSBA No. 12767 Attorneys for Envizage Development Group Appeal Memorandum of Applicant Envizage Development Group - 32 DEARBORN & MOSS PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 • • • 111' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 Oh• • •• • Attachments 1. Toscana Conceptual Site Plan with surrounding zoning and uses. 2. Conditions. 3. Cross Sections. 4. Two -Story Duplex View Impact Analysis, Casey Architects. August 12, 2008. 5. Transportation Concurrency Analysis, City of Yakima, Traffic Division of Public Works Department. • • • • • • • • • • • • • A • O • • • • 0 • 0 • e 0 e 0 0 0 e 0 0 • • e • e e 0 ATTACHMENT 1 4 w+ ZONING LEGEND R-1 = Residential III R-2 = Residential R-3 = Residential B-1 =Commercial B -2 -=Commercial COMMON WALL CONDO 'FOR SALE" COMMUNITY +89 UMTS BUFFER WIDTH: 60' B-1 COMMERCIAL/ i INENI 11.001 t NI trar imam ,i LOT 4 TOSCANA YAK IM A RECREATION FACILITY WITH POOL "FOR RENT" COMMUNITY +97 UNITS ZONED R-3 CURRENTLY MOBILE HOME PARK KKERT RTS ZONED R-1 CHURCH • BUFFER WIDTH: 60' _ I' I ZONED R-2 • ( I I - I I I I I I I H H I I I I B-1 1 CDMMERCIAL 1 L __ I I I I I I cN` VIZAGc DEVtLOPMENTGROUP • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • O • 41 0 • • • • •• • • ATTACHMENT 2 - TOSCANA CONDITIONS MDNS Conditions 1. No development permit shall be issued prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning review. 2. Contractors doing clearing, grading, paving, construction or landscaping work must file a dust control plan with Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority (YRCAA). Burning is prohibited at all times during land clearing. 3. The water purveyor is responsible for ensuring that the proposed use(s) are within the limitations of its water rights..A water right permit is required for all surface water diversions and for any water from a well that will exceed 5,000 gallons per day. 4. A NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Washington State Dept. of Ecology is required. The permit requires that Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Erosion Sediment Control Plan) is prepared and implemented for all permitted construction sites. Permit coverage and erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading or construction. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima's Engineering Division prior to construction. 5. The Yakima Valley Canal Company (YVCC) will not allow any excavation or construction within their right-of-way. Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way. 6. Complete stormwater design plans, specifications and runoff/storage calculations supporting the stormwater design are required pursuant to the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. If Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are used in the drainage design, the UIC wells must be registered with the Department of Ecology (DOE) and a copy of the DOE UIC Well registration form and registration number(s) shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer. [Note: This condition is modified by Supplemental Staff Report Condition 7.] 7. Ecology recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found at concentrations above MTCA clean up levels, Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence. Page 1 of 4 • • ®1 1 /1 8. Public waterlines are required to be looped throughout the site. New waterlines shall be placed in the street connect to the existing waterline in ®1 Castlevale Rd. and in Kern Way. Size of waterline will be dependent on the required fireflow for the buildings. • 9. In accordance with YMC § 12.03.020, sewer is to be extended along the • east edge of the property to provide sewer to the parcels to the south. In • addition, a 12 -inch sanitary sewer pipe is required to be installed to the furthest westerly finger of the development to provide gravity sewer to • existing residences on the west and south sides of the canal. • 10. All public utility lines on private property shall be located in a minimum • 16 -foot easement. • 11. Fire Department Access Roads shall be installed and designed to the • standards of the 2006 International Fire Code (IFC). • 12. The proposed gates shall comply with the 2006 IFC standards and be • equipped with a Knox Box rapid entry system or Opticom system which ® will be approved by the fire code official. • 13. Where. required by the fire code official, fire department access roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING -FIRE LANE signs complying ® with Figure D103.6 of the IFC. • 14. Kern Road shall be maintained at a minimum of twenty -feet of paved • • surface. • 15. During project construction, all contractors shall adhere to the City of • Yakima noise regulations regarding hours of construction. These hours • are 6:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 am to 10:00 pm weekends and holidays. [Note: This condition is modified by Applicant's • Offered Condition 41 • 16. Title 12 development standards shall be applied to this project including • streets built to city standards with curb, gutter, five-foot sidewalks and • streetlights. Five-foot sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed along • the Castlevale frontage. Public easements will be recorded where needed. • .17. Parking and street lighting shall adhere to the standards of YMC § ® 15.06.100. Lighting shall be directed to reflect away from adjacent properties. • 18. Sitescreening Standard "A" shall be installed along the west and south • property lines due to adjacent single-family residential land uses. A • higher standard may be substituted. [Note: This condition is superseded • by Supplemental Staff Report Conditions 1 and 2.1 • • •• • • Page2of4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • Conditions from Staff Report: 1. Prior to demolishing any structures, an asbestos survey must be done by a certified asbestos building contractor. Any asbestos found must be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to demolition. 2. Sitescreening Standard "C" shall be installed along the property line adjacent to the canal (west and south property lines) and around the proposed recreation/pool facilities. [Note: This condition is superseded by Supplemental Staff Report Conditions 1 and 21 3. The proposed duplexes adjacent to the canal shall be restricted to single story structures. 4. All conditions of the SEPA MDNS dated July 14, 2008 (File EC#19-08) shall be complied with. 5. The applicant shall conduct a soil survey to determine if any toxic substances are present from past orchard use, prior to the issuance of permits. Appropriate mitigation measures shall be taken if toxics are found. 6. All proposed construction is subject to plan review, inspections, and building permits. Conditions from Supplemental Staff Report: 1. Sitescreening in the form of a 6 -foot black chain-link fence with a 6 -foot landscaped buffer consisting of trees at 20 to 30 -foot centers, shrubs, and groundcover shall be installed along the property line adjacent to the canal (west and south property lines). 2. Sitescreening in th' form of a 6 -foot wrought iron fence and a minimum 3 -foot landscaped buffer shall be installed around the proposed swimming pools. 3. The applicant shall submit a sitescreening plan showing the location, height, size and type of all plantings and fences. 4. The proposed duplexes adjacent to the canal shall be restricted to single story structures. 5. Single -story duplexes shall have a maximum building height of 18 -feet. 6. Two-story duplexes shall have a maximum building height of 25 -feet. 7. The applicant shall retain and treat runoff for up to the 6 month, 24-hour storm (0.65 inches of rainfall over a 24-hour period). Any remaining stormwater runoff can be directed to the storm drain line, which the property owner has a legal right to use. Page 3 of 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. • • • • • • • •. • • • • • • • • • • • • 8. The maximum allowed slope on the property shall be a 2:1 slope. Additional Conditions Offered by Applicant: 1. All the on-site exterior lighting shall be shielded to avoid night glare and glare to the adjacent properties. 2. The applicant shall provide grading plans for grading in the R-1 zone to the Yakima Valley Canal Company at the same time it submits the plans to the City for review. 3. The minimum design/materials standards include: a. None of the residential units shall have an exterior blank wall. b. Each unit will have a dedicated two -car attached garage. The garages shall face away from the street. c. Roofs of Duplex Buildings A, C, E, G, J, L, N, T, and V shall a slope of no greater than 4:12 and shall be comprised of concrete tile or heavy grade composition shingle. The low slope (flat) portions of the roof will be constructed of tan colored matte finish. d. Primary wall colors will be muted earth tones to complement the surrounding natural hillsides. 15. 4. During project construction, all contractors shall adhere to the following hours of construction: 6:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday thru Friday, and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturdays and holidays. No construction may take place on Sundays. Page 4 of 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4. ATTACHMENT 3 — .WJACENT SINGLE / FATILT RESIDENTIAL IORK,dT1ON DUPLEX DUPLEX EXISTING GRAPE FINISHED GRADE DUPLEX FF.. .1272' Site Section A -A ADJACENT SINGLE /--- FAME,- RESIDENTIAL dHILTRESIDENTIAL 4760 1290 ._..... 1220' 1210' ..: IRRIGATION 'CANAL climax FF.• 124b' DUPLEX DUPLEX FP.. 11.234' FF.. 4230' GRADE FNISNED GRADE -- APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT- FP. 11.216' FF.• 11206' FP• 11$06' 98499 (253} 594-5207 Site Section B -B • Casey Group Architects Architecture And Planning • • G102 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ATTACHMENT 4 ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION CANAL 1260' 1250' 1240' 1230' 1220' 1210' ftJ Z _L I o ' PROPOSED SINGLE STORY DU -FLEX 25' HIGH TWO STORY BUILDING ENVELOPE PER 'BUILDING HEIGHT' DEFINITION, TOP AT ELEVATION +1210' EXISTING GRADE- DU-PLEX 1,260' Site Section A -A SCALE I = 30 ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION CANAL 1,250' - 1240' 1230' 1220' 1,210' 1200' ,„ I PROPOSED SINGLE -21 STORY DU -FLEX if 25' HIGH TWO STORY BUILDING ENVELOPE PER "BUILDING HEIGHT' DEFINITION, TOP AT ELEVATION .1210' EXISTING GRADE IDU-PLEX Fjp,-t-1.4234'1, Site Section B -B SCALE: I" = 30' w 1- 111 SITTING EYE LEVEL fYI IL \-7 +1266' LOWEST FLOOR LEVEL ADJACENT RESIDENCE EFOF.E REGIONAL vIEW 15 PARTIALLY BLOCKED EXISTING RESIDENCE 25' HIGH TUJO STORY BUILDING ENVELOPE PER "BUILDING HEIGHT' DEFINITION, TOP AT ELEVATION +1210' NEW DEVELOPMENT TUJO STORY 5UILDING Proposed Two Story Du-plex Regional View Impact KEY LAST FIVE DIGITS OF PARCEL NUMBER 33478 APPROXIMATE LOWER FLOOR ELEVATION TUJO STORY DU-PLEX BUILDINGS THAT WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY BLOCK REGIONAL VIEW5 FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES 32514 +1272' +1270' 32512 +1268' 32511 +1266' 32509 +1268' 32508 +1266' 32507 +1266' 32506 +1266' 32505 +1266' 32504 +1266' 32503 +1264' 32502 +1262' 32501 +1266' 32500 +1266' 32499 +1268' 32498 +1268' 32497 +1264' 32496 +1268' *41,417 nrAll I triivitillOWP 32494 +1266' 33475 33473 33478 +1268' 33479 +1262' 33474 +1264' 33472 +1262' TOP OF CANAL DRIVE APPROX. +1254' 34455 +1262' 34456 +1264' N Proposed Site Plan w/ Adjacent Property Information SCALE 0 50 100' = 100' NOTE: CONTOURS SHOWN ARE TAKEN FROM JURISDICTIONAL DATABASE INFORMATION 200' 4479/7 +1263' 34459/5 +1263' 34477 76 +1264' TWO STORY DU-PLEX VIEW IMPACT ANALYSIS Casey Group Architects Architecture And Planning • • • • f • • August 12, 2008 • • • • • TOSCANA • • • DEVELOPMENT • • • • • Adjacent Residential :41 • • Property Photographs • • • as Viewed from • • • Irrigation Canal •i • • Approximate Residence Lowest Floor • Elevation Indicated. Based on • • Jurisdiction Topographic Database & On- • • Site Visual Evaluation • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • t� 24413: 24464 23018i 24424 24420 24468' 32,105 31409 32430 3243132422 32513 32512 32511 31408 \ '32434; • •.32510 4,Y 31406 3140 32447 .32442' 32436 32508 31407 . 31402 32441 32440 32439 32438 32506 22505 31401 SWr.y th 32504 32460 32458 32503 32502 32501% 469 468 32461 32467 2406 32500: 31011 32462 '3249$• 32498 32497 31007 32465 32496 1032491 32492 Modarto II3. 3303, 33407 \ - !.1 33416'x;.07}14 Puce ^� 33034 33030 34034 33478. 33473 34456 34035 33038 33482 • 33012 ' 6.1.n Pork WY 4 9D34g91 493 173g8): 3 492 nwr 5 34417 1MI 4416 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON- PILE ASHINGTON1~ILE NO: UAZO CL(2)#20-08, EC#19-08, Adm Adj#16-08 APPLICANT: Toscanna Development REQUEST: Construct 96 apartments and 84 duplexes, Permit 1 2 family dweelings in R-4 zone and Multi family in R-2 (LOCATION: Castlevale and Seattle Slew PARCEL NUMB ER(S):181315 31011 18131534037 Property Notices Subject Site tylLy tor .4 1 Scale —lin =4000 01/01 u --"�' DOC. 0 200 400 nna 04/17/08 g_I Approx. Lowest Floor Elevation Lot 32512 1268' Lot 32513 1270' Lot 32511 1268' • • • Approx. Lowest Floor Elevation Lot 32508 • 1266' • Lot 32507 1266' • Approx. Lowest Floor Elevation 1 1266' Lot 32504 I 1266' Lot 32505 1266' Lot 32503 1264' • • • Approx. Lowest Floor Elevation Lot 32500 • 1266' Lot 32499 1268' • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Approx. Lowest Floor Elevation 1 1268' • 1268' • Lot 32497 1264' Lot 32494 1266' • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • fi lb • • • • • • • • Lot 33472 Approx. Lowest Floor Elevation 1262' Lot 34456 1264' Lot 34455 1262' Lots 34479 & 78 1263' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ATTACHMENT 5 • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • •• • • ••• • • ••• • • • • • Date of Review: Review Prepared by: Proposed Development: Subject Address: ITE Land Use: City of Yakima, Washington Traffic Division of Public Works Department Transportation Concurrency Analysis July 3, 2008 Joan Davenport, Supervising Traffic Engineer (576-6417) Toscana 4200 Castlevale Road LU #230, 84 Condos (0.52 PM Trips* 84 units = 43.68 PM Trips) LU #220, 96 Apartments (0.62 PM Trips*96 Units = 59.5 PM Trips) Expected Net PM Peak Hour Trip Generation: 103 PM Peak Hour trips Summary of Impact: The applicant proposes to construct 96 apartments and 84 duplex condominiums units in the vicinity of 4200 Castlevale Road, within the city of Yakima, Washington. All traffic from this new development will enter the Arterial Street system on North 40th Avenue. City of Yakima Administrative procedures for Concurrency Analysis use the PM Peak hour trip of the adjacent street for the selected land use category. The site -generated traffic is distributed to the Arterial street sections noted below, based upon the City policy to assess impacts for two Arterial street segments. Estimated distribution of the site -generated trips is shown on the table below. Based upon actual data, City of Yakima Traffic Volumes for PM Peak Hour is assessed as 8.7% of total Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Peak hour reserve capacity includes any vehicle trips previously assigned under the Concurrency Ordinance. City of Yakima Transportation Concurrency assesses arterial street segment capacity only and does not address intersection capacity. Seg # Street Segment Total ADT PM PK Hr ADT PK HR Reserve Cap. New Dev. PM PK HR Impact Total Con - cuTrtri y ps Resulting Pm Pk Hr Capacity V/C LOS 67 40th Ave: Fruitvale to River 24,050 2,092 1,108 48 286 1,060 0.74 C 68 40th Ave: River to Castlevale 28,400 2,471 729 56 203 673 0.84 D 69 40th Ave: Castlevale to Englewood 26,600 2,314 886 56 204 830 0.79 C 70 40th Ave: Englewood - Lincoln 26,300 2,288 912 20 184 892 0.77 C 85 Fruitvale: 40th to 34th Ave 10,525 916 2,284 17 110 2,267 0.32 A 86 Fruitvale: 34th Ave toCastlevale 10,050 874 2,326 17 120 2,309 0.31 A 91 River Rd: Fruitvale to 20th Ave 2,200 191 1,409 11 86 1,398 0.17 A 98 W. Powerhouse Rd: 40th Peck's Cyn Rd 6,330 551 1,049 50 84 999 0.40 A 97 W. WCL Powerhouse Rd: Pecks Cyn Rd - 3,780 329 1,271 22 28 1,249 0.22 A Summary of Impact to City of Yakima Arterial Streets: This application has been reviewed and approved for consistency with YMC 12.08 Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance. This development will not exceed the PM peak hour capacity of the City Arterial street system and reserve capacity exists on all impacted streets. This review does not include any site development or safety issues which may be discussed at the project level or SEPA review. The review does not address intersection level of service. Transportation Capacity Analysis Page 1 of 1 • December23, 2008 Yakima City Council c/o Joseph Calhoun, Planning Dept. City of Yakima Planning Division 129 N. 2"d Street Yakima, WA 98901 Dear Councilmembers: The• following memorandum is submitted on behalf of Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill (CCCH) in regards to the appeal of the Hearing -Examiner's Decision dated November 6, 2008 concerning the Toscarma development. The Toscarma Development is a proposed development consisting of a 96 -unit apartment complex and 84 duplex units. In hearing this appeal, the City Council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity. As such, the task before the City Council is to rule on whether the burden of proof has been met on the pertinent legal issues raised and not to make policy judgments in a legislative capacity. Therefore, the following is a brief summary of several relevant legal issues relevant to this appeal. Appellant Bears the Burden of Proof. The Appellant bears the burden of proof in this appeal, as it did in the hearings before the Hearing Examiner. Section 15.02.020 of the Yakima Municipal Code sets forth that a Level 3 use is generally incompatible with other neighbors and can be approved only upon a finding by the Hearing Examiner that all difficulties relating to compatibility have been adequately resolved. Section 15.04 of the Yakima Municipal Code sets forth that a Level 2 use is generally permitted but must meet a compatibility review prior to approval. For both components of the project, the Appellant must put forth sufficient evidence of compatibility in order for the project to be approved. The burden was on the applicant to provide evidence that the project should be approved, and not upon those opposing the project to demonstrate why the project should be denied. The Hearing Examiner made factual determinations and conclusions of law in his decision and properly denied .the project. With that decision in place, the Appellant now takes on an additional and even more stringent and burdensome level of proof in order for the decision to be reversed. Appellant asserts on appeal that the Hearing Examiner misapplied the law to the facts. To prevail in this argument, Appellant must meet the clearly erroneous standard of review. The clearly erroneous standard test involves applying the law to the facts. Citizens to Preserve Pioneer Park L.L.C. v. City of Mercer Island , 106 Wn. App. 461, 473, 24 P.3d 1079 (2001). Under that test, the reviewing body must determine whether they are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Citizens to Preserve, 106 Wn. App. at 473. The reviewing body must defer to factual determinations made by the highest forum below that DOC. 509.945.0945 414 N. 2"a St Yakima, WA 98901 INDEX # 5 exercised fact-finding authority. Citizens to Preserve, 106 Wn. App. at 473. Here, that fact- finding authority is the Hearing Examiner. The City Council must confirm the decision and findings of the Hearing Examiner, unless it clearly and definitely is shown that a mistake was committed. The City Council may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the Hearing Examiner's. Appellant also challenges whether the Hearing Examiner's Decision was based on substantial evidence, which will be addressed in the next section. In all review of the Hearing Examiner's Decision, the Hearing Examiner is afforded considerable deference. This considerable deference is provided to the Hearing Examiner because the examiner is given the opportunity to fully review all the record and weigh the credibility of testimony. In this case, the Hearing Examiner listened to over seven hours of oral argument and testimony at the two hearings, visited and inspected the actual proposed development site, and reviewed all evidence and submitted materials prior to making his decision. The Hearing Examiner's Decision demonstrated thoughtful and thorough consideration of all evidence and relevant legal authorities and applicable local ordinances, code provisions, and development regulations. If the Appellant cannot meet the requisite burdens of proof after according the proper and significant deference to the Hearing Examiner, its appeal must be denied. The Hearing Examiner's Decision Is Based on Substantial Evidence and Should Be Upheld. Substantial evidence is evidence that would persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the statement asserted. Freeburg v. City of Seattle, 71 Wn. App. 367, 371, 859 P.2d 610 (1993). The principle of deferential review requires the reviewing body to consider all of the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed in the highest forum that exercised fact-finding authority. Freeburg, 71 Wn. App. at 371-72. Here, that was the hearing examiner. CCCH prevailed before the Hearing Examiner. Accordingly, all evidence and testimony, including reasonable inferences, must be considered in the light most favorable to CCCH's position. The Hearing Examiner's decision may be reversed only if after giving all deference to CCCH's positions no fair-minded person could reach that decision. A careful review of the record demonstrates that such a situation is not present in this matter. In the appellant's narrative attached to the appeal document, the appellant erroneously asserts that the Hearing Examiner could not consider the testimony of the neighborhood opposing the project. Appellant's citation to case law on this point was inappropriate. In those cases the courts held that a decision maker cannot base the final decision on unsubstantiated neighborhood fears alone.' The reasoning behind these cases is to prevent a situation where a project meets all ' The Hearing Examiner expressly stated that he did not base his decision solely on the comments of the neighbors. He stated the following: Although the position of the neighbors is not by itself a basis for fording that a proposal is incompatible with a neighborhood, valid concerns they express to support their position are properly considered. DOC. 509.945.0945 414 N. 2nd St Yakima, WA 98901 INDEX # N 16 • development regulations and ordinance provisions and is denied solely on neighborhood complaints that have no credible basis. That situation is far removed from the present set of facts. Here the proposed project fails to meet the requirements of Level 2 and Level 3 review, violates the development regulations for the current zoning, and is incompatible with City's Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, testimony of the neighborhood was not mere unsubstantiated concerns. As previously stated, the Hearing Examiner is given deference to weigh the credibility of testimony. Testimony regarding impacts on views, compatibility issues with the neighborhood, traffic impacts, and real estate values were found to be credible and supported by the record. A review of the 1TE Trip Generation reports demonstrated a seventy-five. percent (75%) increase in traffic levels.2 The sole testimony of a real estate professional was that introducing apartments to the neighborhood would negatively impact the values of existing homes in the area. The courts of this state have specifically held that neighborhood testimony concerning a project's impact on views is credible and can be a basis for denial of a project. Cingular Wireless, L.L.C. v. Thurston County, 131 Wn.App. 756, 129 P.3d 300 (2006). Appellant presented no evidence to the contrary on any of these issues. Appellant had the burden of establishing facts that the proposed project meets all requirements and is compatible with the neighborhood. Appellant failed to present any evidence on the pertinent issues and now attempts to disregard all testimony presented at the hearings in opposition to the project. Even if all testimony were to be disregarded, the net result would be that there would be insufficient evidence in the record for the appellant to meet its burden of proof for the project. However, such approach is not needed. The testimony presented by those opposing the project is both substantial and credible. The Hearing Examiner's Decision is supported by the record. Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan is required. The Hearing Examiner found that the weight of credible evidence demonstrate that the proposed development fails to comply with the objectives, goals, and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan is required and provides an independent basis for denial. The courts of this state have clearly established that if the zoning code itself expressly requires that a proposed use comply with a comprehensive plan, the proposed use must satisfy both the zoning code and the comprehensive plan. Cingular, 131 Wn.App. at 770; Lakesidelndustries v. Thurston County, 119 Wn.App. 886, 895, 83 P.3d 433 (2004) (citing Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County , 124 Wn.2d 26, 43, 873 P.2d 498 (1994) (citing Cougar Mountain Assocs. v. King County , 111 Wn.2d 742, 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988))); see also W. Main Assocs. v. City of (Hearing Examiner's Decision, p. 16). The Hearing Examiner afforded the proper consideration to the comments of the neighbors. 2 Counsel for Appellant states that the tripgeneration reports indicate that multi -unit housing generally average slightly less trips per day than single family dwellings. However, such statement does not take into account that there would be considerably more dwelling units under the proposed development than a single family development project. The net result of the proposed project would be the large increase in traffic levels as indicated by the Hearing Examiner in his decision. 509.945.0945 414 N. 2nd St Yakima, WA 98901 DOC. INDEX # t -o Bellevue , 49 Wn. App. 513 , 524-25, 742 P.2d 1266 (1987) (noting that comprehensive plans can be given regulatory effect through enactment, in whole or part, as a regulation or ordinance), review denied , 112 Wn.2d 1009 (1989). The Yakima County requires the proposed use to comply with the Comprehensive Plan for both the Level 2 and Level 3 proposed uses. Portions of a couple of the relevant code provisions are reproduced below as follows: This higher density development shall be allowed only on those limited occasions when the reviewing official fmds that the location and site plan of the project is such that the higher density would be compatible with neighboring land uses and the level of public services, and is consistent with the goals and objectives in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. YCC 15.03.030(3). (Emphasis added). Class (3) uses may be permitted by the hearing 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. YCC 15.02.020. (Emphasis added). Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan is required for this project. Consistent with the rationale set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Decision and the relevant testimony and argument presented at the hearings, the proposed project is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan and must be denied. Conclusion. The proposed project not only fails to satisfy the zoning code but also fails to meet the compatibility requirement. The Hearing Examiner's Decision is proper and based on the substantive evidence of record. The decision of the Hearing Examiner is afforded deference in this proceeding and should be upheld accordingly. Yours Truly, HATFIELD LAW Chad Hatfield 509.945.0945 414 N. 2nd St Yakima, WA 98901 DOC. INDEX 1-1,5 • Jim Scoggins 4603 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 December 10, 2008 RECEIVED DEC 1 1 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division 129 North Second Street Yakima, Washington 98901 Re: Assessor's Parcel No.: 181315-31011,181315-34037 File#: UAZO Apeal #4-08 To Yakima City Council: RECEIVED '08 OEC 10 P3:11 �9. YAKIMA CITY CLERK I attended both hearings on the Toscanna Development conducted by Gary Cuillier, and I was impressed by his thoroughness and his efforts to find compromise between the developer and neighbors. The developer's insistence on building an apartment complex in this primarily single-family neighborhood gave Mr. Cuillier no proper choice other than the one he made, to declare the development plans incompatible with this neighborhood. The City Council carefully considered the rezoning of the "Pearson" property several years ago and elicited some compromises between the developer and neighbors at that time. John Puccinelli, who was a member of the City Council then, reported during Mr. Cuillier's first hearing that a "promise" was made to neighbors that the city would not further down -zone the property in the future. I understand that Mr. Cuillier found a transcript attesting to the accuracy of that statement. Although the City Council's makeup has changed, surely that promise will be honored unless compelling reasons are presented to change it. Development is necessary and desirable, but the city must assure all of us that it will be done responsibly and without detrimental compromises. Mr. Cuillier made a ruling that upholds the standards we should expect. Hopefully this City Council will support that ruling. Sincerely, e(iy7 SIcoggins (Aw) DOC. INDEX # j-L0LJ RECEIVED December 9, 2008 DEC 1 1 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA Yakima City Council PLANNING DIV. c/o Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner City of Yakima, Dept. of Community & Economic Development 129 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision re Toscanna LLC Housing project Dear Mayor Edler and City Council members: This letter is to request that you uphold the Hearing Examiner's decisions in the Toscanna matter and deny the appeal of the Envizage Development Group. We submitted two letters prior to Mr. Cuillier's decision detailing our concerns and attended the public hearings on this matter. In view of all the documentation and testimony, including that of former Mayor John Puccinnelli, we believe that Mr. Cuillier made the right decision. As we previously wrote, we made the decision to purchase our home on Conestoga in 2001 after being assured by City Planning that the orchard below our home was zoned "single family residential" and that our view would be protected. We did not have any reason to interpret SFR any other way than the common definition. We appreciate the fact that the developer made a number of revisions to the plans after hearing of the neighbors' concerns, but during the hearing it was clarified that only some homes on that upper level would be one storey, and the ones that are proposed to be two storey now will restrict our view to "a slice of the pie" in comparison. The proposed duplexes and apartment complex are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The project narrative states: "The proposed residential duplex community will provide diversity of housing types to the city." That was not the community that was intended for this neighborhood in the Comprehensive Plan. Our neighborhood will change dramatically if so many families with children are crammed into these two lots. There is no doubt there will be increased noise, traffic and emissions. We don't believe this was the intent of the city council at the time they worked with the neighborhood on some zoning revisions/ adjustments, as verified by former mayor John Puccinelli during the August 14`h hearing. Thank you for your consideration of our request to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. Sincerely, and Joel Weyh Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 509-966-1686 • DOC. INDEX t H- 3 919 Conestoga Blvd ® Yakima, WA 98908 December 8th, 2008 City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Subject: Tax Parcel Nos. 181315-31011 & 181315-34037 UAZ() Appeal/N-08 To the Yakima City Council RECEIVED DEC I 1 2008 GIiY OF YAKIMA Envizage Development. Group's recent appeal to 1learing 1xarnincr Gary Cuillicr's ruling on grounds that municipal erode was misapplied cannot possibly have merit. Mr. Cuillier•'; ruling; found that the proposed 't'oscanna 1)evelopment was incompatible with the prop- erty's zoning, as well as incompatible and not compliant "with the objectives and standards of the Comprehensive flan... wiil) the intent, character, provisions and siandards of the zoning district where they would be located, and soli:ll the consistency criteria in the Yakima Municipal Code." 1 remind the Council that one of' il,e consistency ciileria found in Subsection 16.06.020(13) of the Yakima ]\4upiripal Code is "'J'ltr. dc.rtsity of lc:sick:filial cic:velottincrti in the urban giowth arca or the level of developnleilt SU h ,l; llrlit5 per at;i) t)r oilit)r ine;astrrt)S or density." The development grout) sought, on Aj,ril 1'1, 2.008: "Clay; (2.) use. approval fill 84 dwelling units in 42 duplexes in the poriion of the propeiiy zoned Siitg;lc•Fairtily Residential (R. 1)..." and "Class (3) USC appt'oval for 96 :. pniiirls)rit units... in iile i)QtiiOtl i%t' til( i)t'<)i)i)tty /one(' Tk,vo ':.uglil), Residential (K-2)," as well as "An Administra1i-ver Arijusiit,erti to allov,' 6S` -'i, 10; covcral,e lather than SO% lot covcragc in 1.11 pariiort of 11tc: 1)rol,;:i I\ zoit :rt 1,•?.'' '•1il:%;•, it (1C..v(.1(1)1nciri f! JOU]) seeks a van WIG() that tS '/t)iy +nue!' t:irriii:riy Io tth'; i:;i!i)I '.;'S ii!i+:t ,ai, :r;!rl lett:t;il ):ili)lc; ',yttil t.'n c;.YlSlln nci011)o1'.• hood, :LS testimony Show;. If J; nvizapic.1)(:veIo)lrtciti (i(,; arti,:.' i t;t 1, 1 '1 T r `' i•''i a (� ;r; (.�I;I.i,.. irtili> on (>i ('•O(r(:, then it is iii(; (,oitii iI'S responsibility to t.h rly th;i DOC. INDEX S-�2-- December 8, 2008 Yakima City Council 129 N. Second St. Yakima, WA 98901 RECEIVED DEC 092008 • CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Subject: File # UAZO Appeal #4-08, Toscana Development Council Members, I am writing this letter in response to the appeal by the developer, Envizage Development Group, regarding the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny the proposed land use project. I support Mr. Cullier's decision to deny the development as presented by Envizage Development Group. Mr. Cullier used wisdom, the law and considered all comments for and against this proposed land use project, in making his decision. Development of the property is not in question or opposed; the opposition is in regard to the density of such development. Comments made by the developer stating that in order for this project to be financially feasible, the project must proceed at the proposed density levels. This tells me that the builder -developer, is way over his head in his plans for the site. If Envizage Development Group is serious in using the property in question, it should do so within the boundaries that were set over 10 years ago, R-1 in most part and a small R-2 area, next to the trailer park. What annoys us the most, is the unwillingness of the developer to work within the development boundaries set for the property, if that is a problem with them, develop the property as designed or divest themselves of it. Proposing the building of 42 duplex units and 96 apartment units within a single-family residence area, further demonstrates the developers disregard for the existing homes in the area and the problems that such a density brings with it. I encourage the Council to consider this appeal carefully and deny development at the proposed increased levels. Don Young 913 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 Hm. 965-4537, Cell 961-3556 x DOC. INDEX * I • • William P. Foster 4207 Fechter Road, Yakima, WA 98908 RECEIVED DEC 0 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. December 8, 2008 Yakima City Council C/O City Planning Department 129 N Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Toscanna Building Project To Whom It May Concern: I would like to take this opportunity to say that I support the decision of Mr. Cullier regarding the denial of this project. The duplexes and especially the apartments are not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The density, the noise and the traffic would all work against the current environment that all of the neighbors presently enjoy. I would encourage you to deny this appeal. DOC. INDEX 1 N -Lip Macile M. Cowman 921 Conestoga Blvd Yakima, WA 98908 (509) 965-8126 December 5, 2008 City of Yakima Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 RE: Assessor 's Parcel No.: 181315-31011, 181315-34037 File #: UAZO Appeal #4-08 To Yakima City Council: RECEIVED DEC 0 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 1 am writing in response to the letter I received regarding the appeal filed by Envizage Development Group (project applicant) on the Toscanna development (Pearson Property) located at 40'h and Castlevale Road, which is within the Yakima City limits. This is not this first time that this property has been presented to the Yakima City. Council for development review. Several years ago the previous Yakima City Council had held public hearings on zoning this piece of property in accordance to Yakima's Growth Management Act. At that time, the owner of the Pearson property and the surrounding neighbors had come to a mutual agreement that the property needed to be in compliance with the existing surrounding of the neighborhood. That meant mainly single family residences would fit the criteria in this area, not duplexes or apartments. There are several other issues that need to be addressed by any developer that is interested in building on this property. It is unfair to the existing property/home owners surrounding the development area if the following issues are not taken into consideration: Views from the homes along the canal will be altered, increased traffic, proposed densities are too high for the subject property, property values of surrounding homes will decrease, proposed use is not compatible with current zoning district or surrounding neighborhood, noise from recreational facility will be detrimental to neighborhood, lighting from development should be directed away from homes uphill, interior streets do not meet standards, smog/air issues, adjustments on zoning should not be allowed and safety issues of the canal. Covenants for this development should be written in accordance to the existing surrounding area so that future construction does not change this neighborhood. The proposed Toscanna Development plan that Envizage Development Group presented to the Hearing Examiner on August 14, 2008 has not shown to be in compliance and compatible with the objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan. It also does not DOC. INDEX 8 _3c1 • • • meet the character, provisions and standards of the zoning district where they would be located and the consistency criteria in the Yakima Municipal Code. The Hearing Examiner (Gary M. Cuillier) denied Envizage Development Group's request because he felt the developer 's plans did not meet the zoning standards for this area. 1 request that the Yakima City Council deny the appeal by the developer since his proposal is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, Macile M. Cowman 921 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 (509) 965-8126 RECEIVED DEC 0 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIM PLANNING DIV DOC. INDEX # -39 December 4, 2008 Dear City Council Members, Re: Envizage Development appeal on their Toscanna Project RECENED DEC 0 8 • 2008 CiTy y._ • My name is Ron Hatfield. My wife and I live on Conestoga Blvd. Our house is right on the canal, which separates our property from the subject property. We would like to thank you in advance for your time and effort for us concerning this project. I have been an actively involved member of these proceeding and I 100 percent agree with Mr. Cullier's decision. Mr. Cullier stated very clearly in his decision why the Toscanna project does not follow urban plans, zoning laws, or compatibility of the neighborhood. Mr. Pierson originally owned this land in question. He owned about 60 acres with some on each side of 40th Ave. He wanted all of it to be rezoned for businesses. The neighbors wanted all of it to be residential. Mr. Pierson in a joint city council/commissioner meeting in 1996 laid out his final proposal, which is the way it is now. He envisioned a piece for Memorial Hospital (Children's Village), a piece for a restaurant (Pizza Hut), and office building zoning for the most northern area of the west side of 40th and businesses on the east side of 40th. He even called for a revamp of the lower portion of Fechter Drive to go around the business section going along the trailer court. The trade off for the neighbors was that he would leave the remaining portions of the west side of 40th in low and medium density housing. Thus it was to be R-1 low density around the canal area and the lower portion down by the mobile home park in R-2, medium density. The neighbors withdrew their opposition to the whole project with the agreement that this was to be left R-1 and R-2 or low and medium density zoning. Now we have the Envizage group wanting essentially a total rezone. They want to put all R-2 (duplexes) in the R-1 area and to put all R-3 (apartment buildings) in the R-2 area. The R-2 area where he wants his apartments covers 65% of useable land, where a 50% is the maximum density by law. That is 130% of the maximum allowed. If you gave him enough variances to the law he could eventually get anything passed. Even if he got all the variances he wanted, the project is not even close to being compatible to the neighborhood. Those of us that have been working with Mr. Sjule do not trust him. He is the apartment management business and what he really wants is a nice big rental complex that he can manage. I doubt that he will ever try to sell the condominiums. He also has plans to build a 100 unit senior housing complex on the northwest corner and a business section on the northeast corner. These also would take a total rezone. Ms Moss, Mr. Sjule's attorney, has attempted to try to discredit Mr. Cullier's abilities as a fair and just examiner. She knows that none of her points are valid but had to write up INDEX 1 1-3g 11. something. She was not present at any of the initial hearings where all the facts were explained. She was only at the last short hearing where Mr. Cullier tried to see if a compromise was possible. She stated, just as Mr. Sjule had said to me personally, that he couldn't do any project without all of his apartments. I trust that you will also read Mr. Cullier's decision and see that he is not incompetent, as Ms Moss believes. In her big city, maybe public agreements don't mean anything but in our community we believe and trust one another and try to follow the rules that we adopted. Again thank you for your time. Ron and Linda Hatfield RECEIVED DEC 0 8 2On9 CITY OF YAKIi,�„ PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDEX # N_�g. New Yakuma aeveiopment araws ire CHRIS BRISTOL Forme!. Yakima mayor John „cciuelli dropped the W -bomb it: ring a lied ring Thursday at City ic,Ii over the future ol'a proposed :Jed community known as To- t. ''his could he the next Wal- ,..,. 1'uccinelli warned, refer - to a legal battle over a pro - ;u -ed Wal-Mart store in the West , t.!IL \ that has cost the city mil- lions of dollars in attorney fees. • At issue is whether city plan- ners were right to approve 'l'oscau- • na, a proposed $40 million housing development in the 4200 block ol'Casllevale Avenue just \vest of • North40th Avenue. The 30 -acre site sits below Car- riage Hill, one oldie city's classier .neighborhoods. Developer David Sjule wants to build 42 duplexes and 96 apartment units comprising .15 apartment buildings un the site. tect Paul Casey didn't address the density issue that's central.to the complaints of the neighbors. In- stead, they complained to Cuillier about several conditions imposed by city planners:: Opponents Qfthe project wasted no time getting to the core oldie controversy: Whether duplexes and apartments are compatible in a neighborhood like Carriage Hill. City planners say they are, at least in this case. But the neighbors a former orchard. But neighbors said they don't trust Sjule and his talk of"Tuscany with a Southwestern flair" They fear the development is really just rectal (rousing with a fancy name Their decision to appeal the city's approval of the development set the stage For Thursday's hear- /9� ing, hosted by city Clearings Exam- �1� iuerGaryCuillier. / I rt a presentation that lasted OAC`„, $A well over an hour. Sjule and archi-0/4, argued the development doesn't. lit and will cause noise and light pol- lution, lower property values and create increased traffic. "Apartments are totally out of the question," complained Ron Hatfield, who lives on Conestoga Boulevard. "You just don't see any apartments around here." Added his son, local attorney Chad Hatfield, "This is really a SEE DEVELOPMENT PAGE 3C Continued from Page 1C rezone request." • • On that point, the neigh- bors may have round a very credible friend in Puccinelli, who served two years as mayor while a member of the City Council from 1907 102003. Puccinelli, wlru lives ill the area, testified the City Council rezoned the orchard about 10 years ago and the • intent was a low- to mediunt- density prix of (rousing. i.e. single-family homes and duplexes. "Atli() flute were therc- .ever apartments to b there," he told Cuillier, add- ing, "I know assurances were given to these people." Al the conclusion atilt? hearing, Cuillier asked op- ponents of the project to find' tapes of council hearings that proved Puccinelli's memory.:\ decision is not cxpec•ted fur several weeks and can be appealed up the chain to the City ('ouncit and Yakim a County Superior Court. Afterwards, a visibly an- noyed Sjule, who bought the property last year for $1.85 million, threatened to install manufactured hollies un the site and build thele as high as zoning regulations wouldallow, 35 feet, to mar Car- riage hill views ufthccity. It was 0 reina kably sinri- la:• threat to unc issued last your by another developer over a similar zoningdis- putc tii•russ town at 24th incl Head avenues. "They can have beauti- ful," Sjule said, "or they can have crap." • Cnris Bristol can De reacneo al 577-7746 or cbns!oi�§'yahunanerald coni. 0 8 '��,�,O y 0008 DOC. INDEX • I�s .iv'S 0w',�Vj �jNvtnS i7v AdcivLb • v lo I te compIe;s of nd&s, apartment By MAI HOANG YAKIMA HERALD -REPUBLIC A local development company has proposed building a S40 mil- lion gated residential community on former orchard lard near 4001 venue and Kern Road. ldoUp submitted an environmental review -application to the city of Yakima to build Toscana, a gated conimunity that will include 100 apartments and 86 condominiums in two- and 2 tour -unit build iii s un 32 acres southwest of Cast evale Road. The development will take on a Tuscan thence in honor of Yakima Valley's emerging wine industry. "That seems to be the big hot thing these days." said Dave Sjule, chief executive officer of Envizage Development Group. Although the company is based in Yakima and has built several apartments and duplexes here, Toscana would be the company's first large-scale project here. En- vizage purchased the two parcels, which are zoned for residential TJ MULLINAX/Yakima Herald-RepuuJ For more information on the project, go to the Envizage Development Group's Web site at www,envizagegroup, com. use, for $1.85 million in October Envizage's other large projects include Sierra Sun, a 150 -unit luxury apartment complex in Puy- allup, \Vash.; Sierra Crest, a SEE CONDOS PAGE I UA . 1 , (1)(:(64\ 6-1%L2^A- V'Vl cit DOC. INDEX # -3g City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division 129 North Second Street Yakima, Washington 98901 Re: Assessor's Parcel No.: 181315-31011,181315-34037 File#: UAZO Appeal #4-08 To Yakima City Council: Timothy R. Gavin Nancy E. Gavin 904 Coach Ct Yakima, WA 98908 December 6, 2008 RECEIVED DEC 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. In reference to the Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision by the Envizage Development Group concerning the Toscanna Development. I request that you deny the appeal. As a resident of the adjacent Carriage Hill subdivision, it is my belief that the high population densities proposed by this development will increase traffic congestion, significantly raise public safety concerns in this neighborhood, and ultimately decrease my property value. My wife and I believe that this high density project will only lead to a deterioration of our neighborhood. 24re1Y , Timothy Gavin Nancy E Gavin • s December 3, 2008 City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division 129 north Second Street Yakima, Wa 98901 Regarding File # UAZO Appeal # 4-08 The "person aggrieved" purchased the subject property knowing it was zoned in two parcels; R-1 for single family residences and R-2 for two family residences. The proposal to change them into a quasi R-2 and R-3 zone afterwards is in direct violation of the intent of the Yakima Municipal code and should not be allowed. The "person aggrieved" prior to purchase had ample information regarding the applicable zoning restrictions involved. The repetitious reference to the hearing examiner being influenced by neighborhood opposition is nothing but a canard. The Attorney (Moss) cannot show in any way that his authority was delegated to neighbors. In fact, that the examiner allowed the initial hearing to be reconvened shows that he was more than willing to listen to all parties concerned. Is the attorney (Moss) suggesting that the neighbors should not be allowed to express or influence the examiner in any manner and should remain silent and later become aggrieved parties themselves? What then is the purpose of allowing all parties to provide input? The attorney (Moss) states that the examiner misconstrues YMC 15.03.030 regarding the intent of R-1 AND R-2 zoning. Yet if the changes regarding apartments in a R-2 zone and duplexes in a R- 1 zone are allowed then is not the intent of YMC 15.03.030 being completely misconstrued? Based on . bove, it is strongly recommended that this appeal be denied. e n a ue underso 720 N 44th Ave Yakima, WA 98908 DOC. INDEX 1 11-34 Therese Hamm -Sexton 903 N. Conestoga Blvd Yakima, Washington 98908 December 2, 2008 City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division 129 North Second Street Yakima, Washington 98901 DEC 0 5 2008 CRY NOF 0�M'� V. Re: Assessor's Parcel No.: 181315-31011-34037 File#: UAZO Appeal # 4-08 To Yakima City Council: This letter is to oppose any appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision of the Envizage Development Group concerning the Toscanna Development. This proposed development is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and fails to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. It was the intent of the previous City Council, during the original rezoning of the Pearson property, that it would remain largely a single-family residential area, as this is one of the last truly family neighborhoods. There have been other attempts to get variances to the R-1(single family) designation in this area and the Hearing Examiner, City Council and the Courts have upheld the position of the neighbors that it. would not be compatible with the neighborhood. We request that you deny the appeal of this project as not being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, Th*ese Hamm-iext; n ex . ooc Reit • • • • • Larry and Barb Koreis 4302 Fellows Drive Yakima, Wa 98908 December 2, 2008 City of Yakima Dept. of Community and Economic Development Planning Division 129 N. 2"d Street Yakima, Wa 98901 Re: Assessor's Parcel Number: 181315-31011, 181315-34037 File #: UAZO Appeal # 4-08 To Yakima City Council SECREc 0 5I yED 2008 cITY OFPLANNING DI i6 V. This letter is in response to the appeal made by the Envizage Development Group concerning the Toscanna Development. We agree with the hearing examiner's decision that the entire project should be denied. Toscanna Development does not comply and is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. There should be single family residence zoned R-1. We request that you deny the appeal on this project. Sincerely, Larry Koreis ff Barb Koreis DOC. INDEX !ELE :ANJilE H Ah_ ./Ek_SvINP.c. ATTORNEYS AT LAW December 4, 2008 Via facsimile (509.575..6105) Alan D. Campbell • West H. Campbell - James C. Carmody • J. Jay Carroll • Paul C. Dempsey James S. Elliott • Mark E. Fickes • Carter L. Fjeld • Chad L. Hatfield • Tyler M. Hinckle, Lawrence E. Martin • Kevan T. Montoya • Linda A. Sellers Michael F. Shinn • Sara L. Watkins. Of Counsel Frederick N. Halverson • Terry C. Schmalz Mr. Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner Dept. of Community and Economic Development 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, WA 98902 RE: Toscanna Development -- Request for Extension Dear Mr. Calhoun: DECReCevED 0 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIM PLANNING DIV. Our office received the Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision. However, the actual appeal document was not attached. We requested a copy of the appeal document and received it this week. Exhibit A to the appeal document was an eight (8) page legal memorandum raising a myriad of legal issues. We would like to prepare a memorandum for the City Council addressing these issues. Due to the short turn around time from receipt of the appeal document to the comment deadline, we are requesting a fifteen (15) day extension pursuant to Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance 15.16.040B(2) in order to adequately address all issues. The current comment deadline is December 10, 2008. The extension would extend the date to December 25, 2008. As the ordinance does not require prior notice to other parties prior to granting the extension, we would appreciate receiving the acknowledgment by fax this week so we may plan accordingly. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, VELIKANJE HALVERSON, P.C. a/10k- Chad L. Hatfield CLH:td INDEX �• # - 33 509.248.6030 • fax 509.453.6880 • 405 East Lincoln • P.O. Box 22550 • Yakima, WA 98907 • .www.vhlegal.com VPi ATTORNEYS AT LAW DATE: I - -Og Alan D. Campbell • James C. Carmody • J. Jay Carroll • Paul C. Dempsey James S. Elliott • Mark E. Fickes • Carter L. Fjeld • Chad L. Hatfield Lawrence E. Martin • Kevan T. Montoya • Linda A. Sellers Michael F. Shinn. • Sara L. Watkins Of Counsel: Frederick N. Halverson • Terry C. Schmalz TO: ATTORNEY MESSENGER SERVICE OFFICE MESSENGER HAND DELIVERED DELIVER TO: FOR: RECEIVED DEC 0 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Attorney Firm The Honorable Yakima County Auditor Yakima County Treasurer Superior Court Administrator Superior Court Clerk District Court Clerk U.S. Bank uptcy Court Clerk ,�� Other: Co . Q i oh Filing 2fl.d... F too v - Recording Service On Have Original Signed -Return to VH Delivery OTHER/ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS: • RETURN CONFORMED COPIES TO: TORI @ VELIKANJE HALVERSON RETURN RECORDED ORIGINALS TO: Thank you, Tori Durand Velikanje Halverson, P.C. DOC. tNDEX # 33 405 East Lincoln Avenue P.O. Box 22550 Yakima, WA 98907 (509) 248-6030 fax (509)453-6880 www.vmslaw.com THOMAS W. GASSELING 714 N. 44TH Ave. YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98908 December 1, 2008 City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division 129 North Second Street Yakima, Washington 98901 Re: Assessor's Parcel No.: 181315-31011,181315-34037 File#: UAZO Apeal #4-08 To Yakima City Council: RECEIVEki DEC 0 3 20 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. This letter is to comment on the Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision by the Envizage Development Group concerning the Toscanna Development. The Hearing Examiner determined in his findings that the proposed variances to the project and I quote "have not been shown to be in compliance and compatible with the objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent, character, provisions and standards of the zoning district where they would be located, and with the consistency criteria in the Yakima Municipal Code." As was given in testimony by the neighbors the proposed development fails to comply with the Comprehensive Plan Objective H3.1 which is to stabilize existing viable neighborhoods and with Comprehensive Plan Policy H1.6.2 which is to encourage compatible infill of existing neighborhoods. It was the intent of the previous City Council, during the original rezoning of the Pearson property, that it would remain largely single family residences as this is one of the last truly family neighborhoods. There have been other attempts to get variances to the R-1 (Single Family) designation in this area and the Hearing Examiner, City Council and Courts have upheld the position of the neighbors that it would not be compatible with the neighborhood. I request that you deny the appeal on this project as not being compatible with the surround' r}gf ighborhood. Thomas W. Gasseling Dolores M. Gasseling DOC. INDEX -3� • • • a, August 21, 2008 Mr. Cuillier; RECEIVED NO 0 3 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. This letter is regarding the Toscana hearing. At the end of the hearing I went to the Clerks Office and put in a freedom of information request for tapes and records of the hearings conducted when Mr. Pearson wanted to change his property from agricultural zoning. At the present time all I have received is information on the zoning change in the business park, which has nothing to do with the Toscana proposal, except some letters saying that the business park was ok because of agreed zoning in the Toscana proposed area. I am submitting copies of these letters. I have talked with Mr. Cook from the City of Yakima and he and Mr. Calhoun are recovering records to get needed tapes of the hearings conducted at that time. I am asking you to delay your ruling until the city recovers their records. If you will give me 72 hours after I have received these tapes and records I would appreciate it. I have talked with other members of the Yakima City Council that served at that time and they remember basically the same thing I do about us wanting only R-1 Single Family homes near the canal and as the project moved toward 40th Avenue and next to the already existing mobile home park R-2 with condos or duplexes. Sincerely, ohn Puccinelli ?7j ooc SEX # H-31 NOVEMBER 18, 1997 This being the time set for the public meeting, Joan Davenport, Supervising Associate Planner, presented the Final'.P1at for Council consideration. Assistant Mayor Puccinelli opened the public meeting and invited testimony from the audience. Delmar Pearson, property owner, thanked the Council for their help in this project. There being no one else wishing to comment, Assistant Mayor Puccinelli closed the public meeting. Resolution No. R-97-144 having been read by title only, it was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BY BEKCHAMP, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote; Barnett and Buchanan absent. .4Ct- ra, ,• .i u14 2— s RESOLUTION NO. R-97-144 A RESOLUTION approving thefinal plat of Village View Business Park creating a new 11 -lot plat in the northeast corner of the intersection of .Kern Road and North 40th Avenue, and authorizing the Mayor to sign the final plat of Village View Business Park. r 8. PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER NOBEL ENGINEERING REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1702 RUDKIN ROAD AND 2007 MEAD AVENUE This being the time set for the public meeting, Bruce Benson, Associate Planner, described the rezone request and the property's location. He urged the Council to approve the rezone of property.to Light industrial zoning. Assistant Mayor Puccinelli opened the public meeting and invited testimony from the audience. Dale Nobel, applicant, commended the Planning staff for doing a good job. There being no one else wishing to comment, the public meeting was closed. It was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BY KLINGELE, TO ACCEPT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE REZONE AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE •APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Barnett and Buchanan absent. 9. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Louise Worden, 10120 State Route 410, expressed concern about irrigation utility fees, her previously requested street light installation, and garbage service for her rental property in Yakima. The Council took this information under advisement. George Pechtel, 116 North 3rd Avenue, complained that a letter he recently received from the City was selective enforcement and discriminatory concerning curb parking. Mr. Pechtel also urged the Council to consider OIC as a CHODO. Bev Luby Bartz, 114 North 2nd Street, explained she attended a meeting when Mr. Pechtel's parking was brought up and a complaint was made because no parking on the planting strip was not being enforced. 3 DOC INDEX # H-3( • • There were several hearings concerning this property. They had to be moved out of City Hall because of the large crowds. These letters are part of the record when we okayed resolution # R-97-144 on November 18, 1997. Letters were received in June of 1996. As you can see this rezoning lasted a long time. DOC INDEX # 1� -3i City Council Members Page 3 June 26, 1996 While the extension of 40th through the Pearson farm has been a financial blow for Delmar and Ellen, it has been a boom for their neighbors; to the north - restaurants, convenience, grocery, discount, and variety stores and to the south - churches, professional offices, attached housing, apartments, and a fire station. My suspicion is that even the Carriage Hill residents have experienced increases in their property values related to the convenience/access that the 40th Avenue thoroughfare made available. During the public hearing on the 25th, one of the "Carriage Hillers" made the statement that there was clear evidence that single family homes could be built on 40th and used as evidence the houses north of Fechter. Well, it is hard to account for everyone's thinking. I cannot imagine building a house on 40th. If you had children, you would be constantly concerned for their safety which you would have a lot of time to think about since the road noise would keep you awake at night. Delmar's desire to put professional offices, banks, and restaurant facilities on 40th with turn lanes, re-routing Fechter to reduce its present safety hazard, combined with medium and low density housing to the west, with a buffer zone separating this project from Carriage Hill makes sense. Especially when considering that these are the types of activities that are within a few blocks of the parcel already. And, it is good for the City as the tax base would be higher. The issue is not whether the land fronting 40th is appropriate for the purposes summarized above, but rather is it appropriate/fair for some portion of the Carriage Hill residents to absolutely dictate how the property will be developed. I am asking that you consider amending that portion of the PLAN so that it will anticipate the types of development described above. Thanking you for your consideration. Sincerely, Craig B. Mendenhall CBM/tmg BM! FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. DOC INDEX N-31 • • • VUl71NlLl�W[lL June 23, 1996 Yakima City Council Yakima County Commission RECEIVED C.rry CF v:..: A. JUN 2 4 1996 OFFIC C COUNCIL Re: Draft Comprehensive Plan Pearson properties - N. 40th Avenue near Kern and Fechter Dear Council Members and Commissioners:. Being very. aware of the projected demand for additional residential -zoned land within the Urban Growth Area to respond to the anticipated need for more living quarters between now and the year 2010, I understand the reluctance to permit land presently zoned residential to be transformed into, other uses. Notwithstanding that fact, I believe that the properties controlled by the Pearson family, via D.E.P. Properties, Inc. and Mt. Adams Cattle Company on N. 40th Avenue between Kern Road and Fechter, on both sides of 40th Avenue, are unfairly destined to be encaptured into future residential use only. It should not be overlooked that the land is not now utilized for residential, but has been maintained - despite many past opportunities to do otherwise - as an operating fruit ranch consistent with the vibrant financial history of our valley. It is only on paper that it can be considered to be residential in nature. While it appears a portion of the land will be permitted for transformation to professional office space and the utilization of four acres for the community's new Children's Village pediatric medical facility, to sentence the Pearsons to mandated use of the remainder of the land as residential seems unduly harsh_ In addition, it overlooks the obvious need, whenever there is' scheduled a great number of new homes, for the goods and services necessary to provide for the existence of the inhabitants of the new homes, .but to avoid their having to travel significant distances over public streets to obtain those items elsewhere in town, adding to traffic problems. That we, as a community, have a need for additional residential -zoned lands to address future needs, should not create a burden to be borne by one family. I urge you to consider allocation, in the Comprehensive Plan, to a blended use of these combined lands to residential, office and commercial purposes. Sincerely, 4112 Sumrnitview • Yakima, WA 98908 (509) 966-3800 • 1-800-388-0935 • Fax (509) 966-7183 DOC INDEX # -1-31 • June 21, 1996 Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 JUN 2 4 1996 Obi :._ - , rte..,•„ ua�+. I cannot be at the June 25th meeting however I have reviewed the Pearson proposal for their property on 40th Avenue. I think their plan is well directed. It uses the land in the most beneficial way for the community. I am sure you will have complaints from neighbors that would rather look down on an orchard than new houses. 'They need to remember that their land was once orchard and they disrupted someone elses view. I think their plan is well though out and will enhance our community, Sincerely, 3604 Howard Ave Yakima, WA 98902 FP/db DOC. INDEX # �I-31 • Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 r"'v OF - Jtiti 2 4 1996 OFFICE CF Cfl'f COUNCIL Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan "Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. I believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing" area .of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class III reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office" I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. Address At' / /V 1_/"72) DOC INDEX # 11-131 OFFICL CF CITY COUNCIL,' Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan "Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. I believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing" area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class III reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office' I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. Nam C' e M&DVENFf — Address O9 ,V. 2_3'44 I yc iL MI DOC. INDEX # H -3I • Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 JUN 2 0 1996 OFFICE Or ..,r, COUNCIL I Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan 'Future Use • North 40th. Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. I believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a 'Medium Density Housing" area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class Ill reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office" I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. Address /Iii 5. -7Li a,L/ ,ryvV 1.4)� Doc. INDEX # I -I - 51 Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 • + 'Jr TAKt"#1 'JUN 2 4 1996 OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan "Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. 1 believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing" area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class 111 reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office" I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor l am expressing my opinion. Name 41,/,47 7 d:// Address /v 2V -e-14)-17 aG'cG ,,a1 DOC INDEX # -3( • • Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan "Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. I believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "tow Density . Housing' next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the . Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and av `1 unnecessary delay of Class li and Class III reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office" 111 1 cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. Name JIL/ Address �l1 inES./7 !t/ ‘"////(_-/ lAA 9”08/ Doc INDEX # -3J Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901. LJUN271996 OFFJC - U:1 Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan 'Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. 1. believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing" area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providingleft turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next toOth avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class 111 reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office° I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. Name STs✓ith., Address "4 go! eHisgo 444 7ic.�L DOC. INDEX # '-I - 31 • • JUN 2 4 1996 OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan "Future Use North.40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. I believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing" area. of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people- and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class III reviews for proposed. banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office" I cannot be at the June 25th meeting ., therefor I am expressing my opinion. Address .1S:-"Ze7fridartieiu 474,1 I( /V t5 o h f %d G e Coh n'r 4/0prOvd / d/ a, r�C/` . �' E 4i y DOC. INDEX # x-31 JUN 2 6 1996 rr- fl ;0!".71. „�,.... Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan *Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. 1 believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing' area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class III reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office" I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. Name Address s II_ 500 '71- t s ire «>mft (AY) 98908 - DOC. INDEX #-31 • • September o8, 2008 Re: Toscanna Development Dear -Mr. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner, RECEIVED SEP 0 8 2008 CITY OF YANK r; PLANNING DIN. Thank you for extending the time for us to try to find tapes of the council meetings pertinent to this property. Unfortunately, this process ran over several years and we have not found the tape of the final decision. During this process, the property went from being in the -county to being annexed into the city. The county and city were also finalizing the Growth Management Act. That was mostly what causedthe long period of time for all of this to happen. On tape 1, we have at 00:26:25 Lee Clark giving testimony before the combined city and county session. He states that the map on the wall does not reflect the zoning that was agreed upon. He talks about meetings taking place as far back as 1994 and mentioned the 300 people signed petition that was delivered to the city. I remember seeing the petition, but it has not been recovered from the cityarchives yet. Mr. Clark and the other neighbors wanted all of Mr. Pierson's property to be zoned R-1 on both sides of 40th Ave. At 00:50:38 on tape 1, Mr. Pierson talks and expresses his desires as to how the property should be worked out. He talks about blending his property next to the canal with neighboring houses on the other side of the canal. However, he did not feel that R-1 was appropriate for all of his land bordering both sides of 40th Ave. He felt that both sides of 40th Ave. should be business (B-1) zoned. Around the mobile home court, he wanted condos and duplex apartments. If you now look at all of the properties of the old farm, you will find that he got his way on everything. The citizens on Carriage Hill allowed for B-1 on the north of the mobile park. B-1 was put along the east side of 40th Ave. also. He talks about options for Memorial Hospital, which is now Children's Village. He talks about a restaurant and that is now the Pizza Hut. He talks about fixing the 40th Ave and Fechter Ave intersection and moving the traffic over to the north side of the mobile park. That was done, and Fechter no longer crosses 40th Ave. Mr. Pierson got everything he asked for during this meeting.. The trade off for all of those things was, as I remember, that the property next to the east of the DOC. INDEX # '3v canal would be single-family housing as far as 300 feet down the hill from the canal easement. Then a mixture of condos and/or duplex apartments be built by the mobile home park. At 1:25:53 on tape 1, Mr. Huibregtse sums up Mr. Pierson's proposal and restated the 300 foot from the canal right of way was to be single-family housing. I have visited with ex -council members Lynn Buchanon and John Klingle and they remember things the same as I do. In addition, Attorney Jamie Carmody who lived on Conestoga Blvd. at the time remembers it the same way. We are continuing to try to find other tapes to verify what we are saying. The city has not been able to give me a date as to when the final hearing was. I find this to be frustrating, as they should know when these final decisions were made. As Chad Hatfield stated at our hearing, "the owner is really asking for no less than a rezone of his entire property, moving the portion form R-1 to R-2 and another portion from R-2 to R-3". He will then carry on and try to slip past the rezone of another part to B-1 and put Assisted Living on the final piece. I believe this is one of the property zonings that the city council got right. Both Mr. Pierson and the property owners on Carriage Hill were satisfied with the proposal. The zoning went from B-1 into R-1 in a compatible way with the neighborhood. Mr. Sjule's proposal is not compatible with this neighborhood. Multi -family housing and sub standard streets are not compatible with this neighborhood. Personally, they could never build anything to block my view as I live quite a way up on the hill. But during the negotiations I made promises to the people on Carriage Hill and I feel obligated to help them fight for what is right. Again, thank you for extending the time to search for tapes. Sincerely, /%^ .e `John Puccinelli RECEIVED SEP 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIM PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDEX # j , -30 • • • feZ2 ATTORNEY AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 201 E. SECOND STREET P.O. BOX 489 GRANDVIEW, WA 98930 TELEPHONE: (509) 882-1421 FAX: (509) 882-1222 // August 26, 2008 Mr. Joseph Calhoun Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 RE: Envisage Development Group CL (3) #7-08 CL (2)#20.08 ADM ADJ #16-08 Dear Mr. Calhoun: RECEIVED AUG 2 9 2008 ANN D My wife and I reside at 4410 Carriage Hill Drive, located approximately %2 block West from Conestoga Blvd. After viewing the video of the August 14th hearing and listening to the testimony of the developer and his staff and that of the residents in opposition, it has become apparent to me that this project will greatly impact our quality of life in this neighborhood. While we do not object to the building of single family and duplex residences, we do object to the proposed apartment complexes on this property. Our reasons are as follows: 1. The addition of that many people and vehicles will greatly affect the Castlevale and 40`h Avenue intersection. This additional traffic will either cause a backup of substantial proportions on 40th which is already a race course, or on Castlevale, depending upon the traffic signal timing. It will also divert traffic through the Conestoga neighborhood which will result in unsafe conditions for the large number of walkers and runners that frequent this area. 2. A community pool at an apartment complex will create a noise pollution problem due to the large number of children and all of their friends who will frequent such an amenity. You only need live within an area with private pools to know how children not only make noise but scream when swimming. The noise in this area transmits up the hill and will undoubtedly be heard at my house which will be quite a distance from the proposed pool. 3. This is a prime Yakima area for single family residences -not for apartment houses and no matter what the developers may say or promise, when that property changes hands to a landlord DOC. INDEX that is interested only in the rent and not maintenance, this will become just another poorly maintained Yakima apartment ghetto. You only need to drive around Yakima to see the "nice apartment" projects that are now seedy projects. 4. I sincerely believe that this project of apartments will reduce my property value and that of my neighbors. We all paid a premium to purchase homes in this area -I do not want that value destroyed by the City of Yakima merely because you can. Why would the City of Yakima even consider taking one of the premier residential areas of this city and turn it into an apartment zone just to please a developer? There are many areas of this city that could accommodate R-3 &4 zoning for apartments without destroying the compatibility of the neighborhood. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR APARTMENTS. With all due respect, to allow this project to proceed to completion with the change of zoning would not be smart planning for this city. John an . ' eggy Maxwell 4410 Carriage Hill Drive Yakima, WA 98930 509-469-1421 RECEIVED AUG 2 9 2008 OTT OF VM M AMM O. DOC. INDEX • • • • Community To the editor — Our zoning ordlriances are intended to be the framework for planned/00*th Of our commUnitY We Op* planning staff to encourage a Pattern -of ' development claaiacterized by aesthetic, architectUrallyapPropriate design blending with existing R-1 Neighborhoods; • ' I cite the eXaMple OftlioUghtfUl, planned deverOPMentin Bend; Ore. Upon visiting, YOU'SeethiS•contiiniity of architeCtufe and thOUghtfill design blending coinmeMid *and residential alike. • ' • Clearly, direct community in- VolVementin theiii*ingPOCe.ssis paramOtdit in their*VeilyMent-: strategies:,. As regards theiiiVoketF! ToscarinaPOOIOAlint" 022 acres adjacent tikthe0i- riage 610..b E: •••-••-• • 1546d In thIS planning planyngskaffeonia involve he,44 s6 tai to capi414* ojoyi;fif71: disregarding theaesthet- iCkfncl e4sti41 !;,,s,opurdsktiikeer.4:- colda : Orkii swayed bydeveIope,. intent on slam*" ingi!p high delisitg4igh 911f-14aR • =itving' V N EA; Inc. spaee*otir expense? g / u c):7 /DO August 21, 2008 Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner City of Yakima, Dept. of Community & Economic Development 129 N. 2nd Street RECEIVED Yakima, WA 98901 AUG 2 1 2008 Re: Toscanna LLC Housing project CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Dear Mr. Calhoun: This letter is in addition to the one we wrote and submitted on July 2, 2008, and following the public hearing which we attended. As we stated in that letter, we made the decision to purchase our home on Conestoga in 2001 after being assured by City Planning that the orchard below our home was zoned "single family residential" and that our view would be protected. We did not have any reason to interpret SFR any other way than the common definition. We really do appreciate the fact that the developer made a number of revisions to the plans after hearing of the neighbors' concerns, and understood that the highest level of homes in the proposed development would be single storey after all. However, during the hearing it was clarified that only some along that upper level would be one storey, and in fact, the ones that are proposed to be two storey now will significantly block or restrict our view. We now have about 180 degree views from our deck, living room, family room, dining room and master bedroom. The revised plan shows that all the proposed homes to the left (or SE of back of our house/deck; buildings A -N on preliminary site plan) would be 2 -storey, two of them directly below would be 1 -story, and then several more to the right (SW or buildings T, V and more) would be 2 -storey. Therefore, our very full view would be reduced to "a slice of the pie" in comparison. We don't believe this was the intent of the city council at the time they worked with the neighborhood on some zoning revisions/ adjustments, as verified by former mayor John Puccinelli during the August 14th hearing. The view is a major factor in the use and enjoyment of our home; and like others along the canal, we think of the back of our home really as the front of it, and that is where we spend our time. We also believe that a diminished view will negatively impact the value because it is the smallest home in the area. Therefore, we request that you restrict the development to the common definition of single family residences, with a height restriction that protects our views. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Monica and Joel Weyhe 901 N. Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 509-966-1686 DOC. INDEX Ii II �_ / E , I r•'• P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW August 21, 2008 Mr. Gary Cuillier Yakima County Hearing Examiner 314 North Second Street Yakima, Washington 98901 Alan D. Campbell • James C. Carmody • J. Jay Carroll • Paul C. Dempsey James S. Elliott • Mark E. Fickes • Carter L. Fjeld. • Chad L. Hatfield Tyler M. Hinckley Lawrence E. Martin • Kevan T. Montoya • Linda A. Sellers Michael F. Shinn • Sara L. Watkins Of Counsel: Frederick N. Halverson • Terry C. Schmalz RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING Div. RE: Toscanna Development UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08 Dear Mr. Cuillier: I am writing on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill ("Concerned Citizens") in regards to the hearing held on August 14, 2008 for the above referenced project. At the hearing, you requested tapes of previous city council meetings in relation to the zoning of the subject property. The hearing was continued for one week in part to receive these submittals. Tapes of the city council meetings were requested immediately following the hearing on August 14, 2008. We have been told that the tapes have been located by the City but have yet to be delivered to us. We are told they will be ready for delivery in the next day or so. We are requesting a one-week extension for submittals, so that these tapes may become a part of the record. We appreciate your patience and cooperation. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, VELIKANJE HALVERSON, P.C. CHAD L. HATFIELD clh:srp cc: Planning Department 509.248.6030 fax 509.453.6880 405 East Lincoln • P.O. Box 22550 DOC. INDEX # Yakima, WA 98907 \N\VV vhlegal.com File Number: Proposed Project: Parcel Numbers: Location: Supplemental Comments Concerning Placement of 18 Foot and 25 Foot Buildings UAZO #19-08 Toscana 181315-31011, 181315-34037 Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run RECEIVED AUG 2 1 20880 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. This . supplemental comment is filed by adjacent property owners, Duane Knittle and Dorothy Brodrick, 909 N Conestoga Blvd., Yakima, as authorized by Hearing Examiner Gary Cuillier on August 14, 2008. At the hearing on this date, the proponents filed an exhibit showing the proposed location of one and two-story duplexes. Supplemental comments may be filed concerning this issue through Thursday, August 21. We disagree with proponent's assertion that two-story buildings will not significantly block regional views from our home. The map filed by the proponents shows our home's views will be blocked by two-story construction, with three two-story duplexes south-east and four two-story duplexes to the north-east of our home. There are currently several sprinlders in lot 2 which are located about 30 to 35 feet east of the irrigation canal/lot 2 property line. The sprinklers are placed on top of vertical irrigation pipe. These pipes are over 18 feet high, probably about 20 feet high. Twenty feet is the standard length for this type of irrigation pipe. The proponents claim that a person sitting at the lowest floor level of existing residences (such as our house) would be eye level with the top of a 25 foot -high two-story building. However, this is not true. Even when we are standing where proponents suggest, the irrigation sprinlders are higher than eye level. A building the height of the irrigation sprinklers (over 18 feet) blocks our regional view. Two-story duplexes 25 feet high will block even more, particularly as the buildings are proposed to be placed closer to the property line than the irrigation sprinklers are currently. We believe the Hearing Examiner's proposed mitigating factor limiting construction to 18 foot height, as proponents agreed they could do, is reasonable. Many of the adjacent single-family homes along the east side of N. Conestoga Blvd. are built into the hill. The uphill, west side of the homes are single -story, while a daylight basement makes the homes appear as two-story from the downhill, east side. Many homes on the west side of N. Conestoga Blvd. (such as 910 N Conestoga and 908 N. Conestoga) are single -story homes. There is no reason why new construction in lot 2 could not be built in the same way: 18 -foot high measured on the west, uphill side daylight basement on the east, downhill side. There is a market for such residences, as proven by two recent sales on N. Conestoga Blvd. The single -story residence at 910 N. Conestoga Blvd. sold early this summer. The house at 911 N. Conestoga Blvd., a single - story with daylight basement, sold in the spring. Finally, attention should be paid to the proponent's shameful and bad faith behavior following the August 14 hearing as reported by the Yakima Herald -Republic. Reporter Chris Bristol wrote in the Friday, August 15 edition on page 3C that developer David Sjule threatened to intentionally mar Carriage Hill views of . the city by constructing 35 foot high "crap". For this reason, it is imperative that all particulars of any new construction on this property be clearly and unambiguously specified in detail. August 18, 2008 Dorothy Brodrick and Duane Knittle RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDEX # V.? V ELGKANir: IH AL\.'EkSONP.c. ATTORNEYS AT LAW August 15, 2008 Mr. Gary Cuillier Yakima County Hearing. Examiner 314 North Second Street Yakima, Washington 98901 RE: Toscanna Development UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08 Alan D. Campbell • James C. Carmody • J. Jay Carroll • Paul C. Dempsey James S. Elliott - Mark E. Fickes -.Carter L. Fjeld - Chad L. Hartfield_ Tyler M. Hinckley • Lawrence E. Martin - Kevan T. Montoya • Linda A. Seller Michael F. Shinn • Sara L. Watkins Of Counsel: Frederick N. Halverson - Terry C. Schmalz RECEIVED AUG 2 0 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV 008 Vern — De Stave.... dill _ s ave Lisa man,..,, Dear Mr. Cuillier: I am writing 'on .behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill ("Concerned Citizens") in regards to the hearing held on August 14, 2008 for the above referenced project. At the conclusion of the hearing, both the Applicant and Staff misstated the law regarding the appropriate level of review. I was not provided an opportunity to respond to these statements. However, it is important for this issue to be clarified prior to a determination. hi its concluding remarks, Mr. Casey, architect for the Applicant, challenged Concerned Citizens' argument that the entire project was under the Class (3) review standard and therefore generally incompatible. Mr. Casey stated that the proposed duplexes in the R-1 zone fall under a Class (2) review and do not carry the same burden on Applicant as a Class (3) review. Staff remarked that it upheld its earlier recommendation based upon these separate levels of review. The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (YUAZO) clearly resolves any dispute on this issue. Chapter 15.04.020 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the land use classification system and the standards of review for each use. In regards to a project containing more than one use, the last paragraph of that section explicitly sets forth the following: 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. Class (3) uses being higher than Class (2), and Class (2) uses being higher than Class (1). (Emphasis added.) All uses in this project, including apartment and duplex units, are subject. to the standard of review for Class (3) uses. Class (3) uses are by definition of the Ordinance "generally incompatible with their neighbors" and impose a burden upon the applicant to adequately resolve all compatibility issues or the Hearing Examiner cannot permit the use. (See YUAZ eapter 15.02 Definitions, Class (3) Uses.) INDEX • 509.248.6030 - fax 509.453.6880 405 East Lincoln - P.O. Box 22550 Yakima, WA 98907 www.vhlegal.com • Mr. Gary Cuillier August 18, 2008 Page -2 amid foal V 11.:. 1.1/ AUG 2 0 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Concerned Citizens maintains that the introduction of the proposed densities into the existing neighborhood would be incompatible even under a Class (2) level of'review. The fact that the entire project falls under the presumption of incompatibility associated with a Class (3) level of review only further demonstrates that a denial of the application is the only appropriate determination. 1 hope this letter dispels any confusion or misstatements regarding the applicable standard of review. The YUAZO clearly demonstrates that the entire project is under the Class(3) level of review. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, VELI NJE HALVERSON, P.C. CHAD L. HATFIELD clh:srp cc: Planning Department DOC. INDEX # _may August 18, 2008 Dear Mr. Examiner, Re: Toscanna Project RECEIVED • AUG 1 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. I am sending this to you in case you did not see the paper the day after our hearing on 14 August. KAPP TV also ran a one -minute spot on the news and interviewed Mr. Sjule and myself. We were each allowed a 15 second statement. Thank you for your time and efforts. VW • Ron Hatfield 822 Conestoga Blvd. Cc Joseph Calhoun DOC. INDEX • New Yakima .developmentdraws ire o ly CHRIS BRISTOL HERALD -REPUBLIC er Yakima mayor John ?u1 .. velli dropped the W -bomb luring a hearing Thursday at City ;Tall over the future of a proposed sated community known as To - ;canna. "This could be the next Wal- \lart." Puccinelli warned, refer- ing to a legal battle over a pro- posed Wal-Mart store in the West Valley that has cost the city mil- lions"ofdollars in attorney fees. t .'t5s,pe is whether city plan- ners;were right to approve Toscan- na; a;p, pposed $40 million housing develOjiMent in the 4200 block of east]'eyale Avenue just west of North40th Avenue. T.46'30: -acre site sits below Car- riage''Hi11one of the city's classier neighborhoods. Developer David Sjule wants to build 42 duplexes and9B apartment units comprising 15apartment buildings on the site, tect Paul CaseXdicl 't address the density issue_tit•'s central to the complaints ofti'e'tteighbors. In- stead, they cot iOained to Cuillier about several;: ;gtidItipns imposed by city planne;#s';A Opponentsa_oeproject wasted no time gettingfa;the, core of the controversy:.wrietl erduplexes and apartmept ; re compatible in a neighborhoQd(ailCe Carriage Hill. City plannerssay they are, at least in this case.;But the neighbors a former orchard. But neighbors said they don't trust Sjule and his talk of "Tuscany with a Southwestern flair." They fear the development is really just rental housing with a fancy name. Their decision to appeal the city's approval of the development set the stage for Thursday's hear- ing, hosted by city Hearings Exam- iner Gary Cuillier. In a presentation that lasted well over an hour, Sjule and archi- argued the development doesn't fit and will cause noise and light pol- lution, lower property values and create increased traffic. "Apartments are totally out of the question," complained Ron Hatfield, who lives on Conestoga Boulevard. "You just don't see any apartments around here." Added his son, local attorney Chad Hatfield, "This is really a SEE DEVELOPMENT PAGE 3C ConWiued from Page 1C rezo}te request." f''Qn:;that point, the neigh=• bots lay have found a 'very Credible friend in Puccinelli, -.11;104erved two years as •nin,,tu•:while a member of th`eeC1 (Council from 1997 tO.2093 ;) uccinelli, who lives in tlie{area, testified the City Cpuneil.rezoned the orchard alo4 U0years ago and the iii:t:e}it_;tv:es.a low- to mnedium- .de'nsitymix of .housing, i.e. sirjgle-family homes and ' iupf es. time were there ever "apartments to be thre'.h-he told Cuillier, add- iitgi.nkt ow assurances were i{reb.tis these people." • A. tfieeonclusion of the h.e irig,:Cuillier asked op- p90ilts:of the project to find tape$:ot'council hearings ,that'proved Puccinelli's memory. A decision is not expected for several weeks and can be appealed up the chain to the City Council and Yakima County Superior Court. Afterwards, a visibly an- noyed Sjule, who bought the property last year for $1.85 million, threatened to install manufactured homes on the. site and build them as high as zoning regulations would allow, 35 feet, to mar Car- riage Hill views of the city. It was a remarkably simi- lar threat to one issued last year by another developer over a similar zoning dis- pute across town at 24th and Mead avenues. "They can have beauti- ful," Sjule said, "or they can have crap." • Chris Bristol can be reached al 577.7748 or cbristol ®yakimaherald. com. neighboi RECEIVED AUG 1 9 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDEX RECEIVED AUG 1 8 2008 CITY OF Y PLANNING DX rimy w;# .p ' nor plan T ling t'i' complex .r ? ndos9 apartrnents /e/A litot By MAI HOANG YAKIMA HERALD -REPUBLIC A local development company has proposed building a $40 mil - hon gated residential community on former orchard land near 40th Avenue and Kern Road.- Envizage Development Group submitted an environmental review application to the city.of Yakima to build Toscana, a gated community that will include 100 apartments and 86 condominiums in two- and four -unit buildings on 32 acres southwest of Castlevale Road. The development will take on a Tuscan theme in honor of Yakima Valley's emerging wine industry. "That seems to be the big hot thing these days," said Dave Sjule, +. chief executive officer of Envizage Development Group. Although the company is based in Yakima and has built several apartments and duplexes here, Toscana would be the company's first large-scale project here. En- vizage purchased the two parcels, which are zoned for residential TJ MULLINAX/Yakima Herald -Republic i'4 For more information on the project, go to the Envizage Development Group's Web site at www,envizagegroup. com. use, for $1.85 million in October. Envizage's other large projects include Sierra Sun, a 150 -unit luxury apartment complex in Puy- allup, Wash.; Sierra Crest, a SEE CONDOS PAGE 10A ^5:+.���E9k,�X.i'�A .i.. r"' • . ,.r,.r` `:c:,. ti ``'7-is+atawS,a.'f?! (Wiwui .1)4v muuon project planned Continued from Page 1A 100 -unit, high-end condo- minium community also in Puyallup; and University Court, a 102 -apartment com- plex in Ellensburg. Keith Basham, Envizage's executive project manager, said the company believes there's growth potential for the Valley, especially with the arrival of the Pacific Northwest University Col- lege of Osteopathic Medicine and the influx anew resi- dents from the west side of the state. The project is expected to cost about $40 million to build. `.'We just feel it has some growth potential and we also feel that it needs to have a nicer (residential) commu- nity," he said. The proposed apartment complex will have one-, two - and three-bedroom units excellence, people come," • ranging between 900 and he said. ' 1,300 square feet. The condo- Given the density of the miniums will come with two development, the project or three bedrooms and range will undergo an environmeil- between 1,500 and 1,800 tal review, public comment square feet. period and a hearing before All units will include a the city hearing examiner, two -car garage and residents who will make the final deci- will have access to a club- , sion. house, which will include a The developer still needs swimming pool and exercise to complete a land -use ap- room. The community also plication and submit a more will have walking paths and detailed site plan, but acting water fixtures, such as wa- city plannine manager Bruce .- terf'alls and ponds. Benson said he does not Residents will nav a hien expect the project to experi- T rice for luxur — rent for e_ncemany roadblocks, 0 he apar ments is expected He initially was con- te run between $1,000 and cerned that 40th Avenue $1,500. Prices for the condos could not handle the extra will likely start at $350,000. traffic, but received assur- • Those are preliminary ance from a city traffic en- • x prices, but Sjule is confident gineer that the road had th€O ill that people will be willing to necessary capacity. 0 ID pay more for high-end resi- G Z dentia1 living. • Mai Hoang can bereached at577.Z685 "When we do things with ormhoang@yakimaherald.corn. RECEIVED AUG X "4 2008 `eiI li'4\ CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV CA-2-0 C L.(3) -0 _11A2oC ao- Ce 8010 1q-C i SEP) Amo\ 4 4 - O ' ,_ o5CG na_ v cnen} P 101 _ i --� .. ec os-6_1 ace � �c�o • • C1\ C5c\ V..0 •A i �1 c CO • _ -_ I VV o c o14,.e I,. So e k- o f c • • 5'\ \S eG.0 . 0504 Nc\ de ace. -l. • a • tca1111111E • oC V. Pc\oRe_c -5 ee \5 nece55G o� U5 y 1\The_cnosco oc\nooc5 o '00 M _� • • cr • 411 v,a 5 CA n \ C • • • • 6.0 cia c T. • 0C n •._- a c)115 eeA Coc a i.. ,d• •. .veca�e 1E41e.c ro_e e ir. avec • a �i. o 0►o n Do 15 C � C I \ co() Acbc 4o ee Y b Ic Q OC c3Oc. ton B ooi o A-0,0 e 4 cn o cl acl O,, C` v eo nn 1 et • 6'00 yrr) ' I.., c •� 1 e _IA,.. c n. t• u e o e c i robs , r a lidos a - a ... •6•�• • ' • ce ' - e • GA, •a a =e\ . c is . _in5A0, Jaac-)ac a cxc)• i` c kc Coc)ec-� 51-c8ck gb u , 1 ���c, t,� � I - `-- \D�O'�C. INDEX ((T August 12, 2008 Hearing Examiner City of Yakima Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Toscanna Development To Whom It May Concern: RECEIVED AUG 1 4 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. I recommend this project be rejected. The development does not adequately merge with the community. Expensive homes in quiet neighborhoods and streets were not meant to accommodate an adjacent high-density community. Rather than multistory development with streets full of parked cars, single-family dwellings and duplexes with less people would be acceptable for this property. This high-density project is appropriate only when compatible with neighboring land use. The Toscanna project is not a harmonious development to adjacent neighborhoods, contrary to city planning perception. Saying that multiple family dwellings are compatible with single-family dwellings is simply not true. The Toscanna design proposes multiple family residences that are not well -matched with the adjacent neighborhoods and leaves our community vulnerable to even larger and denser family complexes in the future. The traffic problem will not only impact an often over used 40' Avenue but also relatively quiet residential streets above the development leading to Englewood. This impact is directly related to the quality of life and the desirability of the neighborhood. I would like to know who in my community liked sight screening standard C as opposed to A. I question the veracity of that choice. I will feel less anxiety if the community is informed of the results of tests on soils for pesticides and what the developer will do to mitigate. Having observed construction down on 40th Avenue, I would like to know who will be in charge of the dust abatement. I saw a lot of dust and inattentive maintenance. Who does the city place in charge of this activity? Ronald B. Jones 715 N. 46th Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 966-9862 DOC. INDEX • Li/ dennis pedemonte <stdion@charter.net Fwd: development August 12, 2008 8:58:00 PM PDT lispedemonte@gmail.com Begin forwarded message: 16=-4A 'P), RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING ®M cif-,7At< 1-1EA�iAD6 E SL y From: "Lis Pedemonte" <lispedemonte@gmaii.co e -i-o_cco, /0,k5 (62_0e\ otp0-4 ��' Date: August 12, 2008 8:09:20 PM PDT � P AppA / tt To: "dennis pedemonte" <stdion@charter.net> Subject: development -►' ;Li,�� _ ?louev 3,oc C 4) L »3 Reply -To: lispedemonte@gmail.com apartments are not compatible with surrounding neighborhood primarily r1 residential traffic from proposed development at peak hours will cause congestion at new egress ith castlevale and at light 40th/castlevale soils assumed contaminated with levels of lead arsenate and possibly others which when disturbed will become airborne also wash into storm drains which feed into yakima watershed soils should not be transported off site during any aspect of development as it would then spread contaminants elsewhere cap all disturbed soils in landscaped areas with 12 inches clean topsoil A wu v,v.lok.,., ve(,vti.w: vehicles will be parked along roadways in addition to offstreet due to density - f RecOAfAe.. no precedent established to situate high density apartment complexes in establilshed r-1 residential high value neighborhood. please cite specific references of compatible High Density Residential which borders this project site....The 55 and over senior b ile home park surely does not meet this criteria all other homes R-1 surround this in question DOC. INDEX # H-19 RECEIVED AUG 13 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA, Issues with Canal passing thru nw boundaries of project site....this will clearly Pc 'N. DIV particulates generated in a massive land clearing which settle in dust clouds during any disturbance of the orchard site including residual pesticides heavy metals.... the canal will then transport these heavy metals into waterways and drainage leading to rivers with protected bullhead trout species, not to mention all downstream residential users who draw from canal for home garden use does this new development Enhance the Quality of Life for the existing surrounding established neighborhood? If so, in what way? Who will own the Apartment Complexes??? Who will ensure appropriate weekly Landscape Maintenance in keeping with neighboring community? Are there to be enforcible covenants establlished to set a standard of outward appearance in keeping with the aesthetics of surrounding neighborhood? Duplex project phase For sale or rent??? Price Range?? covenants establishing landscaping standards, on street parking limitations 18 wheelers/ boats/ rv's/ okay to park on street? or in driveways? noise issues: High density aspect of proposed project development indicates significant increase in noise pollution to existing bordering neighborhood. list the appropriate mitigation measures to be taken if toxics are found...6k building apartments is not encouraging home ownership home ownership recognizes a financial investment of individuals and therefore care for that investment is paramount....apartments do not generate the same investment of energy by residents as they have no vested interest in property • DOC. INDEX August 13, 2008 Dear Hearing Examiner, Re: Toscanna Proposal RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. I live right next to the proposed development on the canal. I wanted to send you a note to let you know that we, as a group, will be at the hearing. tomorrow at 9:00 AM. I am the spokesperson for the "Concerned Citizens" of Carriage Hill group and I am the one that filed the appeal. We would like Attorney Chad Hatfield to speak on our behalf first followed by my personal remarks, and then many neighbors may wish to also make remarks. Thank you in advance for our opportunity to speak. Ron Hatfield Enc: Two copies of our earlier letters to brief you on some of our concerns. DOC. INDEX July 2, 2008 Planning Division Manager City of Yakima Dept. of Community & Economic Development 129 N: 2"d Street Yakima, WA 98901. Re: Toscanna LLC Housing project Dear Planning Division Manager: RECEIVED AUG 1 3 AD CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. As adjoining property owners, we are writing to express our concerns about the proposed Toscanna housing development which would include 84 duplexes on property that is zoned R-1 for single family residences. Seven years ago when we were considering the purchase of our home on Conestoga Boulevard, we spoke with a City Planner to find out what the zoning was for the apple and pear orchard adjoining our property before making our decision, and we were assured that it was zoned for single family residences with a height restriction that would protect the view from our single storey home. We checked with the City again after becoming aware of this proposed project, and inquired about duplexes or multi -family dwellings in this area zoned R-1. Just two months ago is when we first heard of the Condominhlmi7fition Act. That is something very different from the general concept of "single family residences" and had anyone mentioned that possibility to us in 2001, we definitely would not have purchased our current home. The only concern for us in 2001 was what would follow if the orchard were removed for any reason, and the zoning for "single family residences" only was our assurance (and insurance) to go ahead and purchase. We request that you restrict the development to the common definition of single family residences, with a height restriction that protects our views. The project narrative states: "The proposed residential duplex community will provide diversity of housing types to the city." That was not the community that was intended for this neighborhood. Our neighborhood will change dramatically if so many families with children are crammed into these two lots. There is no doubt there will be increased noise, traffic and emissions. The fact of multi -family dwellings will also likely decrease our property values, and certainly affect their future market value. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Joel/and Monica Weyhe 901 N. Conestoga: Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 509-966-1686 - DOC. INDEX • • June 29, 2008 Dear Planning Division, Re: Toscanna LLC proposal RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. We are concerned about the changes made to the original master plan for the development of the property near 40th and Castlevale Rd. We live in the lot 32503 just on the other side of the canal on the west side of the project. We had went along with the previous master plan of all single family (R-1) housing in the whole area except for one row of duplexes around the mobile home court. That would have been compatible to the existing neighboring homes all around the subject property. All surrounding homes are upscale with neighborhood covenants to protect the value and beauty. The construction of taller multi family dwellings would degrade our view, which was an important consideration when we purchased our home. It seems a distinct contrast to allow them to put in multiple family buildings on the whole property. Traffic is congested at the Castlevale Road entrance onto 40th Ave. We wait a long time already to get onto 40`h. The traffic from the professional offices on the East side, as well as the new businesses on the west side of 40`h Ave. and all of the existing homes on the Carriage Hill area make this intersection too busy. Thus, the proposed property should have the least number of families as possible in the new area, which would be from single-family homes. The already divided lots in the Seattle Slew business area will also add to the congestion when they are developed. Gilbert school is bursting at the seams, as are the other schools on this side of town. Can the schools handle.a great number of new children that multiple housing would bring in? We know that multiple family housing will quickly depreciate the value of our property and would not be complimentary to the existing homes. As my memory serves me, the planning commission already turned down a multi family master plan a few years ago put to your review from a developer out of Oregon for the same reasons that have been mentioned. In addition, duplex construction. was turned down on the east side of 47th Ave. off Englewood a few years back for the same reasons. Please keep our thoughts with you as you consider this bold adjustment to the existing master plan for the `.property. Ron and Linda Hatfield 829 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA: 98908 509-966-4381 DOC. INDEX Jim Scoggins 4603 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 August 10, 2008 William Cook, CED Director City of Yakima, Department of Community & Economic Development 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Cook: EG RE 2006 CF1 Y OF YAK MA ;OMMU1NiTY DEVELOPMENT A high-density housing project such as the Toscanna LLC (File EC #19-08) is totally incompatible with this residential neighborhood and should not be allowed to go forward without extensive further review. Such a development is inappropriate for RI and R2 zoning, and a change to R2 and R3 would drastically alter the intended land use and detract from the quality of life in the existing adjacent neighborhood. The developer has attempted to present this as a classy -sounding project, but it is still apartments and duplexes in a setting that is adjacent to and more appropriate for single-family homes. It is incumbent upon the city to require thoughtful planning and preserve the land -use plan as it was intended. This hillside terrain, perfectly suited for single-family residences like those adjacent to and above it on the canal, should not be damaged or destroyed to allow a careless developer to make a quicker profit off of high-density housing. The extensive excavation proposed is unwarranted and promises unforeseen effects that may forever damage the quality of life in this neighborhood. The appeal by Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill points out numerous other inadequacies and errors in the proposal that should be fully investigated. Insufficient provisions for soil testing, stormwater prevention, traffic impacts and other concerns indicate the need for a full Environmental Impact Study before any further consideration of this project. Sincerely, r it4 Jim Scoggins i i DOC. INDEX • • AUGUST 5, 2008 WILLIAM COOK, CED DIRECTOR 129 N, 2ND STREET YAKIMA, WA 98901 DEAR MR. COOK, RECEIVED AUG 0 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MY NAME IS GLORIA HUTCHINSON, AND 1 AM NOT ONLY A HOMEOWNER BEING AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED "TOSCANA", PROJECT, BUT A REALTOR WITH MANY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL. I AM AMAZED THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS EVEN CONSIDERED TO BE "COMPLETE" ENOUGH TO SUBMIT TO THE "AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS". PLEASE THINK OF ME AS A "CONCERNED CITIZEN" THAT SUPPORTS THE APPEAL OF THE SEPA REPORT.. IN ADDITION TO THE APPEAL ISSUES ALREADY ADDRESSED BY THE "CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CARRIAGE HILL", (WITH WHOM 1 1 AGREE WITH ENTIRELY,) 1 WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE CONCERN OF REFUSE (TRASH) COLLECTION. WILL IT BE INDIVIDUAL CONTAINERS PER LIVING UNIT, (AS CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY THE CITY IN THIS AREA) OR WILL THE NON -OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS BE SERVICED BY CENTRALLY LOCATED DUMPSTERS? I WAS ASTONISHED WHEN 1 READ THE "SEPA" REPORT AT HOW VAGUE AND INCOMPLETE IT WAS. I SHARED THIS "NOTICE TO AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS" WITH A COUNTY PLANNER AND CITY PERMIT COORDINATOR FROM ANOTHER WASHINGTON COUNTY THAT IS PRESENTLY EXPLODING IN NEW DEVELOPMENT. THEIR RESPONSE WAS THAT THIS WAS EXTREMELY VAGUE, VERY LOOSELY WRITTEN, AND POORLY STRUCTURED. THEY COULDN'T BELIEVE THAT OUR PLANNING DIVISION HAS CONSIDERED THIS PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPED ENOUGH TO EVEN BE SUBMITTED TO "AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS"! FROM A REALTOR'S STANDPOINT, I HAVE OTHER CONCERNS! IT IS WELL KNOWN HOW MANY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE FOUNDERED MID -CONSTRUCTION IN THIS PERIOD OF FINANCIAL AND "RISING COST OF MATERIALS" ERA! . IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE INITIAL PHASE IS APARTMENTS, WHAT IF FINANCING OR OTHER DELAYS CREATE A "DEFAULT" IN THE COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT? WE ARE LEFT WITH A HALF FINISHED PROJECT OF "NON -OWNER OCCUPIED" BUILDINGS, WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, ARE MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, LOW ON THE "PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP" SPECTRUM! IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THAT THE PROPERTIES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS PROJECT WILL SUFFER A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF MARKET VALUE, ESPECIALLY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. DOC. INDEX # 4 - / to 1 AM UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS HEARING, SINCE IRONICALLY, 1 WILL TESTIFYING AS A WITNESS IN A REAL ESTATE TRIAL. PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO THE "CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CARRIAGE HILL", AS WELL AS ANY OTHER ATTENDEES OF THIS HEARING THAT MAY WANT A COPY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS LETTER, AND PLEASE, PLEASE RECONSIDER APPROVAL OF THIS SEPA REPORT AS WRITTEN. THERE ARE TOO MANY UNKNOWNS AND UNEXPLAINED ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT! FROM A PERSONAL AS WELL AS A PROFESSIONAL STANDPOINT, /l%,vim, f/5-/08 GLORIA HUTCHINSON - WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/YAKIMA **************************************************************** GLORIA HUTCHINSON - CONCERNED PROPERTY OWNER 703 N. 44TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 DOC. INDEX # 14--_,p • 7/15/2008 Dear Sirs: RECEIVED "JUL Y 7 2008. Carl OF mem PL'-: You are quoted in the July 15 copy of our local newspaper as issuing a "preliminary decision" that the Toscanna development project will not have an "adverse impact" on the environment. As a long time resident, 33 years at 815 Conestoga Boulevard . Adjacent to the proposed development, I differ from your opinion. This 27 acres was originally zoned for single family residential and duplexes. Now, you are changing that to duplexes and apartments. The human density increase will be most adverse, from just a very large increase to the noise level alone. Eighty Four duplexes and ninety six apartments. To useaverages; four people in each duplex - 4 times 84 is 336 people. Figure 3 people for each apartment is 294. This is a total of at least 630 people in this 27 acres. WOW. There are not that many people living on the entire southeastern slope of Scenic Drive, on acres 5 times larger then the proposed Toscanna development. Ingress and egress will create a total traffic problem, particularly as schools start for the day and terms. " These proposed duplexes and apartments best not block our views of the hills to our east. Apartments in an upscale area like this would totally "cheapen" this area. The last thing we want is to be living next to this "housing project" type development and your changes will produce just that. Go back to your drawing board please. Back to single family dwellings, with a few duplexes. BUT, NO APARTMENTS. Kent and Gail McLachlan e DOC. INDEX # w_Is" 2101 ST. HELENS ST. • YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98902 • (509) 452-4806 William Cook CED Director City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division In re: Toscanna LLC Land Development File No. UAZO CL (3) #7-08 CL (2)#22-08 Gentleman. • JUL 0 7 2008 • CITY Oi• . AKIMA - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The proposed development will add a lot of class to the City of Yakima. First it is compatible with the existing properties, the trailer court to the East, and the homes to the West separated by the Congdon ditch. The writer owns property immediately East of the portion South of kern Way. He will be glad to participate as a part of the gated community. It will help him in protecting his offic from robbery. It has been robbed 3 times in the past 3 years. The project will help the community make its commitment for new housing in it's over all plan. The project appears to be compatible with the existing zoning. It will be great addition to Yakima. Please approve the request of Toscanna. y014 De mar L Pearson DOC. INDEX # '� • • • William Cook City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 RE: File Numbers UAZO CL(3) #7-08, CL(2) #22-08 Adm. Adj. #16-08, EC#19-08 Tax Parcel Nos. 181315-31011, 181315-34037 RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Dear Mr. Cook, I am in receipt of the June 13, 2008 Notice of Application, Public Hearing And Environmental Review regarding Toscanna LLC's plans for the above -entitled properties and want to take this opportunity to ensure that the city considers the best interests of all affected parties in conducting this review. My family and I live immediately above the affected parcels, on Conestoga. This neighborhood consists primarily of owner -occupied homes valued between $250,000 and $450,000. These occupying owners are, for the large part, families with children. 1 believe this is one of the nicer neighborhoods in our valley and the planning department should ensure it stays that way. It is my understanding that the initial plan for the above -entitled parcels was to construct single -level condominiums and homes consistent in character with the abutting neighborhoods and priced accordingly. It seems that those plans have now been significantly altered to include lower -valued properties, commercial property and assisted living units that will irrevocably change the character of the abutting neighborhoods and adversely impact our property values. Further, while the original plans called for single -story structures with lower rooflines, it appears that this plan has changed as well. At present, the homes on Conestoga enjoy a view of Yakima, which of course contributes to the value of the property. The current grade of the property that Toscanna LLC wishes to build on begins 6' below the bordering canal. I ask that the planning department ensure that the final plan not allow the grade to be raised. The grade is shallow and raising it would not provide views for the new homes, but it most certainly could affect the existing views of the older homes. Further, Toscanna LLC should be required topreserve the current views by being D0C. INDEX # N - f, restricted to trees smaller than 25' and all structure having low roof lines. We ask your help in keeping our neighborhood the gem that it currently is. Please understand that it is not our wish to obstruct progress (though the orchards removed for this project were home to wildlife and their loss is lamentable). However, progress should not come at the cost of a reduction in property values for those of us who, through a lifetime of hard work, have purchased view property directly above this site. The voting, tax -paying citizens potentially affected by your decision stand to collectively lose literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in property values. Toscanna LLC and its interests will not be significantly prejudiced by protecting the interests of the abutting property owners, and we respectfully urge that our interests be taken into account when deciding this very important issue. RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2008 CITY OF YAKINiM PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDEX 1{-+3 • • • • • 07!02/2008 14:40 15094692852 July 1 2008 PATRICK TRUE ATTY Planning Department Attn.: Planning Manager • City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development 129 North 2"d Street Yakima, WA 98901 RE: TOSCANNA LLC PROJECT IN WEST YAKIMA To Whom It May Concern: PAGE 02/02 ODE ADMIN DIVISION JUL 0 2 2008 °REC'VD FAXED❑ °PAID FYI❑ I am writing regarding the proposed Toscanna LLC project in west Yakima, scheduled for public hearing. August 14, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. We own the home at 911 North Conestoga Boulevard, which backs up to the canal immediately adjacent to the western. border of the proposed project. Given the great characteristics of our home, and our neighborhood often known as Carriage Hill, I have very strong concerns regarding this proposed project. One of the key reasons we purchased our home in March 2008 is due to the great quality of this neighborhood, but, more importantly, the fantastic view we have of the city. This is an unobstructed view. In fact, we paid a premium for our property due in large part to this outstanding view. 1 understand that the proposed Toscanna project includes multi -family housing, such as duplexeslcondos, as well as apartment buildings. It would be a travesty to the value of our current neighborhood, and our views, to allow such housing immediately to our east. This project can in no way whatsoever obstruct the view of downtown Yakima we enjoy so much, and which enhance the value of our properties. If there is to be any multi -family housing of any sort allowed in this project, it should be far to the eastern boundaries of the project. The only thing that should be allowed close to the canal, and close to our properties, should be single fami.ly,.one level, homes. This requirement would go a long way in providing the proper transition for our neighborhood to some level of multi -family housing, while also preserving our unobstructed views. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely Patrick A. True 911 North Conestoga Blvd, Yakima, WA 98908 (509) 388-9416 Sonia M. RECEIVED JUL .0: 2 2008 CITY OF,YAKIMH PLANNING ,DIV. DOC. INDEX DATE: 2 July 2008 TO: City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division SUBJECT: Comments on the Notice of Class (3) and (2) land use review, Administrative Adjustment, and SEPA Environmental. Review FILE NUMBERS: UAZO CL (3)#7-08, CL (2)#22-08 Adm Adj #I6-08, EC #19-08 APPLICANT: Toscanna LLC FROM: Lee C. Clark and Patricia J. Clark 817 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 1. We are both opposed to this proposed housing project. It is not compliant with the zoning nor is it compatible with the our existing neighborhood. This high density apartment and duplex project does meet the spirit or letter of the law. We and our neighbors agreed to a compromise in allowing parts of the original orchard that was all zoned R-1 when brought into the city to be used for business and duplexes in the area of 40t Ave and adjacent to the existing mobile home park. This agreement was to allow a buffer zone between those areas and our single family residences. Single family residences were to be built in the remaining R-1 areas. The proposed development with two public swimming pools is not compatible with our neighborhood. 2. Future use of the remaining lots for an additional 100 plus housing units would only further add to the exceptionally high density already proposed. This duplex and apartment complex could easily exceed 300 units as proposed. That would make it one of the largest housing complexes in Yakima and certainly not compatible with the current low density single family residences in the area. 3. Although referenced in the application, the Traffic Impact Analysis was not provided for review. The impact of the increased traffic from this high density development on 40th Ave. would be considerable and could be greatly mitigated by reducing the housing density. 4.. No reference is made to mitigating the noise from the two proposed public recreation facilities and pools. These facilities could easily be used by several hundred children and adults. Both during the day from early morning to the night and late evening. 5. Please reject these proposed Applications. RECEIVED JUL 0 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV OCITY E ADMIN• DIVISION JUL 0 2 2008 DREC'VD FAXED❑ ❑PAID FYI [j Thank you, DOC. INDEX # ;1� • • • JULY 1, 2008 Planning Manager City of Yakima, Dept. of Community and Economic Development 129 N. 2"d Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Toscanna LLC Project This is in response to the planned hearing to consider proposed changes of the zoning for the Tax Parcels 181315-31011 and 18131534037. The proposed change from single family residence construction, R-1, on Lot 2 which adjoins the existing single family dwellings, to Duplex construction is a clear breach of the change from agricultural to residential use proposed when the zoning classifications R-1 and R-2 were accepted by adjoining land owners. Likewise the construction of apartments on the R-2 designated portion of this development would breach the planned use for this zoning. It is apparent that these proposed changes would increase the population for this area by a factor of 3 to 4 times, resulting in congestion of traffic and use of existing facilities. As a home owner located at 819 N Conestoga Blvd, I strongly object to these changes which only benefit the developers, who were aware of the existing zoning when deciding to develop this property, and are to the diminishment of existing property owners. Sincerely, Qr 11-5e /7 James R. & Mari l Lane RECEIVED JUL 0 2 2.O • OC. CITY OF YAK M EiX COMMUNITY DEVE 11_1_4 RECEIVE® JUL 0 2 2008 GM Of YAKIMA PLANING 704 _ 74 /vni 4rn dz-14- `. /7 ' 7-- 7 -- Kent McLachlan . n. it ,r/ (57/7y/e. 4// f-2 36,1r Ate t5-/ti,le149/2 fr,4 14— Sh f ih -?Z‘,/ WA 7- 4</. INDEX # • • • • July 2, 2008 Planning Division Manager City of Yakima Dept. of Community & Economic Development 129 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Toscanna LLC Housing project Dear Planning Division Manager: RECEOVED JUL 0 2 2008 CITY pP YAK/y4 PLANNING DIV As adjoining property owners, we are writing to express our concerns about the proposed Toscanna housing development which would include 84 duplexes on property that is zoned R=1 for single family residences. Seven years ago when we were considering the purchase of our home on Conestoga Boulevard, we spoke with a City Planner to find out what the zoning was for the apple and pear orchard adjoining our property before making our decision, and we were assured that it was zoned for single family residences with a height restriction that would protect the view from our single storey home. We checked with the City again after becoming aware of this proposed project, and inquired about duplexes or multi -family dwellings in this area zoned R-1. Just two months ago is when we first heard of the Condominiumization Act. That is something very different from the general concept of "single family residences" and had anyone mentioned that possibility to us in 2001, we definitely would not have purchased our current home. The only concern for us in 2001 was what would follow if the orchard were removed for any reason, and the zoning for "single family residences" only was our assurance (and insurance) to go ahead and purchase. We request that you restrict the development to the common definition of single family residences, with a height restriction that protects our views. The project narrative states: "The proposed residential duplex community will provide diversity of housing types to the city." That was not the community that was intended for this neighborhood. Our neighborhood will change dramatically if so many families with children are crammed into these two lots. There is no doubt there will be increased noise, traffic and emissions. The fact of multi -family dwellings will also likely decrease our property values, and certainly affect their future market value. Thank you for your nsideration of our request. 410 -v1/4 -A- J Jd Monica Weyhe 901 N. Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908 509-966-1686 DOC. INDEX # 14_g Gerald N. Hino 724 N. 44th Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 Planning Manager City of Yakima Dept. of Community and Economic Development 129 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 RE: Toscanna LLC Project To Whom It May Concern: June 26, 2008 RECEIVED JUL 0 2 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. I am opposed to having -a large number of multi -family buildings (apartments and duplexes) built in close proximity to my upscale single family home. With the amount of units are being built, it seems like the property owner is planning to use these high density units as a way to bring in low income housing. The volume of people coming in and the accompanying traffic noise is not compatible with the current quiet neighborhood I live in. I would like to know how the contractor plans to keep the many toxins that remain in the dirt away from the surrounding population breathing them in. As you know this orchard land has been sprayed for many years with toxic chemicals that are now illegal. Health concerns for young children and medically compromised adults should be taken into account. Will the City pay for the health care costs? The current irrigation canal has been breached before. Who will insure we will not get flooded? I have witnessed people and animals falling into the canal. What kind of safeguards will be in place for them? Near to my home, it is common to see teenagers urging their friends to jump over the canal. Some make it and some don't. They use this as a short cut. Will there be some sort of barrier (fence or trees) to help curb this? We have found wooden planks across the canal that were used as dangerous foot bridges to get across also. The proposal lists wildlife as only songbirds. This area is used by ducks, geese, hawks and other birds of prey, quail and other ground life. Coverage of this area with cement will eliminate this resource. I urge more research into the detrimental effects of allowing this project to go forward. There are many drawbacks to the development and I oppose the idea of this going forward. Sincerely, Gerald thia H`no D'`-. INDEX # /4_7 • • • 4201 FECHTER ROAD YAKIMA WA 98908 June 30, 2008 MR WILLIAM COOK CED DIRECTOR PLANNING DIVISION 129 NORTH SECOND STREET SECOND FLOOR YAKIMA WA 98901 RECEIVED JUL 0 1. 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Cook: SUBJECT: Toscanna LLC Enclosed are my thoughts about this project. I have progressed through the document in an orderly way. Traffic is my major concern. Traffic on Upper Castlevale is high in the morning and afternoon near work hours. Combine that traffic -with 200 units with two vehicles in each unit. Imagine the chaos and congestion. Think about the future—squashing all those units into that area is above and beyond foolish. Then consider having senior citizen housing in that area—like tuna in a can. Additional office buildings will be built in the other section near 40`h. Naturally, many additional vehicles will be involved. Mrs. Betty L. Douglas DOC. INDEX # U -L NOTICE OF APPLICATION, PUBLIC HEARING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TOSCANNA LLC > Page 2 # 1 The ... developer must address ... air emission ... the word may is an important word—therefore, may needs to be more concrete and specific. May isn't enough. In the winter when Yakima is socked in because of air problems, all of these densely placed units will inordinately add to smog in this low-lying pocket. > Page 2 # 4 Public waterlines ... fire hydrants? > Page 2 # 6 Fire Department Access Roads ...Where are the Fire Department Access Roads? AND if a fire occurs in this development, will it be possible for a truck to access the fire quickly? ALSO, if a fire occurs and seems to threaten other structures, how will all the people in these units be able to calmly exit the development. • Page 2 # 9 The Yakima Valley Canal Company ... Great care and consideration should . . "Should" is not good enough. I should pay for my groceries—and I should give great care and consideration that I don't take any item(s) without paying—but must I? "Should" needs to be more specific, definite, and concrete. > Page 2 # 10 In accordance with YMC §12.03.020 ... wastewater connection charges? Stormwater permit? > Page 3 Required Studies: Where is the Traffic Concurrency Review? I am greatly concerned about the traffic generated by this new development. Even with the current traffic, the left turn lane from Upper Castlevale onto 40th is backed up. Imagine what that stretch of Castlevale will be when the cars from 200 additional living units are added. Oh, yes, Kern might be a usable exit. However, with the traffic on 40th, drivers are not going to want to turn left onto 40th off Kern. Imagine if people from this development have jobs? They may work from 8 a.m. to 5 -p.m. Then what congestion will occur is mind boggling. > TRAFFIC LIGHT AT KERN—A traffic light at Kern and/or two left turn lanes must be included in the traffic plan. ➢ Page 5 and 7 Project Narrative A ...the word "probably" is used twice in this paragraph. I think the plan should be more exact than "probably." In fact, the plan should definitely be exact in its plan. > Page 5 and 7 Project Narrative D ... Development is in the best interest of the community. The proposed residential duplex community will provide diversity of housing types to the city. Yakima has a lot of diversity already. Why is it necessary to add to the diversity? The Page 1 Toscanna LLC DOC. 105s.008 # i4 - • • operative word should be "squashed" into a tiny area'of the city. And the word "provide hints that the developer is doing a big favor for the city. D Page 5 and 7 Project Narrative.D The proposal ... as an infill development ...as encouraged by the Growth Management Act. Does the Growth Management Act actually encourage infill development? D Page 5 and 7 Project Narrative D In addition, the proposal ... new customers that should.. In this day of higher prices, most people shop at Wal-Mart or Costco—the shopping people do in this area is incidental.1 do not think that "the proposal will provide new customers that should patronize the neighborhood shopping areas located nearby." REQUESTED ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT—lot coverage D Page 1 Narrative discussion A "strict enforcement" is absolutely necessary. That is why the standard was developed. It was not developed to make easy adjustments possible. This whole section seems round -about talk in order to bend the plans to meet the developers selfish wants. D. Page 2 Narrative discussion B The existing mobile home park has been in place for over 25 years. It should not be included in a comparison. The last sentence of B says "The applicant is not aware."? That is part of the applicant's JOB—to be aware. Therefore, not being aware is definitely not good enough. The applicant is obligated to BE AWARE and/or find out. D Page 2 Narrative discussion D No, this project is not in the best interest of the community. The additional traffic is the biggest problem. In addition to that, the smog factor will be increased by the home heating and the car exhausts. REQUESTED ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT—rear setback in R2 Zone D Page 1 Narrative Discussion. B The setback for the mobile home park must not be used in this context. That mobile home park was put in place many many years ago. The current Growth Management Act did not exist. Things have changed a lot since that was developed. Therefore, the mobile home setback cannot be reasonably compared with a 2008/2009 development. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST . D #3 Water--#5—Does the proposal ...? The answer "Not known" is not good enough. If the developer is thorough, he/she must be able to answer this question definitively. • #5 Animals--#a—hawk, quail, pheasant, skunk Toscanaa LLC Page 2 DOune 2008 INDEX N -cam ➢ #7 Noise--#1—Traffic noise is much greater than minimal. ➢ #8 Land and Shoreline Use --#a--... adjacent properties?—answer "Undeveloped" –I think the adjacent properties are developed. ➢ #8 land and Shoreline Use --#f and h--. ... "Not known" is definitely not good enough. ➢ #9 Housing --#c-- ... Should some proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts be developed? I'm thinking of the impact of the traffic. ➢ #14 Transportation --#d, f, g—From where to I obtain an Impact Traffic Analysis The developer should be required to pay for numerous improvements, including upgrades on the road from 40th into the development on Kern. At Kern on 40th a left turn lane (north and south) or a stop light should be part of the developer's requirements. It is not appropriate for the developer to add this much population and not be responsible for the effect/influence/ on the surrounding area—traffic, canal right of way. Yesterday at 9:30 a.m. a row of four vehicles were in the left turn lane to access 40th going north. This was a light traffic time. Now add 200 plus units with at least two vehicles per unit and the potential for major traffic back-ups is horrendous. If only one person in each of those units works, the potential for trouble is scary. Traffic is my major concern. Traffic on Upper Castlevale is high in the morning and afternoon near work hours. Combine that traffic with 200 units—with 2 vehicles in each—and a serious situation exists which MUST be addressed. Think about the future—squashing all those units into that area is above and beyond foolish. Then consider having senior citizen housing maybe added. Wow—like tuna in•a can. Page 3 Toscanna LLC DOC. • June 29, 2008 Dear Planning Division, Re: Toscanna LLC proposal RECEIVED JUL 0 1 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. We are concerned about the changes made to the original master plan for the development of the property near 40th and Castlevale Rd. We live in the lot 32503 just on the other side of the canal on the west side of the project. We had went along with the previous master plan of all single family (R-1) housing in the whole area except for one row of duplexes around the mobile home court. That would have been compatible to the existing neighboring homes all around the subject property. All surrounding homes are upscale with neighborhood covenants to protect the value and beauty. The construction of taller multi family dwellings would degrade our view, which was an important consideration when we purchased our home. It seems a distinct contrast to allow them to put in multiple family buildings on the whole property. Traffic is congested at the Castlevale Road entrance onto 40th Ave. We wait a long time already to get onto 40t. The traffic from the professional offices on the East side, as well as the new businesses on the west side of 40t Ave. and all of the existing homes on the Carriage Hill area make this intersection too busy. Thus, the proposed property should have the least number of families as possible in the new area, which would be from single-family homes. The already divided lots in the Seattle Slew business area will also add to the congestion when they are developed. Gilbert school is bursting at the seams, as are the other schools on this side of town. Can the schools handle a great number of new children that multiple housing would bring in? We know that multiple family housing will quickly depreciate the value of our property and would not be complimentary to the existing homes. As my memory serves me, the planning commission already turned down a multi family master plan a few years ago put to your review from a developer out of Oregon for the same reasons that have been mentioned. In addition, duplex construction was tumed down on the east side of 47th Ave. off Englewood a few years back for the same reasons. Please keep our thoughts with you as you consider this bold adjustment to the existing master plan for the property. Ron and Linda Hatfield 829 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA. 98908 509-966-4381 DOC. INDEX 903 N. Conestoga Blvd Phone: 509-966-8029 Yakima, Washington 98908 E-mail: Yaktp@charter.net Planning Manager -City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development 129 N. 2nd Street Yakima, Washington 98901 Re: Toscanna LLC Project D/Ge JUL 0 1 2l CITY {F YAKIMA PLA Dear Sir: As a long time property owner on Conestoga Blvd I am opposed to the development of multifamily two and three story buildings next to the Canal by the proposed project. This would block our view that we have enjoyed for a long time. We are also opposed to trees over 25 feet high. Sincerely, Therese Hamm -Sexton DOC. INDEX # 4 -L • r� lyse.ahna- Planning Division 129 N. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Wa. 98901 Attn: William Cook, CED Director RECEIVE- JUN 20 201 CITY r7 Y.4K,..A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT In regards to the proposed development by the Toscanna developers, the below neighboring land owners would ask for the following restriction. We would request that the duplex's planned all along the Yakima Valley Canal be limited to one (1) story and that the two (2) story units would be constructed further down grade. We believe this would not obscure any of our current views. Thank you for your consideration of this amendment. Mitt xi--9A� s 6c61)47‘,5--0,2,/, y.2-0_3 , / ti,. V e - l 100-/3 , I,��- -� l�i f P% P • e., _A ge-L,--e,/ez,i fret gize , r,ci,c- u g- 2-6 3 - e ,, \ i , fr,c4c---Lfa}t- __0 3 � I { c; . vo,A,k...,,,_, Caw --,..t_ 9�c,a.7 r � '�, i- L �c 1 / C �G1�J-rl'.,�v-� el �-c-c- +L�rti • DOC. INDEX # 143 June 16, 2008 Duane Knittle and Dorothy Brodrick RECEIVED S 909 N. Conestoga Blvd. Yakima WA 98908 (509) 965-9659 JUN 2 5 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. William Cook, CED Director City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division 129 N. Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Toscanna LLC, UAZO CL (3) #7-08, CL (2) #22-08, Adm Adj #16-08, EC #19-08 Written Comments Pursuant to Notice of Application, Public Hearing and Environmental Review Dated June 13, 2008 1. We oppose permitting 84 duplex units in the R-1 zoned lot. City ordinance gives preference to detached single family homes, not duplexes, in R-1 zones. Detached single-family homes are the primary use in this district, characterized by 45% lot coverage, access to individual lots by local access streets, and large front, rear, and side yard setbacks. Notably, in recent years the City denied a developer's application to construct duplexes on approximately 5 acres nearby on 46th Avenue. The Hearing Examiner determined that this R-1 area already contained a number of duplexes and allowed detached single-family residences only. The current application is for a much larger area for far; many more duplex units than the 46th Avenue request. The proposal does not satisfy the limited occasion set forth in Chapter 15.09. 2. Even though the applicants propose to construct 84 duplex units, the access roads do not appear designed to the width standards of public local access streets. We understand that the applicants will argue that the access roads will be private and therefore do not need to meet standard width for public local access streets. However, the high density of lots 1 and 2 proposed necessitate wider access. Applicants note that homes uphill of the site will have views altered; these views will be more severely damaged by lack of the open spaces provided by standard width streets. DOC. INDEX # H -a • • 3. As stated above, applicants note that homes uphill of the site will have views altered, that the maximum height in Lot 2 will be twenty-five feet, and that two story units will be located to optimize the easterly territorial. views. We request that the applicants place structures, particularly two story buildings, so our easterly territorial view is least blocked. 4. Traffic created by 180 housing units will impact the adjacent R-1 neighborhood, increasing traffic flow on Conestoga and North Conestoga as a "shortcut" to avoid the signal at 40th and Castlevale. Speed bumps should be installed on North Conestoga to reduce the traffic impact. 5. The application states that construction will probably occur over several years. The noise created by construction contractors over this long period of time from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm will be unpleasant and disruptive to neighboring homes. We askthat the city reduce the hours of construction to 8:00 am to 8:00 pm on all days. 6. The application states that there will be security lighting at night. Lighting should be directed away and shielded from existing uphill homes. ThwAszR Ky\K*a, o(0 -2s -O RECEIVED JUN 2 5 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDEX # H -�. William Cook, CED Director City of Yakima Planning Dept 129 North Second Street Yakima, Wa 98901 June 16, 2008 Subject: Toscanna LLC • RECEIVED JUN 2 3 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Why was there a requirement for minimum open spaces in the first place and why does the applicant need to revise them? The amount of housing proposed is far too much. Reduce the amount of housing to achieve the required open space requirement of the appropriate housing code. 2. Soil characteristics need to be determined to ensure the presence of lead and arsenic from prior orchard use is not excessive as found in our school yards. The state Ecology Dept needs to be consulted. 3. Canal has failed in the past and adequate steps need to be taken to ensure it doesn't happen again. 4. Will irrigation water from the canal be used with a new pump station? 5. The proposed housing density is fax too much. The anticipated four hundred people defeats the intent of the urbanarea zoning ordinance of Yakima. 6. An open canal ditch with flowing water offers a large risk to children residing in the proposed development. An adequate security fence needs to border the canal. Mike and Sue Gunderson 720 N 44th Ave Yakima, Wa 9808 972-2615 DOC. INDEX # h_/ • • TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER I SEPA Appeal Application EXHIBIT l-1 SEPA Appeal Application 7/28/08 1 CITY OF YAKIMA: LAND USE APPI,ICATIOIECEiveD DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELORM Is 8 2008 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2ND FLOOR YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 VOICE: (509) 575-6183 FAX: (509) 575 -6105 1000,-14114 rM s -+: mit= '1 u CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this form or the application process call, come in person or refer to the accompanying instructions. This application consists of four parts. PART I- GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV - CER 1'It'ICATION are on this page. PART II and III contain additional information specific to your proposal and MUST be attached to this page to complete the application. Remember to bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted. The Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid. Filing fees are not refundable. 7A i • 1. APPLICANT 2. APPLICANT ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER 3. APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY at�C' a NAME STREET 'A, ru f L_ 11 ciTY y STATE VhIZIP c 8 9OR PHONE (S 7 uq) q/ I. 00 „j_vs 7 MESSAGE (S ut t )G I .( CHECK LI OWNER 1(! / 0 OWNER REPRESENTATIVE ONE ❑ CONTRACT PURCHASER O OTHER 4. PROPERTY OWNER (IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT) NAME . 5. PROPERTY OWNER'S 40 ADDRESS AND PHONE (IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT) STREET CITY STATE - ZIP PHONE MESSAGE ( 6. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER (S) FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY: 7. EXISTING ZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 8. ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 9. TYPE OF APPLICATION: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) ❑ Class (2) Use ❑ Class (3) Use ❑ Rezone ❑ Variance ❑ Home Occupation ❑ Administrative Adjustment ❑ Environmental Checklist (SEPA) ❑ Modification to Approved Class (2) & (3) Uses KAPPea1 o Nonconforming Structure/Use ❑ Preliminary Subdivision ❑ Short Plat ❑ Right -of -Way Vacation ❑ Short Plat Exemption ❑ Shoreline o Utility Easement Release o Interpretation by Hearing Examiner ❑ Other 10. SEE ATTACHED SHEETS 11. I certify ¶a the formation on this application and the required attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. IN my I evised 9-98 0, i SIG DAT VE* FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY tL2J 4. Gg I FILE Nu.. 1 L)1 1 i.,La'.LL l`4 1I1.., i -u r L11.,C111V1V APPEAL ❑ Of Administrative Decision 0 Of Building Official Decision RECEIVED !E- Of Hearing Examiner Decision JUL 2 8 20080 Of State Environmental Policy . ital(NEVaimision FLAMM DIV CHAPTER 15.16, YAKIMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE (UAZO) 1. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION BEING APPEALED: SPP attached FILE NO: UAZO EC#19-08 DATE ACTION TAKEN: July 14, 2008 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (Attach if Lengthy) See attached 3. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF REASON FOR APPEAL: Describe the specific error(s) or issue(s) upon which the appeal is based, including an explanation of why the decision is not consistent with the Yakima Urban Area Plan, Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, or other provisions of law. (Reference the section, paragraph and page of the provision(s) cited.) (Attach if Lengthy) Revised 9-98 DOC. IrDT,:X Appeal Narrative RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Concerned Citizens of Carriage Hill ("Concerned Citizens") is appealing this Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS). Concerned Citizens is a group of citizens owning property in the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposal. Members of this group include, but are not limited to, Ron Hatfield and Kent McLachlan. Concerned Citizens appeal the MDNS based upon the following non -exhaustive bases. Mitigation requirements are insufficient to mitigate environmental impacts below a level of significance. Probable significant adverse impacts exist that require an Environmental Impact Statement for this proposal. One or more of the Findings or Mitigation Requirements set forth in the MDNS inappropriately defers studies and information that is needed to make a proper environmental analysis. Such studies cannot be appropriately deferred and must be completed up front. Additionally, one or more of the Findings or Mitigation Requirements inappropriately set forth requirements in general terms that cannot be reasonably accomplished or ascertained. Such action is contrary to WAC 197-11-660(c), which states that "mitigation measures shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished." Examples of the above -stated errors include, but are not limited to, the following: • Water Resources. (Finding G and Mitigation Requirement 5). "Great care and consideration should be exercised in determining how much earth is moved adjacent to the YVCC right-of-way." Such a "requirement" is ambiguous and so completely subjective as to be unenforceable. Absolute set backs from the canal should be set forth. Studies related to soil stability and retention need to be perfolined up front in order to make a proper determination. • Water Quality. (Finding C and Mitigation Requirement 3). Water rights need to be determined in advance and not left up to future speculation. • Storm Water Management. Due to the large excavation proposed for the site, a full Stormwater Prevention Plan should be required in advance of environmental review determinations. Furthermore, it stated that "The applicant should not assume they can put all of their runoff into the City lines." There needs to be requirements of what can and cannot be allowed and to quantify what amount of run-off, if any, can be transferred off-site. • Toxics. (Finding G and Mitigation Requirement 7). No actual "requirement" is set forth. It is merely stated that soil testing is recommended. Soil sampling, for lead, arsenic, and other toxins must be required. • Transportation. Traffic studies need to be required up front. Presently, there is insufficient information to make an appropriate determination. -1- DOC. INDEX # • Noise. The proposed project is adjacent to a residential community. Construction hours need to be appropriately limited. • Light and Glare. Additional consideration of all impacts needs to be considered. For example, no reference is made regarding glare from the swimming pool or what type of lights may be used. • Aesthetics. Higher standards are required to preserve the adjacent neighborhoods. • Sitescreening. The proposal is for medium and high densities to be built adjacent to low density neighborhoods. Higher sitescreening standards than standard "C" are appropriate. The statement that "the developer may substitute a higher sitescreening standard...." is meaningless. A higher standard must be made a requirement. • Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan for the following non -exhaustive reasons: it does not preserve existing established neighborhoods; it detracts from the quality of life and sense of community within the area; and it provides for higher densities than designated by the future land use plan. The foregoing are some of the reasons why Concerned Citizens is appealing the MDNS and request that the project be denied, or in that alternative, that an EIS be required and more appropriate mitigation be set in place. Concerned Citizens reserves the right to supplement and argue additional issues on appeal as the appellant has the opportunity to further examine the record. -2- RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMM PLANNING DIV DOC. INDEX • • Legal Descriptions 181315-31011 RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. BEG NE COR SW1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4, TH S 0"31'47"E 684.94 FT,TH N 87"11'47" 660 FT, TH N 65"03'37"W 66.35 FT,TH N 87^11'47"W 394.55 FT M/L TO E LN YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL R/W & TRUE POB, S 8 TH S 65"03'37"E 66.35 FT, TH S 87^11'47"E 660 FT, TH N 0"31'47"W 684.94 FT, TH S 89^58'42"E 472.1 FT, TH CURVE TO RT RAD230 FT DELTA 58'43'42" LNGTH 235.75 FT, TH N 31"15'W.571.LT RAD125 FT DELTA 231'18'53" LNGTH 50.87 FT TO S'LY LN YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL R/W, TH SW'LY AL SD CANAL R/W LN TO TRUE POB 181315-34037 BEG 684.94 FT S 00"31'47"E OF NE COR SW1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4, TH N 87^11'47"W 660 FT, TH N 65"03'37"W 66.35 FT, TH N 87"11'47"W 394.55 FT M/L TO E LN YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL R/W, TH S'LY & ER/W TO E LN OF NW1/4 SE1/4 SW1/4, TH N AL SD E LN 350 FT M/L TO POB, EX E 214.4 FT DOC. INDEX t TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER J Supplemental Information Requested by Hearing Examiner EXFHBIT a ' DOC1 TMENSTE } _ I) 0E, J-1 Public comments, notes, and minutes regarding the Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan Update. 1996 J-2 Hearing Examiner's Notice of Decision: Larry & Kimberly Loveless CL(3)#6-99 09/29/1999 J-3 Phase I — Environmental Site Assessment 07/2003 J-4 Letter from PLSA on soil stability and 2:1 slope 08/14/2008 J-5 Memo from The Casey Group on Total Site Impervious Calculation Clarification 08/18/2008 J-6 Samples for exterior walls and roof colors submitted by Keith Basham, Toscanna Development 08/21/2008 J-7 Letter from PLSA on Lead & Arsenic 08/27/2008 J-8 Summary of Toscanna Research by Planning Division 09/09/2008 J-9 Supplemental Pictures Submitted for the Hearing 01/06/09 Awarded Grand Prize Overall Best Community in Washington State • Private Entrances • Attached 2 -car Garages • 9' Ceilings • Private Patio Or Balcony • Exquisite Amenities • Resort -style Pool & Spa • World -Class Resort Lodge • Poolside Wireless Internet • Furnished Guest Suites Available by FOR RENT Media Solutions- FRMediaSolulions.com 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath 2 Bedroom, 2 Bath 3 Bedroom, 2 Bath 3 Bedroom, 2.5 Bath Starting at $1075.00 ‘1)ii • 111- F,01: i . 1. Pit 200; Lt I:REA S 12415 172nd St. E • Puyallup, WA 98374 • 253.848.4500 www.LiveSierraSun.com • info@LiveSierraSun.com DOC. INDEX # J-9 Enjoy resort life every day at Sierra Crest By David Chesanow Imagine:freedomto travel without hiring a house sitter, because your home is safe and secure. Freedom from worry about declining neighborhood property standards. Freedom to travel more. Freedom from yard work! If you're like most people, you're envisioning a condominium tucked away in a multilevel building in downtown Tacoma. So you may be pleasantly surprised by Sierra Crest a 30 -acre, one -of -a -kind, exquisitely designed, gated condominium community in Puyallup — in a serene, natural setting, with acres of nature preserve, running waterfalls, koi ponds, walking and jogging trails and a spectacular clubhouse/lodge ... ... not to mention fantastic views! "Homes looking over the nature preserve create a tree house effect, while others face the grandeur of Mount Rainier," said Dave Sjule, CEO of Envizage Development Group,which built Sierra Crest. "As a result, many homebuyers have a hard time figuring out which view they like the best, because there are no bad views." "The idea was to create a resort that would allow people to feel like they do when they travel for the winter months," said Envizage Development Group's director of marketing, Katy Keeslar. "Most haven't considered a condo because it's a different way of living from the homes where they raised their families. They like the idea that they can come_home every day to a beautiful manicured landscape and not have to lift a finger." There are seven greatfloor plans to choose from, ranging from one- to three-bedroom, 2.5 -bathroom • condos. The homes boast front porches, private patios and glass -railed balconies, lush landscaping and attached two -car garages for direct access — something you'll be hard pressed to find in any urban condominium community. you immediately feel the difference: Sierra Crest is a community with the ambiance of a world-class resort" Four nearby golf courses (including the' new The deluxe interior features include nine -foot ceilings, an abundance of windows, interior Bellagio doors, cherry cabinetry, artisan -style millwork, tile entries, granite countertops and more. "After seeing what other communities are offering, visitors of Sierra Crest are amazed at the quality of craftsmanship — especially in the detail," Keeslar noted. "From the moment you drive into Sierra Crest, you're welcomed by the trickling sounds of the 20 -foot waterfall and Chambers Bay Golf Course in University Place), great shopping, and a wide variety of unique restaurants are among the many conveniences located within minutes of Sierra Crest The community amenities include a private $2 million lodge/clubhouse featuring 30 -foot vaulted ceilings, a classic billiard room,two spas, a fitness club, a coffee bistro and a business center with a large screen for videoconferencing and poolside wireless Internet; two pools; and barbecue and picnic . areas. The clubhouse is available for events, and guest suites are available to book accommodations for visiting family members and friends. Home prices start at $240,000. Directions: From Interstate 5, go east on Hwy. 512. Take the 94th St. exit and turn right onto 94th St. Continue approximately three miles until you come to a "T" and turn left on 152nd St E. Follow 152nd St. E. until you come to another "T." Turn right on 122nd St E. Go one block South and turn left on Sunrise Pkwy. E. Follow Sunrise Pkwy. E. for one mile. The entrance to Sierra is one block before the stoplight on the right. DOC. INDEX # J-9 Sierra Crest in Puyallup will make you rethink your idea of corulominiums! By David Chesanow There are darn good reasons why people buy condos: They don't have to contend with yard work. They're part of a community of homeowners with a shared interestin maintaining their property standards. They can take off when they want to, secure in the knowledge that their homes are safe. Sound like a great pitch for the urban lifestyle in the New Tacoma? Sure. But if peace and quiet ipare more to your liking, imagine a 30 -acre, one - of -a -kind, village -style gated condominium community in Puyallup — yes, Puyallup! — in a serene, natural setting, with such stellar amenities as acres of nature preserve, beautiful parks, running waterfalls, koi ponds, walking and jogging trails and a spectacular clubhouse/lodge. Oh, and did we mention the fantastic views? "Homes looking over the nature preserve create a tree house effect, while others face the grandeur of Mount Rainier," said Dave Sjule, CEO of Envizage Development Group,which builtSierra Crest "As a result many homebuyershaveahard time figuring out which view they likethe best, because there are no bad views." 'The idea wasto create a resortthat would allow • these people to feel like they do when they travel forthewinter months,"said Envizage Development - -- Group's marketing director, Katy Keeslar. "Most of these people haven't considered a condo because it's a totally different way of living from what they had in the homes where they raised their families. They like the idea that they can come home every day to a beautiful manicured landscape and not have to lift a finger." There are seven great floor plans to choose from, ranging from one- to three-bedroom, 2.5 - bathroom condos. The homes boastfrontporches, visiting Sierra Crest are amazed at the quality of the workmanship," Keeslar noted. "From the moment you drive into Sierra Crest you're welcomed by the trickling sounds of the 20 -foot private patios and balconies, lush landscaping and attached two -car garages for direct access —something you'll be hard pressed to find in any urban condominium community. The deluxe interior features include nine -foot ceilings, an abundance of windows, interior Bellagio doors, cherry cabinetry, Craftsman - style millwork, tile entries, granite countertops and more. "After seeing what other communities are offering, people waterfall and you immediately feel the difference: Sierra Crest is a community with the ambiance of a world-class resort." Sierra Crest is convenient to great shopping and three nearby golf courses, and community amenities include a private $2 million lodge/ clubhouse featuring 30 -foot vaulted ceilings, a classic billiard room, two spas, a fitness club; a coffee bistro and a business center with a large screen for videoconferencing and poolside wireless Internet two pools; and barbecue and picnic areas. The clubhouse is available for events, and guest suites are available for visiting family members and friends. Home prices start at$240,000. Directions: From Interstate 5, go east on Hwy. 512. Take the Canyon Rd. exit and turn right on Canyon Rd. Continue approximately five miles and turn left on 176th St. E. Follow 176th St. E. for three miles (176th St. E. turns into Sunrise Blvd.) The entrance to Sierra is one block past 122nd Ave. E. on the left. DOC. INDEX # J-9 - For more4informatton, vtstt: ww LtveSterraerest corn or ll�(253) 864'8200, The 'lock it and leave it' lifestyle is what Sierra Crest is all about By David Chesanow Hear the word "condo" and you probably think of Downtown Tacoma: exciting, vibrant, urban ... Now imagine surrounding yourself with spectacular views and exquisite amenities in a serene natural setting that includes acres of nature preserve, beautiful parks, running waterfalls, koi ponds and walking and jogging trails. If that thought appeals to you, you'll want to know more about Sierra Crest, the one -of -a - kind village -style condominium community in Puyallup that is attracting so much attention. living from what they had in the homes where they raised their families. They like the idea that they won't have to do any more lawn or yard work." But freedom from chores is not all: "What's very unique about our community is that about 60 percent of our buyers have two or three homes," said Envizage Development Group's CEO, Dave Sjule. "They have a home here in the summer and one in Palm Springs or Phoenix for the winter, and they appreciate the lock it and leave it' lifestyle that's built into our community, rkri .il �•�i�illl�l'4111 �� 1111111111111111111111 1111 1111 "We had never even considered a condo until we experienced Sierra Crest," said residents Bob and Susan Rowan. "It was a quick, easy decision and it is only getting better. The surroundings are back -to -nature, the facilities are top-notch and the staff and residents we've met are accommodating and happy to be here." "The idea was to create a resortthat would allow these people to feel like they do when -- they travel for the winter months," said Katy Keeslar, marketing director of Envizage Development Group, which built Sierra Crest. "Most of these people haven't considered a condo because it's a totally different way of knowing thattheir home will be secure and beautiful while they're away." Beautiful indeed: There are seven great floor plans to choose from, ranging from one- to three-bedroom, 2.5 -bathroom condos. The homes boast front porches, private patios and balconies, attached two -car garages for direct access, as well as dramatic landscaping. The deluxe interior features include nine -foot ceilings, an abundance of windows, raised - panel doors, cherry cabinetry, -Craftsman -style millwork, tile entries, granite countertops and more. "Homes looking over the nature preserve create a tree house effect while others face the grandeur of Mount Rainier," Sjule noted. "As a result, many homebuyers have a hard time figuring out which view they like the best, because there are no bad views." "From the moment you drive into Sierra Crest, you immediately feel the difference: Sierra Crest is a community with the ambiance of a world-class resort," Keeslar said. "We call it 'Northwest Resort Life.' This is what our residents are buying. It's not just an advertising pitch, it's an authentic lifestyle." Sierra Crest is convenient to great shopping and three nearby golf courses, and community amenities include a private $2 million lodge/ clubhouse featuring 30 -foot vaulted ceilings, a classic billiard room, two spas, a fitness club, a coffee bistro and a business center with a large screen for videoconferencing and poolside wireless Internet; two pools; barbecue and picnic areas; and vintage -style street lighting. The clubhouse is available for events, and corporate suites are available for visiting family members and guests. Home prices start at$240,000. • Direction`s: Erom)!nterstate5go east on Hwy 512 Take tlit Hwy�161 SautI, HiII/Eatonville jexr�ta�ndstum ngfr[�on�,Nfe`ridran tCorrtmue„� for approx 5 codes then rn` onto nu rise - B vl UJ17 67th St. E. Continue to the'curnerfof y122nd'anTSuncrsef( e,errtrance,tosSrerra - Crest' s,1 blocs' k frein thetcorner). Sierra Crest in Puyallup offers another aspect of condo living that you won't get in the big city: resort style living on 30 acres! By David Chesanow Downtown Tacoma is hot! Downtown Tacoma is trendy! And if you love the urban lifestyle, it's a great place to be. But have you heard of Northwest tropical? If you want condo convenience and lush natural surroundings, look east, to Sierra Crest in Puyallup, a gated resort community - of 100 luxurious condominium homes with spectacular views, superb amenities and dazzling floor plans... "What's very unique about our community is that about 60 percent of our buyers have two or three homes," said Dave Sjule, CEO of Envizage Development Group, which buift Sierra Crest. "They have a home here in the summer and one in Palm Springs or Phoenix for the winter." It's not hard to see why the one -of -a -kind picnic areas; vintage -style street lighting; walking and jogging trails; and 10 acres of wetlands, on-site parks, waterfalls -even koi ponds —these are homes for people who love life from all perspectives. "A lot of the units look right over the wetlands, which creates a kind of tree house effect; the others face Mt. Rainier," Sjule noted. "As a result, many homebuyers have a hard time figuring out which view they like the best, because there are no bad views." There are seven great floor plans to choose from, ranging from one - bedroom, one -bathroom to three-bedroom, 2.5 - bathroom townhomes. The homes boast front porches, private patios and balconies, attached two -car garages for direct access, as well as unbelievable landscaping. The deluxe interior features include nine -foot ceilings, cherry cabinetry, granite countertops, raised -panel doors, Craftsman -style millwork including seven-inch baseboards, tile entries, bathtubs with tile and granite surrounds, .stainless steel deep double kitchen sinks, a 0 village -style resort community of Sierra Crest has caused such excitement Located on 30 acres, with a $2 million lodge/clubhouse- featuring 30 -foot vaulted ceilings, a classic billiard room, two spas, a fitness club, a coffee bistro and a business center with a large screen for videoconferencing and poolside wireless Internet, two pools; barbecue and kitchen appliance package, wood floors in the kitchens and laundry areas and lots ofglass. Prices start at$240,000. Sierra Crest embodies the Envizage Develop- ment Group's building philosophy: "We will not fall for 'standard' in the industry," Sjule stated. "Each and every person on our team possesses a talent that when combined, creates a solid ball of knowledge, passion and experience that is unavailable in the marketplace, and continues to keep us at the top of our industry. We will go above and beyond, no matter what ittakes. We hire only the best and the most passionate at what they do." Sierra Crest is convenient to shopping and three nearby golf courses! The clubhouse is available for events and corporate suites are available for visiting family members and guests. T 1 u} For more,mformon#ati- �r is ra vis1t 4 ,•vuww nreSie Cieccm�F: or=c" all (253 f10 ; tt.pctroi om lrttersfate 5 go:east o Hvvy.� 512. Ta �H t tt � . tht„Hwy 161 t ut 01„,i `etemnite . IA inght idia`� n Contin itu on Nle � .ems , .,” , far approx' 5 miles lett awbunrrse wati:um Bivdi/17 bs omini oithe�comerof 122nilrand S rise !ffie•onttranc `to!$torra�#'r. est is;1 tuckimmt a corner) INDUSTR"IY BEST Clubhouse BEST Marketing BEST—S_ite Plan BEST Management DISCLAIMER Candoo Associates, Inc. makes no guarantee. warranty or representation expressed or implied with respect to the information contained herein. Said information, projections and pro formas have been obtained form sources we believe to be reliable, however Candoo Associ- ates, Inc. has not conducted any investigation regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information. It is submitted subject to the possibility of errors, omissions, change of price, rental or other conditions, prior sale, lease or financing, or withdrawal without notice. Projections, opinions, assumptions or estimations included herein are for example only and may not represent current or future performance of the property. All references to square footage are approximations. This brochure has been prepared to provide summary information to prospective purchasers and to establish a preliminary level of interest in the property being offered for sale. It does not, however. purport to present all material information regarding the subject property, and it is not a substitute for a thorough due diligence. You are advised to consult your tax and legal advisors and conduct your own investigation of the'property and transaction. PROPERTYSUMMARY Address Number of Units Year Constructed Construction Number of Buildings Parking Acreage Density Net Rentable Square Feet 12415 172nd Street East Puyallup, WA 150 2004 Wood Frame 20 plus clubhouse 296 Garages 91 Open Spaces 387 Space 2.6 Spaces/Unit 14.04 Acres 10.7 Units/Acre 169,627 T Medi .a Solution rRA,tp4,050.6honln uperwr ujr ;;-unPara._-• • "•.'44-;n14%nAtVigrd li;17e.'',•••4;* --""z+Gra .• +0, ialt‘14.44ezier, optimum 'Oi en—azine The Sierra Sun The Sierra Sun Apartment Homes, completed in 2004, is a unique resort style community located on Puyallup, Washington's South Hill. The Sierra Sun consists of 150 units located in 20 seperate buildings plus the clubhouse. Construction is wood frame with vinyl siding and pitched composition shingle roofs. There are 7 floorplans ranging in size from l Bedroom / l Baths at 795 Sqaure Feet to. 3 Bedroom / 2.5 Bath Townhomes at 1,387 Square Feet. Each unit features a fireplace, balcony or private patio, a washer and dryer and all but two include'attached two -car garages. All units have 9 foot or vaulted ceilings. Situated on just over 14 acres, •Sierra Sun is located along Sunrise Boulevard ,East facing South with incomparable views of Mount Rainier, the highest peak in the Cascade Mountain Range. Secondary access is available off of 124th Avenue East at the rear of the communtiy. Both access points are gated. Units Type UNIT MIX & RENT SCHIE ULE Unit Total Avg. Rent/ Market Market SF SF Rent SF Rent Rent/SF 21 1 Bed / 1 Bath 795 1,069 1,029 1.29 1,075 1.35 4 1 Bed / 1 Bath HC 795 3,180 1,029 1.29 1,075 1.35 24 2 Bed / 2 Bath 1;091 26,184 1,276 1.17 1,350 1.24 `-10 2 Bed / 2Bath 1,095: 10,950 1,240 1.13 1,350 1.23 2?Bed / 2 Batha 1,107 6,642 1,262 1.14 1,350 1.22 2 Bed /12 BACHC 1,107 6,642 1,262 1.14 1,350 1.22 2 Bed / 2 Bath." 1,146 27,504 1,253 1.09 1,350 1.18 19 3 Bed/ 2 Bath 1,261 25,220 1,495 1.18 1,550 1.23 30 3 Bed / 2.5 Bath TH 1,387 41,610 1,542 1.12 1,575 1.13 1 2 Bed / 2 Bath CS 1,300 1,300 2,600 2,600 2 1 Bed/ 1 BAITS '. 795 1,590 2,000 2,000 2 2 Bed / 2 Bath CS 1,091 2,182 2,400 2,400 2 2 Bed / 2 Bath CS 1,146 2,292 2,400 2,400 1 3 Bed / 2 Bath CS 1,261 1,261 2,700 2,700 150 169,777 204,750 213,025 • (r-Pig‘)/g Lire's Splendor • Spacious jloorplans - Townhouses and Flats Units average over 1,130 Square Feet • Tile features and designer accents throughout • Maple Cabinetry • Electric fireplaces with decorative mantles • Island Kitchens • !Vine foot ceilings n alIun,ts and ifaulte(Oel select units lippMMUNITY AMENITIES • Re:sort Style Pool • Spa • Classic Billiard Room • Fitness Club • Clubhouse • Grand Room • Gourmet Kitchen •.Coffee Bistro • Tanning Salon • Business Center • Security Gate's at both entrances • Winer features throughout Income PRO FORMA INCOME AND EXPENSES Scheduled Market Rent Loss to Lease Vacancy Rental/Employee Concessions Net Rental Income Cable Income Internet Income Utility Reimbursement Other Income Shared Use Income Total Operating Income Expenses Current 2,556,300 (99,300) (122,833) (55,656) 2,278,511 39,380 34,996 75,096 102,859 60.000 2,590,842 Yr One Pro Forma 2,556,300 (127,815) (58,028) 2,370,457 39,380 39,370 80,000 102,859 60.000 2,692,066 Pi;ice/NRSF: Capitalization- Rate: $31.250.000 $2',08,333 $ 184.23 5.38% Per Unit Admnistrative Advertising and Promotion Corporate Unit Expenses Internet Expense Cable Expense Telephone Utiltity Professional Mgmt 2.5% Insurance Payroll Cleaning Turnover Repairs and Maintenance Landscaping / Grounds Real Estate Tax Total Expenses - Net Operating Income 23,152 42,410 15,991 31,753 43,025 13,196 180,194. 64,771 28,446 186,106 48,328 53,732 50,594 198,149 1,320 23,152 42,410 15,991 31,753 43,025 13,196 180,194 69,278 28,446 186,106 48,328 53,732 50,594 225.000 154 282 106 212 287 88 1,201 462 189 1,240 322 358 337 1,600 979,847 6,532 1,011,205 6,741 $1,610,995 $1,680,861 Assumable Financing in place: :Leudet: Citig=roup. Global Markets Realty Cei;p. OriLdnation Date: December 2004 Maturation .Date: January 201-5 5.2125% Approx. Current Balance: $17,300.000 DOC. INDEX # J-9 PUGET SOUND The Market Supported by strong economic fundamentals and market conditions, the Puget Sound apartment market is experiencing increased demand, occupancy rates and asking rents. Continued employment growth and declining apartment supply will combine to create significant rent growth annually for the next several years. Employment Growth: ;Boeing, Starbucks, Amazon and Microsoft are just some of the employers that call the Puget Sound area home and have been hiring thousands of new workers and pumping millions of dollars into, the local economy. Conway Peterson Economics' Forecaster estimates the Puget Sound -areaemployment to have increased by 2.9% in 2007, addingjobs at more than twice the national rate. Boeing plays a Targe role in the areas'employment growth, though the economy is significantly diversified and relies on many other industries for growth. As of December 2006, Boeing had added over 15,407 jobs since its employment low point in June 2004, bringing its total Puget Sound workforce to 68,170. Microsoft employs approximately 33,223 workers in the Puget Sound region as of July 2006 and employment is expected to continue increasing. In early 2006 the company announced that it was accelerating its campus development plans and will spend.$1 billion over the next three years expanding its Redmond campus by one-third of its present size. Microsoft will be adding space for 10,000-12,000 additional workers. Supply Constraints: The entire Puget Sound region is considered a high barrier to entry region. With the Cascade Mountains to the East and Puget Sound to the West there is limited growth potential. Combine that geography with a stem Growth Management Act, limited multifamily -zoned ground and demanding environmental regulations and you have the recipe for raising rents. Through the first half of 2007 only 1,231 new apartment units were brought to market (rent -up ready), a number that is very close to the 1,292 that came to market in 2006. Falling Vacancies/Rising Rents: While apartment demand grew faster than„the„available supply, the average vacancy rate in the Puyallup/ Sumner market fell from 6.0% to 4.0% bylhe end of September 2007 according to the most, recent Apartment Vacancy Report published by Dupre_&`Scott Apartment Advisors, Inc. Rent growth in.the Puget Sound area accelerated to 6.7% in mid 2007 and is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.` lit a��u S vOUtI` 7-6 is the location of choice for Pierce County. residents work'11 g in and around the South Puget Sound. Puyallup's prominence as a regional commercial and retail center has been anchored by the South Hill mall located approximately 3 miles north of the Sierra Sun. Covering 935 Acres, this 1,000,000 Square Foot mall is home to over 100 stores and employs over 1,500 people. As further testament to the South hill markets strength, Taragon, LLC is well under way in construction of the 550,000 Square Foot Sunrise Village, just 1.5 miles to the. Northwest of Sierra Sun at Meridian (S R161) and 156th Avenue East. Home Dept, Target, LA Fit ness, Staples, and Pets Mart are just a few of the tenants that will be a part of this pedestrian friendly lifestyle center. Boeing Frederickson Unit: Located just 3 Nliles West of the Sierra Sun, this facility includes approximately 1.35 Million Square Feet of manufacturing facility for Boeings composite and skin and spar. The skin and Spar facility fabricates most of the major components of the wing structures for all Boeing Commercial air- planes. Sunrise Village: This 65 Acre open air retail development by Tarragon, LLC. is well under construction just L5 miles northwest of the Sierra Sun at Meridian (SR161) and 156th Avenue East This "lifestyle center" will include 550,000 Square Feet of space including Home Depot, Target, Staples, LA Fitness, and Pets Mart. Sunrise Village is set to open later this year; Sunrise Medical Campus: Located just 10 blocks west of the Sierra Sun, the Sunrise Medical Campus is in the process of expanding their facility from 53,000 Square Feet to 93,000 Square Feet. The facility houses various medical related services including a clinic from Good Samaritan Hospital. SR704 Cross Base Highway Project: The Cross -Base highway will be a new 6 -mile, four lane limited access highway that will connect Interstate 5 and SR7 allowing traffic from the South Hill and Sierra Sun direct access to Interstate 5 to the West. CANDOO Asso-civ tes: 1 11 31.1113 ACCENn f111000IN]VT A1iI CA61x(it1 oasis FLOORPLANS PIIIVArf 0i II.i1L.11Aim 6 1:60,1:60 Tit EINIr VN W l USO100.5 [many TS • IV1.E0U6400%11 • A. 41.. fn'i,1 0.411003 • MR WM/O I A NM. shasta B 1 '14A1tl115 CAMPETI• ----N-,-...,_____,A I0rfx14Y [4460 NI.IAlllln MANE w31MY int imil0WA4 Of S106111 ACC1n TS TrINUCNUOT i IVA(!Om 116160 A614 (U4 VIS111NG 1H 1611.601 AND 1AMII.Y ��� 600X0465 i i3 wwlvo0 115E EIMt NIS 111,1,04 1.1. (li L 16{ � � i• 'tJICG'1i l :1 )1111ta-11'x. _ i t f% 4)0 112U 43111 C., ACLOS _\ U1 W. WI6a Nf. TU lu'U4 Sxl 141!6 rXWAIE 1 utroAY shasta A UStUN AIANTLE1NtlruCt 01 CI 0111 060.1.10 01SICNIt MxfM11 3HX000:.Mur r1v1111 i0UAl1 �EUIN10lA::UN i1PA0U1vE 111f (16(06(6 W+9• CGNITI— A',1N1S 67.46 1004 i NAPIS �atlxfnY I1� :IANC{IVS Lt it IttII 41 a�. f.lt sal+J hf shasta C waMAx VANITY 010134 Lux04i001 016,111 A S1•AC10111 61.3..1 106 A 41NU.ilt( 610 LU3100 IASI0VA605 4�a,lrt • [AVNIINY .461,4NV')OI IM Uiuli AS0I6 t 06,1111 ?MAI/ rANO 101 ENIINIAINING Olen./ 0.1 .Tf41015 A .10.11 HMI • MOW ..:=1Il;"4. 11!; 011tRAC1 A0Cn0ANCf �]I I ICNr R[11A «09.9 91 A 3t0 .494411(003 CAAAf .11.41:0X 0101101 501100 7NIe1110Nnv7 J sonata for 11009 IAUNUMY AREA 190E1N0Y4H 10i1E9.119 10* 4 0YR I DArik 0*904 19uvf ki fR:VAIY 31110 0 09 1kTAA ST(:IIA. ' '~a >fAC41Uf ::VINO A41A WnY WARY nllrt A(f Iia?11315 111.1.11 COTFA 0h1tMSc' u 004003 904444 A 101.3 MatIROONS' __._ 31 iil k;?c t'•. _:118'14: 1', J *00(1 tAIIHRtIT f,M IVJIri 1171414144 : cSl 4A3Af:E MI INTII 0 0*041014ACC1NTI THRO11CN0U 1 glacier 1910014401 0104,11 MIVA'f f+no 194 AO01111014 140 VIM 90 •Mt. lAIN1ER m1401300 I10100A1. A CO[r 0111410 ROON Ok Pit Pitt IM -r 4004 OfnCt 09181* CAIIN/TWA 1A9NO31. A91A 1480.9.Notion IOM A 81101 ✓ WASN13 A OILER tit 11AR!US f. l i I ', u1N(INJ4'kTZ: 1VAIAJOCCLOD . S90*1QUS 0ASY1M 90030330 Life's Sp kyidors 12415 172nd Street East Puyallup, WA 150 Units Built in 2001 'Maple Valley Itoiack Dioirii Pack; ''''''.' - Atilb,Mrint g.li 'b • -1.:'':---, 1,1 `47-1,.Enumclaw e- \ tavaigpirig,pidge ,;;', 41 vay c). I Q"ing c)f;a1.471:::::',di'A°'-'1:',ic0 EXCLUSIVELY OFFERED FOR SALE BY: Ross Candoo Candoo Associates, Inc. 2001 Western Avenue, Suite 305 Seattle, WA 98121 Office (206)441-4410 Cell. (206)818-4715 Fax (206)448-8967 Ross@CandooAssociates.com Assoc PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP Accolade Property Management Group is an award winning management & marketing team with a passionate focus in both management of people and daily operations. Our reputation is built on managing and maintaining A+ properties. Accolade has • generated consistent value appreciation and investment returns. Residents love the stability of in-house management and equity partners reap the benefits of hands-on owner management. AWARDS FO F RENT Media Solutions' FRMedaSelvrioni.mm • 2008 Best Place to Work - Equity Award Envizage Development Group Business Examiner Magazine Tacoma, WA 2008 Finalist Grand Prize Overall Sierra Sun Apartments For Rent Awards WA State Best Community, Best Management, Best Marketing 2007 Winner Grand Prize Overall Sierra Sun Apartments For Rent Awards WA State . Best Community, Best Management, Best Marketing 2006 Best Property Manager Monica Cielo Aravia Apartments For Rent Awards WA State 2005 Pillars of the Industry Nominee tfi Sierra Sun Apartments National Association of Home Builders Best Clubhouse r Best Site Plan .wards Best Marketing Best Garden -Style Community The Central Washington University OBSERVER 2000 "Best Crib in Town" University Court Apartments Ellensburg. WA Central Washington University Observer Newspaper PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP COMPANIES MANAGED Furnished Housing 32 Units Constructed: 2006 StaySierraSuites.com jvitr • Exquisite Furnishings • Private Entrances • Attached 2 -Car Garages • 9' Ceilings • Private Patios/ Balconies • Custom Details • Granite Countertops • Cherry Wood Floors • Resort Lodge • Resort Pool & Spa Resort Condominiums 68 Units Constructed: 2006 LiveSierraCrest.com Life's Splendors • Private Entrances • Attached 2 -Car Garages • Luxurious Carpeting • 9' Ceilings • Private Patios/Balconies • Custom Details • Granite Countertops • Cherry Wood Floors • Resort Lodge • Resort Pool & Spa J*/* Lilo Splendors • Private Entrances • Attached 2 -Car Garages • 9' Ceilings • Private Patios/Balconies • Ceiling Fans • Resort Lodge • Resort Pool & Spa • 24 Hour Fitness Club • Standup Tanning • Valet Dry Cleaning Resort Apartments 150 Units Constructed: 2003 LiveSierraSun.com 0 ral(ovraLDr vea 11, II I, r V{ilt A! C6ialrit ie Resort Apartments & Corporate Suites 1 18 Units Constructed: 2008 LiveTabulaRasa.com • a • Private Entrances • .Attached 2 -Car Garages • Luxurious Carpeting • 9' Ceilings • Private Patios/Balconies • Mantle Fireplaces • Custom Details • Resort Lodge • Resort Pool & Spa • 24 Hour Fitness Center • Luxury Apartments 116 Units Constructed: 1999 LiveAravia.com Tile Entryways • 9'. Ceilings • Superior Sound Insulation • Engraved Mantle Fireplaces • Kitchen with Islands • Built in Computer Desks • Patios with Storage • Extra Windows • Clubhouse with Pool and Spa • 24-hour Fitness Club University Court„ A P A R T'il E N TS College Apartments 102 Units Constructed: 1997 LiveUniversityCourt.com • Spacious Floorplans • Two Full Baths • Two Built -In Desks • Clubhouse w/Large Screen TV • Tanning Salon • Pool Table • Foosball Table • Basketball Court • Walking Distance to Campus alp! a WA 98968 509-k6-8 56996 35.3 a ,ww=enluvi g groin co • • AOACCIt;w1P- PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP Accolade Property Management Group consists of a management & marketing team that encompasses an entire support system that allows residents, staff and equity partners to benefit.. We strive for relationships based on trust and integrity built over time. IN-HOUSE SERVICES INCLUDE' • • Management • Accounting • Maintenance • Corporate Housing Leasing • Branding & Design' • Marketing & Advertising • Photography • Interior Decorating & Furnishings STRATEGIC PARTNERS/REFERENCES SFG Seattle Funding Group Renton, WA 98005 John Odegard Greg Elderkin 425-455-1733 PACIFIC G.UEST SUITES Pacific Guest Suites Redmond, WA 98052 425-454-7888 Temporary Housing Solutions Temp Housing Solutions San Antonio, Texas 78257 866-687-1732 TS : iff Toray Composites, Inc 19002 50th Ave. E Tacoma, WA 98446 253-846-1777 BASE CAPITAL A Limited Liability Company Base Capital Bellevue, WA 98004 Tom Wick 425-646-3098 "difiesviree' • *alai • Oakwood Corporate Housing Redmond, WA 98052 877-902-0832 Aviam Corporate Housing New Braunfels, TX 78130 866-624-0124 k. livelarSodoterissomd US Bank Commercial Real Estate Spokane, WA 99201, Greg Conley 509-353-6786 Equity Corporate Housing Seattle, WA 98188 206.574.3331 GPM Management Group GPM Management Group Yakima, WA 98901 Gene Mayer 509-248-5050 R }53.I lt, fli, IIEHFFIGF.8t k ConMbnfing Sponsors: The Melting Pot Tacoma Public Utilities Sharon McGavick Student & Conference Center DOC. INDEX # J-9 a5 rahlraidlerassetin3nrgerwith Enviziy fir,; _Development Group; hasspent:the past 10 years ttelpmgownersrDave artdJeresa Slide Aculuvate;theErWtzage brantl 0 `'hen Katy Keeslar first started working with Envizage Development Group, it was as an employee of another company tasked with providing marketing and advertising services to Envizage. As she cultivated the relationship with owners Dave and Teresa Sjule, she found that she admired the company for its strong ethics, positive outlook and high standards. It wasn't long before Keeslar was advocating for the owners to create a marketing function in-house and volunteered to establish the position for them. Envizage specializes in luxury apartment communi- ties, resort communities, property management services, corporate suites, construction and excavation operating in Puyallup Tacoma, Tumwater, Ellensburg and Yakima. "I just really liked the way they treat everyone like they want to be treated — employees, residents, investors, whoever they work for,"Keeslar said. They are very positive and optimistic They tet you be in charge of your own area." But more than their approach to keeping employees happy, it is the company owners/down-to-earth quality that impresses many employees. "Nobody is too good to do anything. It's nothing to see one of the owners with a toilet brash. It just doesn't matter if you are the owner or the maintenance man, each ane of us brings a piece to the pie.:Keeslar said While the typical benefits abound. it's those intangible benefits that really make fife work for Keeslar.. "I have kids and I'm able to attend their events and n tzilge,Developrnient Group is. yTy,�op,PlaceitotWork basedifi nip loyt e surrey resrr?on�se . It rc ceived Pugh rn,r4s'm,e:3gl Appreciation Equity Gra tion Integntl and 5hd; U \vas serected For rtsjh gti±i m+theetguitegor,y du ompinysste�larre4 and funng;and�promnt n' �¢ �r verdWl;tgmpanv aJ is Katy •Keeslar, marketing director . with Envizage Development Group, has found the company culture very stimulating and it has kept her firmly • grounded with Envizage. school activities: she said."The owners know that when you spend time With your kids, you are happy and relaxed at work' Sarah !aidter, asset manager for the company, has watched it grow first hand. She first started as a part-time employee who cleaned apartments. During the past decade, she's moved up in the company, helping in the front office, managing communities and now; overseeing all of Envizages properties. laidier often lobbied for promotions into roles that did not yet exist within the company. . 'We are a small company;' Laidler said, "so a lot of that upward mobility is created by employees" - .But while many owners look only at the bottom tine, Laidler and Keeslar agree that the Sjules are much more p oyee perks, lareau said its the intangible bene f it of havurg a creatiti acid ruffilhng career that keeps her emplo}ees gr9unded a[the com#u Because she €osiers s%ch a strong•sense of company pnrle and encourages her employees to excel and move up"in the company, ld(i has spearheaded the company into being selected asaTop Plat wW Mehs�a Coweloy general managerofthe stare sand m her nomin< tion that lareau and her husband have worked tirelessly to fostersuct positrwe environment 0 ners:ilkr and black iareau have created an environment tnat encourages each and every employee to learn, engage a d grow, bot' personallyandprofessiana!ly Mori Bead Factory for years some as loft leave and wien3i he BeadFaetory is simply unheard of m most retail et v mnnieri rat creates a �upenor shopping experience forour customers E Laity about establishing a family environment that col ',rates quality, customer service and loyalty among employees_ "Their support of family life.trickles down to the employees,°1 aidler said. All of us are emergency Contacts at the schools for each other's children. We are a family outside of work" In her nomination of tnvizage as a Top Place to Work; Keeslerwrote: "The owners are incredible visionaries with apassion for exceeding expectations. They only treat others how they want to be treated. The time and resources they put into their company; theirproperties and their employees are absolutely appreciated by all and returned from the respect gained frorn it. They know, in order to create the vision they want for their company and..product, they peed 110 percent from everyone in- volved. And in order to get that 110 percent, they create an environment and atmosphere for each and every employee that gives them the power to do that Their generosity goes beyond a typical employer. Theytreat • employees like family, and the love and laughter exchanged between us shows it They live and love from their hearts. And it's what they stand for and believe in that makes us so very proud to be apart of their company" DOC. INDEX # J-9 • Toscanna Project Research Storage Boxes Box 13: Council info 1995, 1994 • 1996 Regional Planning Commission Recommendation Box 22: • 1997 Comp Plan Hearing • 1997 Yakima Herald Color Map • 1998 Draft Ordinance • 1998 Joint Board Packet Box 92: • GMA Report 1994 • Background Info Comp Plan 11/1994 • RPC Minutes on GMA Box.97: • Joint City/County Comp Plan Work Sessions • Joint Board City Subcommittee • RPC Public Meeting • Council GMA Meeting ® Joint Board GMA Meeting Box 98: • Council GMA Hearing & Comments/Responses • Comments Received after 6/25/96 Hearing Close • Council GMA Hearing 6/25/96 Box 109: • RPC 1995-1996 Box 116: • 1997 GMA Adoption • 1997 RPC • 1997 Joint Board Tapes/Videos/Minutes: • RPC 1/9/1996 Video: Have minutes RPC 2/7/1996 Video: Have minutes • RPC 2/27/1996 Audio: Have minutes Council/Joint Board: 6/11/1996 — Have minutes 6/25/1996 — Video: Have minutes 7/16/1996 — Audio: Have minutes 7/16/1996 — Audio: Have minutes 1/14/1997 — Have minutes Letters: 1/30/1996 — Letter from Delmar Pearson 5/13/1996 — Letter and proposed site plan from Delmar Pearson 5/22/1996 — Letter from Glen Valenzuela to Delmar Pearson Date Unknown— 2 letters from Delmar Pearson to Council and County Commissioners Date Unknown — Transportation summary for Pearson property done by Transpro group 6/21/1996 — Letter from Fred Plath 6/23/1996 — Letter from Bill Almon 6/26/1996 — Letter from BBM financial services 7/23/1996 — Letter from Delmar Pearson Undated petition signed by: Mr. Hawkins(sp?), Craig Mendenhall, Trina Good, Steven Pinger, Wesley Snyder, William Shields, Mr. and Mrs. Whitaker, Kynette Shields Maps: 4/16/1996 — RPC Future Land Use Map 6/20/1996 - Citizen request #14 — mix of office, commercial & residential 6/20/1996 — Citizen request # 14 — aerial photo (flown 1994) Estimated -25-30 hours of research done by Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner. DOD. INDEX # J4' • LSA (ENGINEERING & SURVEYING CL EQ OP 1120 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 9 902 REOE VE� (509) 575-6990 FAX (509) 575-6993 TO c__! O c4L No UN/ AUG 2 7 2008 CITY OF YAKiiMi/P PLANNING DIV WE ARE SENDING YOU yrjkttached 0 Under separate cover via O Shop drawings &Prints 0 Plans RA ISI UL1Lad 3142 DATE g-zs ATTENTION JOB NO. ase®QT 0 Samples the following items: 0 Specifications O Copy of letter 0 Change order 0 COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION ® AL L A to A S D/St 4s5r, /Al Li / t DAJt , J7 fl ! ! i sc. vit= t7 • THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: O For approval 0 Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit copies for approval >(--F_Qr your use 0 Approved as noted 0 Submit copies for distribution O As requested 0 Returned for corrections 0 Return corrected prints O For review and comment 0 ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS INDEX COPY TO J-7 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. ENGINEERING & SURVEYING • BRADLEY J. CARD, P.E. DOUG KUHN, P.E. SCOTT GARLAND, EIT August 26, 2008 To Whom it May Concern: LOUIE W. WISHERT, JR., PLS RICHARD 1. WEHR, P15 JOSEPH W. BAKER, PLS RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA P _ AIMING DIV. The possible presence of non -leachable lead and arsenic mentioned in the Environmental Site Assessment for. the Delmar Pearson property located in the vicinity of North 40th and Englewood Avenues in Yakima, Washington is also true of all the old orchard land in Yakima County. BC:jc IEXPIRES //Pie7 1 1120 West Lincoln Avenue Sincerely, Brad Card, P.E. Principal Engineer DOC.' INDEX , Yakima, Washington 98902 0 (509) 575-6990 0 FAX (509) 575-6993 MEWED AUG `1ZUUd CI i r OF YAKIMA oMIN DIV. August 21, 2008 City of Yakima Hearing Examiner 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, WA 98901 ATTN: Joseph Calhoun RE: Toscanna/Castlevale Road & Seattle Slew Run Attached please see samples for exterior wall and roof colors. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Keith Basham Project Manager 12419 172ND 5T. E, NN -103 • PUYALLUP, WA 98374 DOC. INDEX Toseannaevelopme` Proposed Exterior Wall Colors Scheme 4 Accent Color Secondary Accent Color Primary Wall Color PWWWIVED AUG S . 2008 OM OF ( 1NG Divv�"A Fascia and Selected Trim Color t DOC, INDEX # J_4 Toscanna = cvelop ent Proposed Exterior Wall Colors Scheme 2 Accent Color Secondary Accent Color Primary Wall Color RECEIVED AUG 2 1 7(lfa CITY 11 Yikakim P+_._ 1NIiG DIV. Fascia and Selected Trim Color _. DBC. INDEX Toscanna Develop 4 ? ent Proposed Exterior Wall Colors Scheme 1 Accent Color Secondary Accent Color Primary Wall Color p I r 2 1 2008 CITY tit PLANNING DIV Fascia and Selected Trim Color • DOC. INDEX # J-eo Toscanna at evelopment Proposed Exterior Wall Colors Scheme 3 Accent Color Secondary Accent Color Primary Wall Color RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2008 CITY U6' YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Fascia and Selected Trim Color DBC.' INDEX Toscannevelopment Proposed Flat Roof Finish Single Ply Membrane Option RECEIVE AUG 2 1 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING ®IV. Mineral Cap Sheet Option INDEX # J=eo LL • 000 The Casey Group 000 Architects D O ❑ A Division of A. C.P. Consultants, Inc. 5521 100th Street SW Suite A Lakewood, Wa. 98499 (253) 584-5207 Phone (253) 581-9720 Fax Memo '' ad from Paul J. Casey A.I.A. pcasey@caseygrouparch.com Memo ❑ Ph log ❑ Confr. 0 Info: Page_1_of 1 Distribution: • Date: August 18, 2008 Project: Toscanna Development Person: Mr. Joseph Calhoun Company: Yakima Dept. of Community Development Subject: Total Site Impervious Calculation Clarification Time Project No. 07-122 Phone No. 509-575-6183 Fax No. Sent Via..... E -Mail❑ FAX 0 Keith Basham David Sjule Billing File 0 According to the Hearing Examiner's request, following is my impervious area calculation of combined Lots 1 and 2. The calculation is based on the following: Lot 1 Gross Area: Impervious Area: Lot 2 Gross Area: Impervious Area: 326,434 S.F. 211,454 S.F. (64.7%) 737,089 S.F. 272,054 S.F. (36.9%) RECEIVED AUG 1 8 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNINQ DIV. The impervious area percentage of combined Lots 1 and 2 is calculated as the summation of the total . combined impervious areas divided by the total combined gross site areas as follows: Impervious Area (211,454 + 272,054) Gross Site Area = (326,434 + 737,089) = .454 or 45%. This is the percentage I discussed in the hearing. This percentage is also the maximum impervious area percentage allowed in the Rl zone. The reason this calculation was presented was to illustrate another justification to allow an increase in the Lot 1 (R2) impervious area limitation by showing that the combined lot impervious area meets the more restrictive R1 zoning limitation of 45%. As you noted, the average of two impervious area percentages of 64.7% and 36.9% is 50.8%. However, this is only the mean of the two numbers, and does not reflect the actual impervious area percentage of combined Lots 1 and 2 as calculated above. Thank you and please call with any questions. We are also having the material board prepared and will forward shortly. 1 DOC. INDEX # J-5 PLSA ENGINEERI+JG & SURVEYING 1120 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902 (509) 575-5990 FAX (509) 575-6993 TO L. /40W./ WE ARE SENDING YOU .'Attached 0 Under separate cover via ❑ Shop drawings Si: Prints ❑ Copy of letter 0 Change order 0 Plans ELIA1J r @x 5T RA MKOWnil, 3140 DATE6� 14_08 DATE ,O�6J�/ ATTENTION 0 RE:.T Se,4'- A ZEua-LUPN/.-,cj7 sore., RECE6VED 2 '/ SLOP AUG 1 4 2008 0 Samples the followireirMOF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV, 0 Specifications 0 COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION sore., 67 -AB / i_ / 7- S' 14Ab 2 '/ SLOP ,6&-irr ®A! • THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval 0 Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use 0 Approved as noted 0 Submit copies for distribution s requested 0 Returned for corrections 0 Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment 0 ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS Li E 14Al0ceJ LF' T1-/15 LS X10 r . (4fF7 (Gl../ EAI / DOC. INDEX # J- COPY TO SIGNED- tC . Com/ t`f iZ If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. ENGINEERING & SURVEYING BRADLEY J..CARD, P.E. DOUG KUHN, P.E. SCOTT GARLAND, EIT August 14, 2008 To Whom it may Concern: LOUIE W. WISHERT, JR., PLS RICHARD L. WEHR, PLS JOSEPH W. BAKER, PLS RECEIVED AUG 14 Z008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING ®IVa Soils in the proposed Toscana development west of 40th Avenue and north of Englewood Avenue are cohesionless and non -plastic. Such soils are stable on slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. !EXPIRES p,"!p/p Sincerely, Brad Card, P.E. Principal Engineer DOC. INDEX 1120 West Lincoln Avenue e Yakima, Washington 98902 (509) 575-6990 e FAX (509) 575-6993 ENGINEERING & SURVEYING January 18, 2007 Mr. Morrie Shore, Atty Velikanje, Moore & Shore P.O. Box 22550 Yakima, WA 98907 BRADLEY J. CARD, P.E. DOUG KUHN, P.E. LOUIE W. WISHERT, )R., PL5 RICHARD L WEHP., PLS Re: Environmental Site Assessment Pearson Property Responses to Comments Dear Morrie: The following are our responses to Mr. Granger's comments made in his memo of December 24, 2006: General Comments: Responses to detailed questions found below will also serve to clarify issues raised in the memo's general comments. Detailed Questions: 1. The report states that the property has been owned by the Pearson family since 1906. The preparer of the report has personal knowledge that Pearsons lived on the property in 1940. No good reason is given for extending the chain of title back more years than that required by ASTM E-1527. 2. Aerial photography available from Yakima County taken in 1947 has poor resolution and provides only minimal information. The 1958 USGS map (copy enclosed) included with the report shows orchard. The preparer has personal knowledge of the property being in orchard in 1940. 3. A copy of the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map is included in the report and another copy is attached for the convenience of the reader. This map is to scale and shows contours hence it shows slope amount and direction. The Yakima Valley, which is naturally a desert, is irrigated from canals carrying water from various natural streams. The Yakima Valley Canal obtains water from the Naches River and is one of the many irrigation canals in the Yakima Valley, none of which has ever been considered a source of hazardous or toxic materials. Therefore, any further discussion of this facility for the purpose of the subject report is moot. 4. All sites listed are not an environmental threat to the site, are not toxic releases, and are hydraulically downgradient as shown on the maps already furnished. If they were toxic releases, they would have been identified as such. 5. Mr. Pearson is the second generation operator of the orchard property. One outcome of the interview addressed in the report was the discovery of the underground heating oil tank serving one of the residences. DOC. INDEX # -3 1120 West Lincoln Avenue d . Yakima, Washington 98902 b (509) 575-6990 6 FAX (509) 575-6993 • • • Mr. Morrie Shore, Atty Velikanje, Moore & Shore January 18, 2007 Page 2 6. The larger parcel was mistakenly reported zoned as B-1 due to misreading the Yakima County Assessor map legend. The corrected zoning is R-1 according to the assessor's map. 7. All maps have scales shown. Using the scale provided, one can select any radius that one wishes. The map legend contains a symbol for a facility. Facilities are not necessarily a toxic release. That facility referenced is the Washington State Department of Agriculture and is listed as a hazardous waste generator and not a toxic release. More information regarding this location may be obtained at The Washington State Department of Ecology website. 8. See attached report. 9. Please read the Introduction section of the report in which the scope of work for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is described. Sampling is a Phase If activity and is not included in a Phase I effort. Sampling almost 28 acres for lead and arsenic involves a great deal more than "grabbing a couple of extra samples." The Phase I report states that widespread use of lead and arsenic pesticides were used in Yakima Valley orchards up until about 1950 and the alkaline environment has converted the metals into insoluble, unleachable form. Therefore the lead and arsenic classify as solid waste rather than hazardous materials. There have been many studies of presence and fate of lead and arsenic in Eastern Washington soils all of which have reached the same conclusion. Washington State University has conducted several of these studies. 10. All the tanks present were used to store diesel fuel, gasoline, and heating oil for use in the residential and farming operations. All tanks had been installed long before any registration was required and were, therefore, undocumented. Reporting removal of undocumented underground storage tanks is not required. A large number of soil samples were collected from the bottom of the various tank basins. Results of analysis of samples collected to verify that contaminated soil had been removed are found attached to the report. All final samples contained petroleum concentrations below Washington State regulatory action limits. Contaminatedsoilwas transported off site to land farming on property owned by the Pearsons and therefore is of no further interest to any prospective purchaser. The attached report was prepared to provide additional details of tank removal and tank basin sampling. Sincerely, BC:jc Enclosures cc Delmar Pearson Bill Almon Wit,. ,yam , ' , Pim• . EXPIRE Brad Card, P.E. Principal Engineer DOC. INDEX # �r 3 ASE I ENVIR NMENTAL SITE.. ASSESSMENT Yakima County Tax Parcel N mbers 181315-31401, 181315-31402, 181315-31403, 181315-31404, 181315-31405, 181315-31406, 181315-31407, 181315-31408, 181315-31409 Yakima, Washington July -2003,, Job.No. 03169 Prepared by PLSA ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING 1120 West Lincoln Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 DOC. INDEX # • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS SITBJECT INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 The Scope of Work 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 3 Site History 3 Geology 3 Hydrology 3 Review of Regulatory Records 4 State. Agencies 4 Federal Agencies 4 Site Inspection 4 Interview 4 General Features 5 Neighboring Properties 5 Utilities 5 Storage Tanks 5 Asbestos 5 Lead 5 PCB Cooling Fluids 5 Known Hazardous Materials Spills 5 Other potential hazardous material sources 6 ANALYSIS 6 CONCLUSIONS 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 6 FIGURE .1: AS SES FIGURE2: VICINITY MAR -17 FIGURE 3: AERIAL, PHOTOGRAPHY FIGURE 4: USG -S..7-.5' TOPOGRAPHIC MAP APPENDIX L CHAINOF TITLE.::; APPENDIX IL .. REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS APPENDIX ICU.. WOODER - APPENDIX IV: _ RELEASE,OF:THIRD PARTY LIABILITY AGREEMENT APPENDIX V: DISCLOSUREOF_PARTIES TO THE SALE DOC. INDEX # 3 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STTE ASSESSMENT PLSA Engineering and Surveying has been retained by D.E.P. Properties; Inc. to prepare an Environmental Site Assessment, (ESA), of nine parcels of land located at the northwest intersection of North 40th Avenue and Castlevale Road in Yakima, Washington. The subject property (Study Site) consists of nine parcels totaling approximately 7.36 acres located in the NW '/z, SW 1/4 and NW 1/4, SE 1/4, of Section 15, Township 13 North, Range 18 East. Willamette Meridian, Yakima, 'Washington. The Yakima County Tax Parcel Numbers and acreage are listed in Table 1. TABLE 1 Parcel Number Acreage 181315-31401 0.59 acres 181315-31402 0.70 acres 181315-31403 0.65 acres 181315-31404 0.67 acres 181315-31405 1.06 acres 181315-31406 0.75 acres 181315-31407 1.21 acres 181315-31408 1.13 acres 181315-31409 0.6 acres Total Acreage 7.36 acres See Figure 1, Assessor's Map; Figure 2, Vicinity Map; Figure 3, Aerial Photography; and Figure 4, USGS 7.5' Topographic Map. BACKGROUND In 1980,. The Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, known as CERCLA, was enacted. .This act specified liabilities and penalties of owners of contaminated. -sites without,<regard: to.-the--source:.of the contamination.,:. In 1986, thee.Federal Superfund.Amendments .-and -Reauthorizationct, -known as SARA,.. -was,: -enacted _< This act protects purchasers . of contaminated -property- as ."innocent landowners": -:.if they ..can :prove due. diligence was ,.exercised<::.in attempting-:to...determine the existence of contamination...:on.. the property, and;foun&none, ::prior :to purchaser In 1990, the Washington State ;Model Toxics Control Act, known=as.MTCA; was; enacted. -:This act serves to implement .CERCLA.and:SARA through Washington :State :.agencies 'and,it included substances additional to those regulated by federal law, including petroleum:pro:ducts TUE SCOPE OF WORIZ • The engineering services. :.provided:: by.. PLSA Engineering and Surveying.:consist -of a Phase. I 0 investigation using the _guidance.foundAn American Society for Testing.;Iviatenals (ASTM) E- 1527 to determine what;... if any, environmental liabilities exist on or -adjacent to the. property, 1 DOC. I1°TDEX • • culminating in a report that conveys PISA's professional opinion about the property's potential for being contaminated by hazardous >materials, as defined by local, state, and federal laws.. It generally involves research of records, a -field examination, and testing materials suspected-: od.,... containing asbestos and large painted surfaces for lead, at the discretion of the client. It does not include further physical or chemical: ,analysis, : unless other arrangements have been made ,.with:::: PLSA. Phase I of the ESA includes a visual _inspection of the grounds and interviews with persons knowledgeable about the property's past: and present uses and that of adjacent properties.: A general inspection of attic, occupancy,: basements, and crawl spaces is conducted for asbestos and; other hazardous materials, if observed.- When appropriate, samples of suspect ,constructions::: materials may be analyzed. A chain -of -title report for the property disclosing the succession of owners is examined: for_ clues as to suspect previous land uses that may have contributed to contamination. Seer Appendix I. Geological features and hydrology of the region are examined in conjunction with known hazardous material sites in the nearby area for evidence and potential for hazardous materials migration. A report is then prepared which summarizes the findings of these investigations. The ESA is not a certification that the property is free of hazardous materials; nor is it a certification that the use of the property is free of other regulatory or physical limitations which would further restrict its use. A more comprehensive evaluation would be required for such a determination. DOC. INDEX # J-3 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT D.E.P'Properties, I,. c. Yaki II a; County Tai Parcel Numbers 181315-31401, 181315-31402,.181315-31403, 181315-31404, 181315-31405, 181315-31406, . 181315-31407, 181315-31.408, 181315-31409 Yakima,Washington SITE STORY The property (Study Site) consists of nine parcels totaling approximately 7.36 acres. The site is located in Yakima County within the city limits of Yakima, Washington, and is bordered on the east by North 40th Avenue, on the north by Fechter Road and on the west and south by Castlevale Road. Research of the chain of title to 1940, the Polk's Directory and aerial photographs indicate the Study Site has been used primarily as orchard. The property has been in the Pearson family since 1906. GEOLOGY General and specific information regarding surface and subsurface conditions at the site are available from several sources. General soils data is given in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) publication entitled Soil Survey of Yakima County Area, Washington. General geology was obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report. These sources present generally consistent findings regarding subsurface conditions. SCS classifies the native soils present as "Ritzville Silt Loam" and reports that it is up to 60 or more inches in depth. Nearby excavations Indicate ,the silt to be approximately; 7 feet .deep.: Unified:: Soils Classification System:;classifies :the -.soil -as low plasticity silt (ML). According.ao United States Geological Survey, the silt is deposited atop Quarternary fluvial _ and:- lacustrine deposited sedimentary rocks which overlie sedimentary rocks of the Ellensburg Formations of late - Miocene age. These sedimentary.:rocks overlie :the -Saddle Mountain Geologic Unit:which..is a member of the Columbia River Basalt Group HYDROLOGY Ground Water - The area being -:.a part:of the Columbia Basin Plateau, ;..contains; several.:.;. productive aquifers in the interbeds:betweenthevarious basalt flows that make up.the.;Columbia River Basalt. Group. The average ground •water gradient of the shallow occurring aquifer is generally to the north, toward the:Naches River. Contamination plumes, should they.exist in the: .' groundwater, could migrate in that -direction: - 3 DOC. INDEX # �1-3 • • • • Surface Water - Permeability of native soilis moderate and is suitable for on-site, storm water disposal. The nearest surface water is the Naches River, approximately 1 mile north of the property. Irrigation water is supplied by the.: Yakima Valley Canal. REVIEW OF REGULATORY RECORDS... State Agencies - A review of Washington State -Department of Ecology, (WDOE), Toxics: Cleanup Program Site Register, Confirmed :and Suspected Contamination Sites, (CSCS); and.... Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) "sites;: reveal one CSCS site within a one mile radius of the study area. There are two LUST sites listed within 1/2 mile of the Study Site. See Appendix II, Regulatory Agency Records, and Figure 2, Vicinity Map. No WDOE registered underground storage tanks located on or adjacent to the Study Site were documented. Research of the WDOE Environmental Release Tracking System (ERTS) indicates no environmental complaints have been filed against the Study Site. See Appendix II, Regulatory Agency Records, and Figure 2, Vicinity Map. Federal Agencies - A review of SARA TITLE III, Section 313, Community Right to Know Records, indicates no businesses and/or industries reporting the handling, storing or generating hazardous materials on or adjacent to the Study Site. See Appendix II, Regulatory Agency Records, and Figure 2, Vicinity Map. In addition, a list of EPA, RCRA, CERCLA and National Priorities Listing (NPL) is provided in Appendix II. No sites contaminated with hazardous waste are reported to be lying within one-half mile of the Study Site. No NPL, landfill, treatment, storage, and disposal sites are reported to be within 1 mile of the Study Site. Based on current and historical usage of the Study Site, it is unlikely that the site will be documented on the Emergency Release Notification System (ERNS) listing. USEPA and WDOE officials have stated that USEPA routinely furnishes ERNS data to WDOE for inclusion in their .,environmental database, which would then appear in WDOE records. Thechain of title indicated no environmental liens.wer-e filedlagainst theStudy. Site: SITE INSPECTION A visual site inspection conducted on :::July 10;.:2003 by : a PLSA environmental _-:.engineer° . determined the surface was covered :with weeds and.grass : on • the vacant portions:.of the: =Study. Site.. The orchard had been removed, the. site regradedand new streets and traffic. signalization ._ constructed. Interviews Mr. Pearson, representing D.E.P. Properties; :mInc.; was interviewed on July 9, 2003. His only •recollection of the site was an orchard ;:beginning <:in 1908 and a small packing house on the south.. end of the site which was removed in 1943.. 4 DOC. INDEX General Features The Study Site has a gentle southeast slope. The area (Study. Site) consists of nine parcels totaling approximately 7.36 acres. The property is located 'in Yakima County within the city limits of Yakima, Washington. The Site is bordered .onthe east ,by North 40th Avenue, on the north by Fechter Road and on the west and south by .Castlevale:. Road. All nine parcels of the site: historically were orchards. Access to the Study: Site is from. either Castlevale Road or North 40th Avenue. The site is currently zoned R-3, Multi -Family Residential. See Figure 3, Aerial Photo. Neighboring Properties Neighboring properties include a mobile home park south . of Castlevale Road and single-family homes north of Fechter Road. See Figure 3, Aerial Photo. Utilities Utilities available to the site include electricity, natural gas, TV cable and telephone. Solid waste disposal, municipal water and sewer service is available from the City of Yakima. Storage Tanks There are no reports or surface evidence of underground storage tanks being located on the Study Site. Asbestos There are no structures on the site. Lead Paint There are no structures on the site. PCB -'Coaling Fluids There -is no history of PCB bearing equipment or materials..beingused on the premises. KNOWN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILLS.:.. No regulatory record of on-site hazardous. material; spills was: found. OTHER:POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS-MATERIAL>SOURCES • The Study Site was used as orchard. Before 1950:orchards used lead and arsenic solution for pest control. PLSA's considerable experience: with the _fate ..of the metallic residue from this type 0 of pest control in the Yakima Valley has found that the material has long since converted into a non -leachable form which passes the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. 5 DOC. INDEX • Metals passing this test designate as solid waste in accordance with WAC 173-303-090(8)(c) and.:.. are not considered hazardous or dangerous. State law does not regulate solid waste:. accumulations of less than .2,000 pounds. Metals from pest control activity have never been. found to be sufficiently concentrated to accumulate 2,000 pounds over an area the size of the study_: premises. WAC:173-340-740 Method A does: not distinguish between :leachable and non -leachable metals andlists.cleanup levels for lead and arsenic at:250 and: 20 mg/kg, ,respectively. The WAC further,:. states _that. exceedance of these levels do:.not::necessarily: triggerrequirements for cleanup action.. Lead;and-arsenic concentrations in orchard land: in the:Yakima Valley which was in production. before' 1950 frequently have lead _.concentrations as. high .,as :.600 mg/kg. There has been _no. regulatory action to date requiring cleanup of these former orchards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA database lists the Washington State Department -of Agriculture (WSDA) as a hazardous waste handler. at. 4108 Kern Way which... is near the Study Site. Further investigation, including_ contacting Mr. Lee Faulconer of WSDA; reveals that this listing is the result of that agency collecting a small quantity of agricultural chemicals from a shed and transporting the material to disposal. This took place approximately a decade ago and was a one time only operation. This was a normal WSDA service at the time. Mr. Delmar Pearson, owner of the shed, reports that it has a concrete floor which would protect the soil below. No other sources of hazardous materials on or adjacent to the site were found during the course of this investigation. ANALYSIS There is no other documented use of the Study Site other than orchard use. There are no former owners or lessors found who could be considered likely to have been engaged in the production, storage or commercial use of hazardous materials. CONCLUSIONS There wereno reportable quantities of released. hazardous. materials found on the Study Site. RECOMMENDATIONS • No furtherection is recommended..:. DOC. INDEX # J-3 FIGURE I: ASSESSOR'S MAPS DOC. INDEX # J-3 • • I aiuma Ur13 vv eo mapping • YAKIMA, WA Map Themes F City Limits mem T Contours r Critical Areas T Floodplains r Parcel Text r Plan 2015 F Relief Map Or Urban Areas FE] T. Zoning -L C151..• J. None • Refresh j Choose Location to: C Zoom in C Zoom Out r Pan Identify Grandview Granger Harrah Moxee Naehes Selah Sunnyside Tieton Toppenish UnionGap Wapato Yakima Zillah Parcel Number: Situs Address: Owner Name: Misc Codes: AssesSedNalues: ParCel,Size: UAZaZoning: Plan 2015: UrbamGrawth Area: Jurisdiction: Floodplain: Critical Areas: Stream Type: Contour.Elevation: 18131531401 Fechter Rd/N 40th Ave D E P Properties Inc 335-TCA/Levy 0 -improvement -value 20700 -land, 25513 Square Feet B-1 - Professional Business Urban (City Limits) Urban Growth Area Plan Yakima Floodplain data not available 1180 http://www.pan.co.yaldma.wa.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=YakgisH&THEVI=CL&TBM=... 7/14/2003 DOC. INDEX x aiuma Una w eo lviapping YAlKEVIA, WA Map.... Themes . F City Limits r Contours ✓ Critical Areas ▪ Floodplains • r Parcel Text ✓ Plan 2015 F Relief Map • r Urban Areas 3. E Zoning None if7 Refresh rugslu1 Choose Location to: C Zoom in r Zoom Out r Pan r Identify Grandview Granger Harrah Moxee Naches Selah Sunnyside Tieton Toppenish Union a Wapato Yakima Zillah Parcel Number: 18131531402 Situs .Addr-ess:.Fechter:Rd/N 40th Ave Owner Name: D E P: Properties Inc Misc Codes:, 335=TCA/Levy Assessed: Values:: O-improvement.value 24800 -land Parcel .Size::30607Square Feet' UAZO. Zoning: B-1 - Professional Business Plan-2015:.Urban(City Limits) Urban Growth Area: Urban Growth Area Plan Jurisdiction::,Yakima Floodplain: Floodplain data not available Critical Areas: Stream Type: Contour Elevation: No contour lines within 10 feet of click http ://www. pan. co.yakima.wa.us/scripts/esrimap. dll?name=Yakgi sH&TB M=CL&THM=:.. 7/14/2003 .. DOC. INIDEX r atama'.sig w eo iviappuig YAKIMA, WA Map Themes F City Limits imzv r Contours r Critical Areas r Floodplains r Parcel Text I— Plan 2015 F Relief Map • r Urban Areas r r Zoning None Refresh ; Choose Location to: r Zoom in C• Zoom Out i,, Pan (: Identify Grandview Granger Harrah Moxee Naches Setah Sunnyside Tieton Toppenish UnionGap Wapato Yakima Zillah Parcel Number: 18131531403 Situs.Address: Fechter=Rd%N40thAve Owner Name. D E P Properties Inc Misc Codes: 235-TCA/Levy Assessed Values: 7.0 -improvement value 22900 -land,. Parcel:Size:.128292=;-Square Feet UAZO Zoning: 8-1Professional Business Plan -201.5:'`Utban (City Limits) . Urban Growth Area::Urban.Growth Area Plan Jurisdiction:- Yakima Floodplain: Floodplain data not available Critical Areas:::.: Stream Type:. Contour Elevation: -No contour lines within 10 feet of click http://www.pan.co.yakima.wa.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=YakgisH&THM=CL&THM 7/14/2003 DOC. INDEX # J_3 I ilK11I14 YBI.`! IN Cu 1VIQ.pping YAKIMA, WA Map Themes F City Limits r Contours E Critical Areas E Floodplains T Parcel Text r Plan 2015 F Relief Map r Urban Areas r Zoning aa,c itn. 'None `Refresh Choose Location to: C Zoom in r Zoom Out r Pan r Identify Grandview Granger Harrah Moxee Naches Selah Sunnyside Tieton Toppenish UnionGap Wapato Yakima Zillah Parcel Number: 18131531404 Situs Address -Feehter:Rd/N'40th Ave Owner Name: D EP.Properties Inc Misc Codes: 335-TCA/Levy Assessed -Values;.:?-improvement-value 23600 -land Parcel. Size:.29185Sq:uareFeet UAZO Zoning: B4 -Professional Business - Plan 2015 Urban4City Limits) Urban Growth Area: -:Urban GrowthArea Plan Jurisdiction Yakima Floodplain: Floodplain. data not available • Critical Areas: Stream Type: Contour Elevation: No contour lines within -10 feet of click - - http://www.pan.co.yakima.wa.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=YakgisH&THM=CL&THM= 7114/2001: DOC. INDEX # J-3 1 iitClma kBnJ vv CD iviappm g YAKIMA, WA Map Themes F City Limits E.2, F Contours E Critical Areas r Floodplains r Parcel Text r Plan 2015 F Relief Map • 17 Urban Areas F- Zoning rdgc 1 11 G None ' Refresh <� Choose Location to: C Zoom in �' Zoom Out C Pan r Identify Grandview Granger Harrah Moxee Naches Selah Sunnvside Tieton Toppenish UnionGap Wapato Yakima Zillah Parcel Number: Situs Address: Owner Name: Misc Codes: Assessed Values: Parcel Size: UAZO Zoning: Plan 2015: Urban Growth Area: Jurisdiction: Floodplain: Critical Areas: Stream Type: Contour Elevation: 18131531405 Fechter'Rd/N 40th Ave D E P Properties Inc 335-TCA/Levy -0-improvement value 37400 -land 4.6146: Square Feet B-1 Professionai,Business Urban: (City Limits):.: Urban Growth Area Plan Yakima.. Floodplain data not available No -contour lines within 10 feet of click http://www. pan. co.yakima. wa.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=YakgisH&THM=CL&THM= ... 7/14/2003 DOC. INDEX a uiat�s'JI vv lvldppiug YAKIMA, WA Map Themes F City Limits = r -Contours r Critical Areas r Floodplains r Parcel Text • r Plan 2015 F Relief Map r Urban Areas Mi r Zoning testi lit a (None Refresh Choose Location to: C Zoom in r Zoom Out r. Pan r Identify Grandview Graneer Harrah Moxee Naches Selah Sunnyside Tieton Toppenish UnionGap Wapato Yakima Zillah Parcel Number: Situs Address: Owner Name: 11/Esc Codes: Assessed Values: Parcel ,Size UAZO Zoning:. Plan 2015: Urban Growth Area: Jurisdiction: Floodplain: Critical Areas: Stream Type: Contour Elevation: 18131531406 FechterRdJN 40th= Ave D E P Properties Inc 335-TCA/Levy 0 -improvement value 26300 -land 32498`=Square.Feet- B-1 - eet-B-1- Professional Business' Urban (City Limits) Urban Growth Area Plan Yakima Floodplain data not available No contour lines within 10 feet of click http://www. pan. co.y akima. wa.us/scripts/esrimap. dll?name=YakgiSH&THM=CL&THM=... 7/14/2003 DOC. INDEX # J-3 Y 4.1UIi1d �TbJ vv CU iviappmg YAKIMA, WA Map Themes F City Limits r Contours r Critical Areas IT Floodplains r Parcel Text 1Plan 2015 F Relief Map • r Urban Areas 612 r Zoning riagr 1 01 G None of esh` Choose Location to: r Zoom in C Zoom Out C Pan t Identify Grandview Granger Harrah Moxee Naches Selah Sunnyside Tieton Toppenish UnionGap Wapato Yakima Zillah Parcel Number: Sims Address: Owner Name: Misc Codes: Assessed Values: Parcel Size: UAZO Zoning: Plan 2015: Urban Growth Area: Jurisdiction: Floodplain: Critical Areas: Stream Type: Contour Elevation: 18131531407 Feehter Rd/N 40th Ave DEP Properties Inc 335-TCA/Levy 0 -improvement value 42500 -land .. 52495 Square Feet. B-1 - Professional: Business Urban _(City Limits) Urban Growth Area Plan Yakima Floodplain data not available No contour lines. within 10 feet of click • http://www.pan_co.yakima.wa.us/scripts/esrimap_dlhname=YakgisH&THM=CL&TH1VI=... 7/14/2003 DOC. INDEX # J-3 1 amnia J1,) vv Gu lvla ipiii YAKINIA, WA Map. Themes; F City Limits .- r Contours r Critical Areas r Floodplains (.Parcel Text r Plan 2015 F Relief Map r Urban Areas T Zoning None Refresh Choose Location to: C Zoom in C Zoom Out C Pan r Identify Grandview Graneer Harrah Moxee Naches Selah Sunnyside Tieton Toppenish UnionGap Wanato Yakima Zillah Parcel Number: Situs Address: Owner Name: Misc Codes: Assessed Values: Parcel Size: UAZO Zoning: Plan • 2015: UrbanGrowth Area: Jurisdiction: Floodplain: Critical. Areas: Stream Type: Contour Elevation: 18131531408 Pechter.Rd/N 40th Ave D E P Properties Inc 335-TCA/Levy 0 -improvement value 40000 -land 49348 Square Feet B-1 - ProfessionalBusiness Urban (City Limits) Urban Growth Area Plan Yakima Floodplain data not available 1230 http://www-. pan. co.yakima:wa.us/scripts/esrimap. dll?name=YakgiSH&THM=CL&THM=... 7/14/2003 DOC. INDEX # J-3 Y aluma U1h web MaPPmg YAKIMA, WA. Map... Themes l✓ City Limits ;,.... r Contours r Critical Areas r Floodplains r Parcel Text r Plan 2015 F Relief Map • r Urban Areas • r Zoning rdge a vi z None Refresh Choose Location to: •C Zoom in C Zoom Out C Pan r Identify Grandview Granger Harrah Moxee Naches Selah Sunnyside Tieton Toppenish UnionGap Wapato Y alama Zillah Parcel Number: Situs Address: Owner Name: Misc Codes: Assessed: Values: Parcel Size: UAZO Zoning: Plan 2015: Urban Growth Area: Jurisdiction: Floodplain: Critical Areas; Stream Type: Contour Elevation: 18131531409 FechterRd/N 40th Ave D E P Properties Inc. 335-TCA/Levy 0 -improvement value 21200 -land 26159 Square :Feet :; B-1 - Professional Business Urban (City Limits) Urban Growth Area Plan Yakima Floodplain datanotavailable No contour lines within 10 feet of click http://www. pan. co.yakima.wa. us/scripts/esrimap. dll?name=Yakgi sH&THM=CL&THM=... 7/14/2003 DOC. INDEX # J- 3 FIGURE 2: VICINITY MAP • DOC. INDEX # J-3 1V1J1V 1V9_a.F9J ®C. 1311GtaLlU11J - 1Vlctp L hall a ° Maps & Directions Castleeale Rd, Yakima, WA 98902 eeturtnn Mkr Got¢ iiapPorm&Tedtmalegy. r-TTh — • $2003 69�crosoRGp� x+2- 003 NaYfecA,a` pd%orGDT,lnc. Your right to use maps and routes generated on the MSN service is subject at all times to the MSN Terms of Use. -= Data credits, copyright, and: disclaimer.:; http://mappoint.msn.com/(acm021bdg1drlxygouzkc245)/PrintMap.aspx?MPMtd M&ID=:.. 7/29/2003 DOC. INDEX # J-3 FIGURE 3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY DOC. INDEX # �1_3 aoci v cit Junasc may VI. 1.-3 so. —1,3 Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines ELMS Fruitvaie, Washington, United States 21 Jul 1996 •;*'e .,:',1, ,• \ .,„ .L1LL5, 1 0' 1100M 0" Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey © 2003 Mb-osoft Corpbration. All tight reserved: Terms of Use ' '100d http://terraserver-usa. com/printim age. aspx?T=1& S=10&X=3432&Y=25824&Z=10&W=1... 7/14/2003 DOC. INDEX FIGURE 4 USGS 7.5' TOPOGRAPHIC MA DOC. INDEX # J-3 • • A 4,1.1 at -3.v' v 0..4 J -l1146,... V V1.41 LA...3y N-11 V Send To Printer Back To TerraServer 120W 34 32" -120.57557 685,600.0 46N 37' 32"1:' 46.62547 5,166,400.0 Change to 11x1.7 Print Size MUMS Frui 120W 33' 54" -120.56512 .1.686,400.0 Remove Grid Lines Change to Landscape 120W 33' 17" -120.55468 .;.687,200.0 N 37' 30" 1-17:17:F17i4 6.62502 'rrte*e 46N 37' 06i 46.6182 5,165,600.0 Cr • 46N,37' 04" 46.61783 :5 165 600.0 11-0-40t I • Dam. Ga a 416F13674073 - 46.6/1081A -t 5,164,800.0: rm.': I I*. ti ma a kiirSX1eita. ..., S nt• 0 Eklit .t...: . l , 1,•" •,., .-_-_ 1 ,.-, .:-• 1 / _.- .--.-.774;,, T" IF' '''''• .,,, V •, \ I -S... \ • '' . — N 36' 38" 446.61064 4021 N5,164,800.0 •1•: . . • . — . • M , ••p g* a 441th • ' ho& 120W 33' 58" 46N 36' 12" -120.56609 46.60344,, ,L 686,400.0 5,164,000.0 46N 36' 14' 120W 34' 36" 46.60389 120.57653 5,164,000.0685,600.0 0' ',5Km 0' ' 1.25Mi 120W33!, 20" 120.55566,!, Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey• © 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Wterraserver-usa.com/printimage.aspx?T=2&S-128LX=85884Y=64568a=.1080E-Trui... 7/17/2003. DOC. INDEX # J -3 APPENDIX I: CHAIN OF TITLE Schreiner Title CO. (AGENT POR TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE Co.) Title Insurance - Escrows • 30 NORTH SECOND STREET • YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 PHONE (509) 248-5801 FAX (509) 453-0798 Order No. 161437 50 YEAR CHAIN OF TITLE (1) Deed recorded November 6, 1947 under Auditor's File Number 1186800 JOHN ALBERT KOSS, a widower, to CLIFFORD. CAMPBELL and VESTA G. CAMPBELL, .. husband and wife. Affects above and other property. (2) Deed recorded February 28, 1964 under Auditor's File Number 1985001 CLIFFORD CAMPBELL and VESTA G. CAMPBELLL, husband and wife to DELMAR PEARSON and ELLEN B. PEARSON, husband and wife. Affects above and other property. (3) Deed recorded May 21,1973 under Auditor's File Number 2319294 0 DELMAR L. PEARSON and ELLEN B. PEARSON, husband and wife, to COUNTY OF YAKIMA. (Portion for Roadway) Affects above and other property. (4) Deed recorded February 4, 1994 under Auditor's File Number 3035912 DELMAR L. PEARSON and ELLEN B. PEARSON, husband and wife, to D.E.P. PROPERTIES, INC., a Washington Corporation. Affects above and other property. (5) Replatted to new Short•Piatcon September,:3; 2002 DESCRIPTION: LOT 3 OF SHORT PLAT, ;RECORDED _UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 7290756, RECORDS OF.YAKIMA .COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SITUATED IN YAKIMA COUNTY, STATE"OF'WASHINGTON DOC. INDEX # J-3 FEB 0 4 1994 FILED FOR RECORD AT THE REQUEST OF: COUNTY EXCISE TAX MORRIS G. SHORE DATE ?-14 "Cj'4 VELIKANJE, MOORE & SHORE, INC., P•5AIo i P. O. BOX C2550 YAXIMA,•WA 98907 BY t QOITataak. isrmy-TrwurceI office THE GRANTORS, DELMAR L. PEARSON and ELLEN B. PEARSON, husband avd'- ;a wife, for and. in consideration of ONE:DOLLAR..($1.00) and other good and': valuable consideration, convey and quitclaim to D.E.P. PROPERTIES, INC a Washington corporation, the following described: real. estate, -situate. in Yakima County, State of Washington, together with all after acquired"i; title of the grantors therein.. ii"PARCEL A: The South 160 feet of the East 220 feet of the West 656 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of- the Southeast quarter of Section 15, Township 13 North, Range 18, E.W.M., EXCEPT the South 20 feet for road. /PARCEL B: • C�� 3,8; ; Beginning North 89.East 222 feet of the Northwest corner'W _Northwest quartext5,Sout1Teast quarter; thence South' 0.22' East 375 feet; thence North 89°38' East 410 feet to the right of way of Pacific Power & Light Company canal; thence Northerly along canal right of way t Powerhouse Road; thence Northerly (� along road to North Line5outheast quarter; thence South rb 89°38' West to point of beginning,,section 15, Township 13 North, Rang -e 18, E.W.M., EXCEPT that portion conveyed to Yakima County for North 40th Avenue, as conveyed by Deed, recorded in Volume 879 of Official Records under Auditor's File Number 2318168, ' AND EXCEPT right of way for Powerhouse Road. ;`t /PARCEL C: - ., That portion of the North half of the North half of the Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 13 North, Range 18 East of the Willamette Meridian, lying Southerly and Easterly of the right of way of the Yakima Valley Canal AND r� That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of .the Southwest quarter and the Southeast -'quarter of the Northwest quarterof the Southwest'quarter-lying-Easterly of the --right—of ._way.=.of the-. Yakima:..Yalley., Canal.:-' empenp_,.;and Northerly. of a line 'beginning=at =a point,:on.. the=,East:-line. of said._. Southwest. quarter..of the. Northeast..--quarter.--of -'.the :.•.• T. r.� Southwest: quarter 649.9 feet' -South:.of the bortheast corner. thereof;thence. North 86°40:West-1115.feet,;more..or less, to the Easterly right of way line of said Canal L a ',•:` cn Co PEC. NO..,. 276381 N ir�a'/r+rl -1= .1425'2000 l • DOC. INDEX # J-3 . • • • - • FEB Q 4 1991 That -part of the South halfsof the Northwest quarter of the Southeast.quarter.of said Section 15 lying Southwesterly of the County Roadr,- EXCEPT,the,West-,18 feet. thereof, 1 AND:EXCEPT;the South:160 feet of the East 220 feetAif the west. ‘ A 656 feet. Of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter -of A said Section 15, AND EXCEPTright of way .of Pacific Power 4 Light Company's Canal, •AND EXCEPT -right of way.for Naches-Cowiche Canal, AND EXCEPT roads. AND that -portion of the North half of the North half of the Southeast quarter of Section 15, Township 13 North, Range,18 East of the,Willamette meridian, lying Westerly and Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 222 feet East of the center of said. Section; thence South 022' East 375 feet; thence North 89°38 East 410 feet to the westerly right of way line of.the 'Pacific Power and Light Company Canal; thence Southeasterly along said right of way to the South line of said North half of the North half of the Southeast quarte EXCEPT the rightay of the Naches sad ..lawiche Canal*, 1ND EXCEPT roads. ND That portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 13 North, Range 18, described as follows: Beginning At a point 659-9 feet South of the Northeast corner of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest *- . quarter of said Section 15; thence North along the East line of said subdivision 10 feet; thence North 8640' West 1115 feet, Tare or less, to the.Easterly right of way line of the . Yakima Valley Canal; thence Southeasterly along said right of way line to a point bearing North 8640' West from the trueqTr.02:: point of beginning; thence South 8640, East 1115 feet, more'—' or less to the true point of beginning. x DATED f , 1994. • De mar L. Pearson 3.2:1?1Zarso4 -2- 1425 2007 DOC. INDEX # J-3 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) County of Yakima ) On this -day personally appeared before me DELMAR L. PEARSON and ; • E;LEN :PEARSON, husband -,,,and wife-, to me known to be the individuals ' scribed in and who executed,the•within and foregoing instrument-, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. L.• Given under my hand and official seal thisJ_ day of 194-(11 • NOTAR PUBLIC in and. 'My appointment exp, 61 y. . EB 9 3 4 ril 11A —3— DC 1.142 2006;;-. DOC. INDEX # J-3 vat_ 8 8 Q' i4,Y 2 1197 No. 40!h r venue• •. ....,r \- • tit • -;'...':.:',' WI,RRAI� fY DEED 10 C i ,c 11 c Numb . r.utci l:7 s,Delmar L. Pearson and Ellen B. Peerson,. t;a..- :. $NO�V ALL MMI 17ILSr PIILiL�i'f5. That the Cts:t{ usbd and wire t `I, t. *00 tint` . -• _. �•; .....:: :.S 17 \yQj acrd la -far outsideratiaa of the sum of Seventeen Thousand -Eight Hurtdred Fifty and No/100 ( ...EU.).,..':;- and other.valucble considerations :1 hereby convey and warnmt to the County of al:inu..State o(Wasicington, the fallowing described nal estate aituate.:. b. ,' ht Yaldma County. State of Washington: ' '. PARCEL "A"-. i, That put of a strip of land respectively. £S fret wide; SO feet wide avid °0 feet ". i• . wide over and across:the. foilotving descrioea:properties: . `blot portion of. the North heir or,hc-North-halfof the Southeast a• of Section ' i : '!1.• 15, Township 13 North,Range 18, E.\V.M., lying westerly and Southerly of .' ; }.•the following described•linc:' ` - Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southeastt 1 of Said Sectia,,222 i feet East of the center of scid•Section; thence Sruth:022sEast 375 Fee., thence • 'North 89°32' East .4.10 Feat to the Westerly.ciclt of way line of the Pacific Power and Linht Co.; thence-Snnthnnsterly nlcnn:Mid tight of way to the South lint . . of said North half of the North half. of said Southeast i , Except the right -of way of the Neches' and Cowiche•Cenel. - .. And, the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter -of Section 15, Township 13 North,Range 18 East,W.M. Except the West 78 feet' there of and Except rond." • - Said sfrip. of lend described as follows.: Commencing at the Southwest inner of the : Northwest quarter of the Southcnst gt'erter nF Section 15, Township 13 North;itaree: 18 East,W.M.1 thence North 89°53'30" East ( on.mt assumed bearing) alcno the South line of said Northwest quarter of clot Southeast evertor of Section 15, 1 S.CS • feet; thence South 12'09' West .29.13 bevy to.Ya .ime. ..C•LTR F..- amt'lr. 2.".1,21 :04 - on North Avenue as said.rcad was surveyed end staked by thel'a':i•ma Count.?- Engineer in 1972, said point being the true point' of beoirrning of said 85 iters.- de • . • strip of land. Said 85 feet wide strip of land, being 45 feet wide -to the richt (easterly) and 410 feet wide to the left (westerly 1 -of the following described lice. aeeinnin3 at aforesaid Yalinta County P.C. stat tan 25125.04; thence Northerly 167.31 fret • . -along a curve ta•the left with a radius of 753'00 feet to Yoking County P.T. statist. 26492.05; thence North 0°36'30" ' West 57.95. feet to Yakima C:anty.P •O.T. station . • 27.150, at which point the width of sn;d strip of land de. rcares from 55 Fret to 50 feet, being 40 feet wide -en coch. side; pnrollel and adjacent to the following des=i'=ed • line. Beginning at aforesaid Yakima Cottrity P.O.T. station 27+50; thence c'� 'r 15 North 0°36'30" \Vett 14.16 Fact to Yakima County P.0 P.C.T. rgt•atirn station 'bock = 27165.05 ohead; thence continuing North 0"35':10" Vest S0J.S5 fedi ro Yo!.ir s . County P.C. station 32465.91, of which point the width of said strip of land increases from 80 feet to 91 feet, being 40 feet wide to the richt (cesterly1 and 50 feet wise• .- to the Iert (Wctiitrly) of the following dcscrihed line. itt' ,mina at et,res_id YoL:na • •• County P.C. station 32465.91; thence Nortinvesteriy 344.41 feet alcng.o curvy to the right with a radius of 1000.Feet to Yakima County P.T. Stetien 36+10.32; thence "Narth;:195'07'30" East 29.62 feet to`Yokiirio County P.O.T.'eauotion station 25439.54 .• bo k;.=:.:9!,438.20.ulieod;:thctce conhauin Nudt 19°.07-30" East 2.3.351 fret to YaLimo County,:P..C. station- 33�31;55; thence"213:45 feet along a curve to th,. left with a radius of 750;00 feet to Yakima Cqunty,,P.0:.C. italian414 3..00. PARCEL"B" - The Seuth.10.feet,.0F the West,;140.00-feet.ef the fol,lewing described property: "The" Southwest:quarter-ofthe"-Northwestpuartcr:oF the Southeast quarter of ' Section 15y .:Township 13. North Ran:10,18 E'rW.M., Except the West 76 feat thereof and. Except rood -,,'4, ' C • : • OFPICIAt. Rfr. • ya .880 DOC. INDEX # X1-3 VOL. ..8 8 0 MAT 2 1 17273 PARCEL "C".. - That part•oF a strip 0F•Iand 30 feet wide over and across. the Following descibed - • ProPerty': "That portion of the North half of the North half of the Southeast 1 of ' Section 15, Township 13 North,Range^18\V Eost,.M. lying Westerly and Southerly of the Following described t • . , :Beginning ata point on the North line of the Southeast 1 o2' 2_ East 375 f said Sectionp : .•;.-: ... .• 222 feet Efz3tof the center ,,,, of said Section;thence South.Q. :feet; thence. North.8,9.°08' East 410 feet: to the Westerly right or way line of the Pacific Power and Light Company;. thence Southwesterly along said:. ;right of way to the South line of said North half of the North half of said• -=,n.=�`: ..;.•,•, -' •,-''' Sauthefnt *4 EXCEPT the right of way of the Neches and Cowtche Canal. ':' •< landdescribed as Follorati: •d • .. strip of • Commencing et the center'oF Section 15, Township 13. North,Rartge 18 t_ 'y ''"' "t:ast Vd.t`vt,;• thence East along the' East-West eef+terline of said Section 15. 311.95 feet to P..0.5.T: •station 40.08.59 on North:4,0th Avenue: es said toad was surveyed and staked by-1hZe'Y•,skima County Engineer in. 1.971; thence ,thence North 15°10'49" East 100.57 -"•.�:;,��: South 19°07'30" West t27.�Od.Fesr; feet to. Engineers station 9100 on Pechter Roadas said rood was•surveyed .`'•'" and staked by the Yakima County Engineer in 1971. said point being the • ' true point of beginning of a 30 feet -wide strip of lend -,'being. 30 fear m tlj� •south of the Following. described :,Meg Beginning at aforesai survey-' station 0+00; thence North 78°33'52" West. 176 43 feet -b survey P.C. station • 1+76.43; thence '?9.04 Feet clang cure® to the left Witt+ a radius of 100 feat to survey P.T.:station 1+96. = r •' : ii :concerni said cols are shown an attached Exhibit 'A"_e I specific d®ta s F ... •.• •;;•-,•••••• "•• •• • • Itis understood and agreed that the delivery of this decd is hereby tendered and that the terns and a3'_' :i=s hereof shall net heroine binding upon the County. of Yakima unless and until-actt"rtcd and approved itu•-lon in ori:-_ lag far Yakima County ,'wad Department, by the County Engineer.//• • . • . - . Datedtltisrl_� • � day of 1 _:1— a • NAY • .,• _.Accepted- and:appro.•aL__ : r • -.:; . ' ' YAkThfk C Dy • .• my Racism -et ATV OF 1A.511INCTON, YA IMA oTr.�---- } • 'ars- • •. I,: the t nclersigncd, a riotaiy public. in and for the State. of Washington, hereby certify that on tI::s_ 18th - tlay.efr� . _9_197----••---- prrsonallg apprarnl 1•cfore me,. I)ELt1PiA:I1. P SOY and .. • : .. ..EI,LEN.'3. PEARSON • to•ntl: wnnaivo t0 br the ind l:hi :::l_5 drscribbcd is gad HeLa T they signed tamp seal.tl lItc saltie as their _. free. f. . ^ •(•xrcttic',il'1�n•tj�q;vin;; iu+tr -att. and nrLt►tn.-ltdt;rd llctt__. itifeRAnt uy et;?•xinel urt•d, fur the uses and pare mel th -cin nentioncd- : • ./.. 7, •10. • -.....Cite*. btnl. .1,2y-keRt anti n1G.4.11 seal the ,lay aotl prar last'nl"nt• stollen: (:ntCr - • .• • ^,• 1l 1�i`r_ -'"_ jam✓ (\� ��tj' •1 �_ r .1,. r . Jytati rel :a• l .a.st !w ll:.- ?tale d \\•u,Liwt,1... - .' _ ' r - - --- Yakima." tt�tultt 4t . _� l, . INDEX p,4 rOi •`{:: tr l I• • (• i • entre- __ __ till. _ - L _ al �. - - •.. .. a•.;e: R+i. a.. - �. n ' p n 19 TILE GRA;,:OR, CLD -FORD CAMPBELL t'ESTA G. CA1CPBELL, ' . • hus.band .wad• wlfe ,' • 0' for and in contide•ration-of tel:dollars end other vor_d•ir::;. eelt:able • trr h.tad r^ id, eon"n•, 1nr1 warrent -ta r-• - r.;,d 1_7_,1 }:.7 i. Fr .Z.Z:: , :us hand and vif c , DCLt P�.tiRoUti . the follcW.ne described rent estate, s'tu'te in the County 0; Yaki.-tn, State or W:ts}t.'_ngtor : • - FA? = At That par`, of the l;orth Ralf of 'the 'northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, and of the North Half of the northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter�of Section 15, Township 13 North, Range 18, E.W.N., scribed as follows: °e; inning, et A point in. the south line of the northeast quart• of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said section zit:ie' south E937' east 193.45 feet -of the southwest corner of said subdivisite thence north 669 feet;• more or less, to- the north line of•the south half of said sect.ion;,thence east along said north lite 849.2 feet, more or lens, to the west right of way line of the Courcy 1icud known as tho Power Louse Road; thenr_o Southeasterly along raid right of way line to the westerly right of way line of the Pacific. Power & Light Company's Canal; thence southeasterly along said Canal tight of way line to the south -line. of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said recti^.:•t; thence wont 1277.7 .feet, more or less, to the n,_,Or ?j point of boginnine. "^ / CEPT Right of way of Neches Cewiche Canal, tree Rroep wf thet -uiAllthat portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast 1 Q zter of Section 15, Township 13 North, Range i✓',.E.W.M., described an follows: • Beginning at a point on the ;forth line of said subdivision 222.0 feet (forth 89*39' East of the Northwer: corner thereof; thence South 0e22' East 375.0 feet; thence North 89,38' East 410 feet to the Westerly rleht of way line of the P. P. & L. Canal; thence Northerly along said canal richt of wey line to the Westerly right' of way line Fcaerhouze Road; thence..1fortherly along said road right of way,,line. to the 'forth -line of said. Southeast -Quarter; thence. South 8938' -dent to the -point-of ber;;L-tnSng,i.,- • P1,RCEL- BI L•a'Se ,ents'•for 'ingress:and eg.re_as rie•ross, the following des- cribed laude: A`strip of -land l6•feet-in width, the center Tine of :thick is described as•follows: 1 Reginninp ata point 10 feet north of the southwest corner of the northeast rlu^rter-of :the horthrast.lunrtcr of::tho. southwest querterof• said section;•thence::-cast:,193:45.feet to thcaest..�line of Parcel A; 2. And the.sonth.:16 feet -of the enst•16 feet -of the northwest quarter of the northenst.q;nrter-rf thc•southwen.t-quarter end the east 16 feet of the zouthweet quarter of the northeast qunrtor of the southwest,. quarter of said Section -15. et J •nri L . C: sement foe underr.round Fire line 22 fent in width, the tWi.- L• '_enter line of wIi ch• is described as followe: �- - - fieeinelnr. 14 feet lout- of the northwest corner of Parcel A; thence south r, e west 133. feat:; thence. ,tt ( feet • to • the l r rot hc.•, i'•Ite '.lent; r t r+0 h 2�2' west 35 '" or the hnZ•l-ttc It the enc: of the right of wa7, k'; ..".1 0 resereed in deed rerc••rind in Volnrc.1.70 of Deans, peen 117, ender 'I Auditor's' .Ile Ho. 102':41, records n: Yiicin:l Co t,- itirh1r,-ter,_ !1.73,, 9, Snb!r^` to ensr•nents, rights of way.a + ,�•+.-,•�• 11 � way.and rescrvat.r - of record and o`f • fur real cutate tezen.and water nseessn ; rnr 1964 and _ ..tori +7 1'abi. y for future as: esaments. -+h t I ' ' A FI .41'..F. 41: . tr 1•.Z'�i! 2,iTED this 1 xth day of =ch;�ta- left,, e { -• • J L ;r To;.ether with water nr..2 water nights• ap urtcnnnt thereto. DOC. INDEX # . J-3 • STATE OF wase ,:,'trj j Cmemty of Yakima at - • i7.17 n -us Is TO CERTIFY that an the day of kfnrt •or, the �-Y-'"E«��J•y�-•' e_ n _er. siga:rd,,,t. a y :-'lNa'tasi- p�ublicie .md.far mid mustyoat. Flak n1 afRmed. bynve•kiontotothan-. • of the corporation tht executed the foregoing instrument and - o `i—owledgcrl the laid instrument to be the free and vol - smeary act and decd of said corporation, for the asst and purposes therein mentioned. and on oath each stated that cads was author Med to aeate said instrument. and that the sal affixed u the corporate seal of said mrporetian. 1• IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ave harmers stet ort hand and affixed my official was the den and year in rtes certificate first above written. . flume My mrmoisnios ecpire: NOTARY ill PUBLIC for the State of Washington. , residing d Yakima. STATE OF WASHINGTON I a`' County of Yakima f L THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this 114-th day of Februiil.-`, le.: -. roe. the mdeni a ��y before • 8"eal• duly maaoiaarmed- Notary Public in and for aid CO"mIly rimmed • Clifford Campbell and Vesta G. Campbell, husband and vire, ti A. ,. 'vr in and w ��v: `r�,. •• r t{A -�0 ;y _ • _ oho waited to me they ri�•� .• oQ it a i .tdett it' ad ad. deed, for the tnn and pupates therein mentioned. rte'r31.1/ /4') if ''a{ F,1'' NI ;lTNES WHEREOF, I have brnasno.set .my hand and affixed my official nal the day end year this ._"-•,ACl17JG6a[�rrat.aburewrimea .. mite mtS.c sept' known to be the identical individuals s dena3zdte within and foregoing • r, • • i r who peraOeta�• Ledgedthe . -lame u and for their own commission -cam n •. NOTARy4 uRUC for the State of. Wuhingtan, . residing a Yekena.: ' • STATE OE -.WASHINGTON County -of Yak;eima--.-: n• THIS IS TO CERTIFY -that on this .- day of, •before:„:.• me. the undersigned: -a- duly commuvoned-Notary Public,, in 'and for said county, and state, personally appeared:: -„ to Inc permnatty bonen to be the identical individra • , descnbed in and who executed -the within ° and foregoing inatmmncnc•and who Fe -mortally acknowledged to me that signed the War: 3' and ,for free and voluntary art and deed, for the nes and purpura then ;es mentioned. tN WTiNESS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand end 'a(fiord my official self the day and year in thin certificate first above written. My commission expires NOTARY PUBLIC metre F.i•,t n( {C„hinginn, reriding at Ya,..,71,. DOC. INDEX for; and. in consideration -of; 10.00 and other valuable c'one iderationa• • .eF niin a`t a point 220L3 feet Hest:wof the center; of "• becticn i.Tol nsru.p,'1a rlorth,''.Range :] t3, id= 11a, thence . st? 002;8',.feet, " .,thence Soatlieasterly• along - the West sine o� 'the county Road tothe Pacific Power & "Light Gonp..ny?'s' tnence`.5outiieasterly along: said can:1 to -,the South iine;`w. its e= i orth'ffal f i f the . lorthti7est . uarter of the' • eolith s t.: darter 'of said Section 15;.. thence: +esterly , • 1106 8 feet, thence,North 14-9.04'• East 8c a';feet, .thence lortnarl 27°East 90 .�eet,. thence 4orth468°` 41f East3- Ca.•2`. f et, :thence ' :North 42° 44.° East r211 8 feet :thence vsii th 3 ° a7est 380 fees;, more: or -less; to .•b'reGi—n-ing,- l.i �� ribnt of z av of teaches -Coat clie Canal `Lompnn o ether rit•n l,•, sn r s :oi the capital _etoc'L of the • Zak :ia Valley Lana1 Cpnpany appurteaent to =sai.d.-land. _'-..�b�£Ct�9= 1 1 �.�T�nttnn¢j__A2SP7"lP�j:.i,-�..G'1,-•�t_atiS�Te� .' _ c v.itions, 'anis r guts -of crap `snorm in the cna Koi title or . exfsttn� by arescriptioh IN117 `lLyTutl 1 5 - 3s - `..: saz.on' -9. .( s• _is•p c1� ' id r + a/ ? Sg _d!• ct �g `F'' �a -9 r , . c.-_ , 1 c'•>n-_-• ciW't r - Ism,. tato L (xiou1150f Co VEYANCEs '.torfVEseteEs 1;TEN;DOLL.tRS t"=FIYL`OOLLANS 3ithe undcrsigncd, a•Nataryliiihlic in'and.far-said..'State, duly comtnissiuned`ond sworn. do hereby. certify that on :hii •daypersonallyappeared betoreme..:..... S.tQlli3 • ltti i.1 ii4)1%,. a_171C1�J_'r.,.. ' .-- •.. ... .. ..... ..,; .... ..... ..:...:. . , tome known to be: theindividual ,d cribcd m nd avho executed -Ric within instrument .and acknowledged that 11e' signed • the sameas f1S '(am voluntary^act and;decd orthe use and. purposes therein ntioned:. l ' -Divan under- w It and anti official seal thin •qday, o ` ' •.19 =7' DOC. INDEX # ,tJ— APPENDIX II: REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS DOC. INDEX # J -3 • APPENDIX I I : REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS.. DOC. INDEX # J- 3 Map Features Water dischargers • F Superfund • F Hazardous waste • 17 El Toxic releases • F 1M Air emissions ✓ F BR S ✓ F E Multi -activities 75.1 C. Schools ✓ TO Hospitals r Churches • E A Populated Places C F Streets ✓ r Streams • F IME1 Water Bodies C = Zipcodes F o Counties drawMai Wilow C Zoom -In By: -4 12X.: Radius Radius F Locator Map Zoom Reset.. 1.7 mi across. Tips: Click on the map or choose another option. r Zoom -Out By: 2X • Recenter Map ✓ Identify ✓ Show Location jpick on compass] to pan map Printable Map For best output dick here You can also zoom in bygeography. • http://maps.epa.gov/scripts/.esrimap?name=enviroMapperN&threshold=0.3&zoomFactor--... 7/22/2003 DOC. INDEX # J —3 1klEula • 'i, P uENIIF P frA.... +a3 PEYIC IINWEe1E:r - `a- PNOE eAOPA P ecdaaaronAae ED RD n:ra-r�4'I�a-y ti f 1 ON COOK:' 'S • luOA -AM ma Illi ®Quirinal CORMS TM Luisa COW BIApFJICN PACK ' rt Y.r plea, WL11Mma'Aer eraea-.-a-. N dor �IF , it JAMillairaillan aeipiAt ItAes Ux '4:11151111111 I • WA 1 Man Y.. EOM 111111 stip 111 � v agiu 11 II:JI jaraZR'" poitommunirixikomoa p111111i11l�i Yakima County, Washing City of Yakima .LIM 40374 Lang: 1203354 YIMA County. WA. This computer representation has been compiled by d1® U.& Emthennumtei Protection Agency (EPA) from source which have supplied data or Information that has not been verified by the EPA. Th e data Ia offered here es a general representation only, end le nal to be used for oanenerclel purpoms vdthald verification by an Independent professional qualified to verify such data or InfcrmaUon_ The EPA does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness. or thnanees of the bit irreatton shown, and shall not be nada for anvices ar Macy - reauliUIg from reliance upon the Information shaven. LEGEND Pleb: Feat* labs rmebmnadAO forodegariva ire man than W point& Sonia bailaFanarmd mod adzrosy pfsdat *code wmo'.da. Foal* WW1 have bona =Noted la taw opealeedmem o CORMS HPI. Stio cp• 0Emp..44RCIJS NFL SIA • CEa Utreidoci Form ▪ C PICLIR Pad el OB.I.Rnalaed © GERMS F�INPLEns �fomtadlry d [_I Ard0Hm14eln Plmc is Many a.. ROMTF#1'or [flu eae parEmNded) (Taadea R hererdord) PLS • EPORMTRtaie Faul@y baa AF5lA!F� Sae H� naked 1 (Wilma! Waliand Candytloundary Mirikott. A/ Wm Ram Center 2000 Population Density Per Sq Under 10 3,000 - 0.000 10 -100 100-1.000 1.000 - 3,000 6,000 -10,000 10.000-20,000 Over 20.000 0 0.1 02 02 0.4 0.5 06 07 lit 06 1 Mrs Albers Pen ection mono vrtE%1110 1118111.1P En*OurmenW Roballon Atony Rodwad OrSfes Bye LU1ff0 (RAI 001000) Enviiolvlapper.__ rage 1 Oil - Map Features ✓ 17 'P" Water dischargers ✓ 1 ® • Superfund ✓ 17 0 Hazardous waste ✓ 17 E • Toxic releases ✓ 17 Air emissions ✓ Fgi BRS. ✓ r Multi -activities r A Schools ✓ r o Hospitals ✓ I Churches ✓ IT A • Populated Places • 17 N Streets ✓ .'�/ Streams r' Water Bodies ✓ 1 tJ Zipcodes ✓ IF =Counties ;Re P ec-aal'Qn tIsj1tilAto 1 f A .SC•. - i di .. r Zoom -In By: 17 Locator Map Zoom Reset B aro' aJeye 'r ..srra EPA's EnvtraMapper; Zoom -Out By: r 12X. ✓ Recenter Map ( Identify ✓ Show Location tar rtE s'n Lpick on oo ass to pan mea p Printable Map For best output click heire 1.7 mi across. Tips: Click on the map or choose another option. You can also zoom in by geography. file://J69\IN1EnviroMapper.htm EPA GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION QUERY SYSTEM (Version 97.1.8) 07/22/03 Title : Yakima County, Washington Sub -Title: City of Yakima YAKIMA County, WA. Location in Lat/Long: 46 37 4 120 33 54' --(DMS) US Albers: •X= -196359 Y= 544046 (Meters) Map Scale: Auto Fit to 15 x 11 Notes: - Read Notes on accuracy and extent of all GIS database coverages!!! Note Version Id on top line as we --are continuouslyupgrading data layers, quality, and calculation -methods for this report and associated graphics. Disclaimer: This computer representation has been compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)•from sources which have supplied data or information that has not been verified by the EPA. This data is offered here as a general representation only, and is not to be used for commercial purposes without verification by an independant professional qualified to verify such data or information. The EPA does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information shown, and shall not be liable for any loss or injury resulting from reliance upon the -information shown. *** End of Notes *** <ff> *************************************************** ** EPA Regulated Site / Management Information ** *************************************************** Indian NationInformation *Site apparently not located within 1 mile any Indian Nation areas. Air Non- Attainment Area Information Si..telocated in Yakima PM10 non=attainment area. EPA-Envirofacts Facility Databases Information. Note:,07/22/2002 -- Using National EPA Envirofacts Data Layer 111/1 Important Notes: - 1. For information about the various EPA Facility Program databases http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/arcinfopu. nsft7b 76dd04196ea6af88256ab5006c912e/c2f0313 a... 7/24/2003:'' DOC. INDEX # `�_,3 and their environmental/regulatory aspects, see -the Envirofacts WWW home --page at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/ 2. Locational accuracy currently varies.::greatly.for.this database as EPA is in the process of improving_it:-.Somefacilities may still be located at zip code centroids or.even-'have-:wrong lat/longs putting a facility in a wrong state! 3. RCRIS facilities that are treatment, Storage -or disposal (TSD) and/or large quantity generators (LQG), are flagged with an.* after the RCRIS program code (RCRIS*). Small quantity and other are flagged with a - (RCRIS-). Your Specific Requested Options: RCRIS Facilities: Selected You have specified to include ONLY the treatment/storage/disposal (TSD) and large'quantity generator (LQG) facilities.::and.not the miscellaneous . small quantity and other handler facilities! The,,small quantity and other- RCRA facilities will ONLY be listed if the facility.ALSO HAS ANOTHER type requested facility! PCS (NPDES) Facilities: Selected AIRS/AFS Facilities: Selected CERCLA..Facilities: Selected TRI Facilities: Selected Text Report FacUIN: Pgm: Pgm Id: LocSrc: Accuracy: Legend: EPA unique facility identification number. EPA Program Acronym. EPA Program database identification #. Source of Albers projected data used for plotted point location. Estimated accuracy of locational data in meters for plotted point based on collection method. Distance Range From 0 to 1 mile(s): Envirofacts: 14 total facility record instances within search request. Of these, we are interested in the following Program Facilities: 9 RCRIS instances (All - "Major" end "Minor") ( 1 of these are "Major" TSD or LQG facilities) 4 PCS instances 0 AFS/AIRS instances 0 CERCLIS instances 0 TRIS instances FacUIN: 110008216983 Name: Addr: Pgm Pgm ID RCRIS*' WAD098553381. FacUIN: 110010845283 Pgm. PCS Pgm ID WAG435011 FabU-IN":•110010902568 PCS. Pgm ID WAG505056 FacUIN: 110010908036 MULTI MANUFACTURING INC 1120 N 34TH AV, YAKIMA, Lat Long Map 46.61685 -120.55298 WA. 989021010 LocSrc Accuracy 150m Name: JACK FROST FRUIT CO INC.. Addr: ?, ?, ?. ? Lat Long:-.::; LocSrc Map 46.61806 -120.54583 Name: Addr: COLUMBIA READY -MIX RIVER ROAD ?, ?, ?. ? Lat Long LocSrc Map 46.61806.-120.54583:. Name : - LLOYD GARRETSON :.CO Addr: ?, ?, ?. ? Accuracy Accuracy http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/arcinfopu.nsf/7b76dd04196ea6af88256ab5006c912e/c2f0313 a... 7/24/2003'' DOC. INDEX Pgm PCS •FacUIN: Pgm PCS Pgm ID Lat. Long . LocSrc Accuracy WAG435210 Map 46.62667 _120.58194 2 110010909320 Name: COLUMBIA REACH PACK Addr: ?, ?, ?. ? Pgm ID Lat Long WAG435032. Map 46.61806 -120.54917 Distance Range From 1 to 2 mile(s): LocSrc Accuracy Envirofacts: 44 total facility record instances.-within.search request... Of these, we are interested in the following..Program•:Facilities: 30 RCRIS instances (All - "Maj:or" • and :"Minor" ) ( 1 of these are "Major" TSD or LQG facilities) 10 PCS instances 2 AFS/AIRS instances 0 CERCLIS instances 1 TRIS instances FacUIN: 110000491218 Name: JOHN I HAAS INCORPORATED Addr: Pgm Pgm ID TRIS 98902JHNHS1112N AFS/AIRS WA0912929 Overrode RCRIS- WAD070398227 FacUIN: 110000542422 1110 Name: Addr: Pgm Pgm ID AFS/AIRS WA0815909 RCRIS- WAD058348939 FacUIN: 110005389695 Name: Addr: Pgm Pgm ID RCRIS* WAH000000307 FacUIN: 110010907251 Pgm PCS.- Pgm ID WAG435225 FacUIN: 110010907304 Pgm Pgm :ID PCS .'r - WAG435230 FacUIN:• 110010907732 PCS; WAG435166 FacUIN: 110010907849 111/1 FacUIN: 110010908116 Pgm PCS Pgm-•ID WAG435178 1112 N 16TH AV, YAKIMA,WA. 989021350 Lat Long ,LocSrc Map 46.61559 -120.52934 Map 46.61559 -120.52934 Pgm 46.60194 -120.50860 7 Map 46.61559 -120.52934 150m Accuracy 150m TENNECO PACKAGING SPECIALTY AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1111 N 20TH AV, YAKIMA, WA. 989021207 Lat Long LocSrc Accuracy Map 46.61646 -120.53463 150m Map 46.61646 -120.53463 150m ALLIED TECHNOLOGY GROUP ?, ?, ?. Lat Long Map 46.61325 -120.54236 Name: MELTON ORCHARDS Addr: ?, ?, ?. ? Lat Long. Map 46.-64000 -120.54861 Name: Addr: LocSrc Accuracy LocSrc Accuracy ? CM HOLTZINGER FRUIT RIVER ROAD ?, ?, ?. ? Lat Long LocSrc Map 46.62278 -120..54389,. Name: LLOYD GARRETSON:-;CO INC Addr: ?, ?, ?. ? Lat Long LocSrc Map 46.63444 -120..59111.. Name: KERSHAW SUPERCOLD. _.STORAGE,<INC Addr: ?, ?, ?. ? Lat Long LocSrc Map 46.61694 -120.53444- Name: EVANS FRUIT Addr: 7, ?, ?. ? Accuracy ? Accuracy ? Accuracy ?. http ://yosemite. epa.gov/r10/arcinfopu.nsf/7b76dd04196ea6af88256ab5006c912e/c2f0313 a... 7/24/2003 DOC. INDEX # J3 Pgm PCS Pgm ID WAG435097 FacUIN: 110010908394 Pgm PCS Pgm ID WAG435130 FacUIN: 110010908447 Pgm PCS WAG435138 FacUIN: 110010908768 Pgm PCS Pgm ID:. WAG435058 FacUIN: 110010908839 Pgm PCS Pgm ID WAG435070 FacUIN: 110010908991 Pgm PCS Pgm ID WAG435096 Name: Addr: Lat Long LocSrc Accuracy Map 46.59278 -120.57417 VANDERHOUWEN STORAGE ?, ?, Lat. Long Map 46.62500 -120.58694 LocSrc Accuracy Name: CONGDON ORCHARDS NOB HILL. Addr: 2, 2, ?. 2 Lat Long Map 46.59167 -120.58389 LocSrc Accuracy Name: GEORGE F JOSEPH ORCHARD. Addr: 2, ?, 2. ? Lat Long LocSrc Map 46.59639 -120.57722 Name: R A ACKLEY Addr: ?, 2, 2. 2 Lat Long Map 46.63444 -120.59111 Name: SUNDQUIST FRUIT Addr: 2, 2, ?. ? Lat Long Map 46.59250 -120.56611 Envfacts Facility Report completed... <ff> ************************************* ** Human Health Factors/Concerns ** ************************************* Population Factors Using 2000 Census Data Approximate Population and Demographic Analysis Accuracy. LocSrc Accuracy LocSrc. Accuracy Notes: 1) Based: on. summing Census Tract/Block centroids within distance ranges. A.'portion: of:_:actual.. bl.ock_may extend_..beyond distance (overcount) , or.portions of -:.some -blocks may be within distance -but..:centroid is..outside.(undercount). Usually within .5% in the 1 to 5 mile range. 2) The Hispanic Origin category is defined as an•ethnic category, not::as a race.:.in the official.: -Census definitions. Hispanic..Originmay includecounts from-a;any: of theCensus..:=race categories including.:=White:.>.PL94-:171 Census. -.data included a cross....tabulation of origin versus race.. Our.definition-for Total.. People of.-Color.:is Total Population - White Non-Hi°spanic_.as tabulated --in the PL9.4171' data The individual race summaries arealso.:_complicated-by the fact thaten2:000 ;allows -individuals to be more thanone.-race; Wei -have- summarized using the "only." category and did not include. the mixture counts;. thus•the percentages wi3l..usuaily not add up to 100 Distance Range 0 to'.1 mile(s): 132 Census Tract/Block Centroids within area Total Population = 4744 Comparison.. ID, OR, WA http://yosemite.epa: gov/r 10/arcinfopu.nsf/7b76dd04196ea6af88256ab 5006c912e/c2f0313 a... 7/24/2003 DOC. INDEX # J-3 • Stats By Race: White = 4211 88.8% 84.3% Black = 49 1.0% 2.3% AmInd_Eskimo = 27 0.6% 1.4% Asian = 55 1.2% 4.1% HawPacls = 8 0.2% 0.3% Other = 290 6.1% 4.1% By Origin: Hispanic Org = 500 10.5% 7.7% Total People of Color = 693 14.6%- 18.5% See note 2. Average:Pop Density per sq mi = 1510 (Centroids/Described Area). Distance Range 0 to 2 mile(s): 537 Census Tract/Block Centroids within area Total Population = 25100 Comparison ID,OR,WA Stats By Race: White = 21734 86.6% 84.3% Black = 257 1.0% 2.3% AmInd_Eskimo = 267 1.1% 1.4% Asian = 350 1.4% 4.1% Haw_Pacls = 29 0.1% 0.3% Other = 1845 7.4% 4.1% By Origin: Hispanic Org = 3438 13.7% 7.7% Total People of Color = 4647 18.5% 18.5% See note 2. Average Pop Density per sq mi = 1991 (Centroids/Described Area) <ff> Groundwater Sole Source Aquifer Information Site apparently not located within 1 mile of any Sole Source Aquifer areas. <ff> **' Ecosystem/Sensitive"Environments-Factors/Concerns:.. ** National -,Park Information-. Site apparently not located -within 1 mile.,.any-National.Park areas.. Priority/Sensitive-Animals, Plants, and•Habitats • In general, agreements, concerns, and legislative requirements.. with the providers of the following databases prevent us from plotting and/or analyzing in more detail the sensitive areas and points.on-maps that may be released to the general public. Contact the local database source for the most recent or • further detailed information, http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/arcinfopu.nsf/7b76dd04196ea6af88256ab5006c912e/c2f0313 a... 7/24/2003 DOC. INIDEX # J 3 State Natural Heritage Databases Individual State Heritage Programs compile databases containing significant site observations of selected species of concern, including federal and state species listed threatened, endangered, sensitive and other priority species. Washington Priority Habitats and Species Database from Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife - Jan 1994. Includes priority habitats and species information. May include - DUPLICATE information from the Washington Heritage database. Contact the WDW Data Request Line (Lori Adkins) at 360-9022543 for more information. SORRY - This database is offline right now! Wetlands Areas Portione of any reported wetland areas) may lay outside of the actual specified distance ranger Washington Database.from USF&W..National.Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Obtained from -Washington Dept Ecology in 1992. We are reporting only a subset of wetland type: US EM FO RS SB SS. Distance Range 0 to 1 mile(s): Washington Wetlands (USF&W NWI) 3 Wetland(s) with FWS Code: 1 Wetland(s) with FWS Code: 2 Wetland(s) with FWS Code: 3 Wetland(s) with FWS Code: 1 Wetland(s) with FWS Code: : 10 within area R3USA and total area of 10.45 acres. PSS1A and total area of 0.64 acres. PFOIA and total area of 5.62 acres. PFO1/USA and total area of 39.92 acres. PEM1C and total area of 0.92 acres. Total area of wetlands= 57.55 acres. Distance Range 1 to 2 mile(s): Washington Wetlands (USF&W NWI): 13 within area 2 Wetland(s) with FWS Code: PFO1/USA and total area 1 Wetland(s) with FWS Code: PUS/SS1A and total area 5 Wetland(s) with FWS :Code.:-__PFOTA and total : area of 1 Wetland(s) with FWS °:Code: PEM1/USA:; and .total-:• area 1 Wetland(s) with FWS Code:. PUS/FO1A_.and_ total area 2 Wetland(s) with FWS Code: R3USA.and ..total area of 1 Wetland(s) with FWS > Code R3USC and.. total.: area of Totalarea.of wetlands 105.00 acres. *********************** *** End of Report,.***- *********************** of 57.67 acres. of.9.92 acres. 25.93 acres. of 4.57 acres. of 2.75 acres. 2.78 acres. 1.37 acres. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/arcinfopu.nsf/7b76dd04196ea6af88256ab 5006c912e/c2f0313 a... 7/24/2003 DOC. INDEX # j-3 Map Features Water dischargers rr® Superfund ✓ r® Hazardous waste Toxic releases Fe. ®Air emissions ✓ F BRS r.. 17: Multi -activities S. 17 Schools ✓ r0 Hospitals • r Churches r r..A Populated - Places Streets ✓ �iv Streams ✓ ld;B:40 Water Bodies C r� Zipcodes Counties ®... earderkF erts M dere c n�Iewood'' 4,4!. .e Ben12man Douglas ERA's ErruiroMapper 17 Locator Map Zoom: Reset 0.9 mi across. Tips: Click on the map or choose another option. You can also zoom in by geography. Radius Zoom -Out By: 2• Recenter Map C Identify C.- Show Location Luicken corr�as]' co pan map Printable Map For best output click here http://maps.epa.gov/scripts/. esrimap?name=enviroMapperN&threshold�.3&zoomFactor=.:. 7/22/2003 DOC. INDEX # j —.3 WASNINSTON STATE OEPANTYENT OF ECOLOGY Toxics Cleanup Program Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia WA 98504-7600 HAZARDOUS SITES LIST.&.N s TICE OF HAZARD ,'.NKINO February 25, 2003,. This issue is an updated Hazardous Sites List as required by WAC 173-340-330. It includes all sites that have been assessed and ranked using the Washington Ranking Method. Also listed are National Priorities List sites.' Additions to the list, changes in remedial status of sites on the list, and removals from the_ list are publishedawice a year. Placement of a site on the Hazardous Sites List does not, by itself, imply that persons associated with the site are liable under Chapter 70.105D RCW. For additional information about a site on this list, please contact the appropriate indicated person. Direct questions regarding Hazardous Sites List or Site Register circulation to Sherrie Minnick at (360) 407-7200 or shan461@ecy.wa.gov. Ecology's telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) numbers are: Headquarters (360) 407-7155, Southwest Regional Office (360) 407-6306, Northwest Regional Office (425) 649-2590, Central Regional Office (509) 454-7673, Eastern Regional Office (509) 329- 3569. HOW A SITE GETS ON THE HAZARDOUS SITES LIST Sites on the Hazardous Sites List (excluding NPL sites) have undergone a preliminary study called a Site Hazar Assessment (SHA). An SHA provides Ecology with basic information about a site. Ecology then uses the Washington Ranking Method (WARM) to estimate the potential threat the site poses, if not cleaned up, to hum health and the environment. The estimate is based on the amount of contaminants, how toxic they are, and how easily they can come in contact with people and the environment. Sites are ranked relative to each other on a scale of one to five. A score of one represents the highest level of concern relative to other sites, and a score of five the lowest. Hazard ranking helps Ecology target where to spend cleanup funds. However, a site's actual impact on human health and the environment, public concern, a need for an immediate response, and available cleanup staff and funding also affect which sites get first priority for cleanup. HOW TO ACCESS DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SITE FILES To review a file or record pertaining to a site on the Hazardous Sites List, please contact the Public Disclosure Coordinator listed for the region in which the site resides. ®'Central Regional Office —Roger Johnson, 15 W. Yakima Ave. N., Yakima 98902-3387, (509) 454-7658, rjoh461 @ecy.wa:gov Eastern Regional Office — Johnnie Harris, N. 4601 Monroe St., Spokane 99205-1295, (509) 329-3415, johh461 @ecy.wa.gov Industrial Section —Kathy Vermillion, 300 Desmond Dr., Lacey 98503, (360) 407-6916, kver461@ecy.wa.gov . . • Northwest Regional Office — Sally Perkins,''3190160th Ave. SE, Bellevue 98008-5452, (425) 649-7190, sper461@ecy.wa.gov Northwest Regional Office — Sally Alexander, 3190 160th Ave. SE, Bellevue 98008-5452, (425) 649-7239, saa1461@ecy.wa.gov ®'Nuclear Waste Program — Valarie Peery, 1315 W. 4th Ave.; Kennewick 99336, (509) 736-3097, vpee461 @ecy.wa.gov ® Site Cleanup/Underground Storage Tank Unit --Carol Dorn, 300 Desmond Dr., Lacey 98503, (360) 407-7224, cesg461@ecy..wa.gov 0 Southwest Regional Office — Sherri Greenup,; 300 Desmond Dr., Lacey 98503, (360) 407-6365, swal461@ecy.wa.gov • Ecology provides additional information about each site through its various site lists located at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites/sites.html DOC. INDEX # L -J=3 Hazardous Sites. List Sites Removed from the Hazardous Sites List Ecology may remove a site from the list only after determining that all remedial actions except confirmational monitoring havebeen. completed and compliance with the cleanup standards has been achieved at the site, or the listing was erroneous. County Site Name Address Thurston Lacey Plywood Co Ply 5500 Lacey Blvd. Yakima . , Martinizing Gregsona LLC City Zip Code Rank.<, Lacey 98504 2 Summitview Ave 812 Summitview Ave. Yakima 98902 3 (Site will be delisted pending public comment period ending March 18, 2003.) Statewide No Further Action Sites Site Hazard Assessments were completed on these sites and Ecology finds no further action is required under the Model Toxics Control Act. County Site Name Nearest City Benton Eastgate Park - Kennewick Chelan Derby Canyon Peshastin Chelan Mission Ridge Ski Area Wenatchee Franklin " Shell Bulk Plant Pasco Pasco Island Nichols Bros Boat Builders Inc Freeland King Ace Radiator Seattle King Berdel Property Seattle King Northwest Auto Electric Enumclaw King Rowe Property Seattle g Thelma Pierce Property Seattle g US DEA APD SE Lake Moneysmith Auburn Auburn Kitsap Arper Dickey Road Landfill Silverdale Snohomish Ash Way Right of Way Lynwood Thurston 8338 58th Ave SE Olympia Thurston Alder St SE 1308 Drug Lab Lacey Walla Walla Walla Walla City Proposed Dispatch Cntr Walla Walla Whatcom Charles Property Blaine Hazardous.Sites List Legend ew site added'to the ranked'. lut February 2003 lew site added to the National Pnorities List (NPL; Ranking 0V Superfend::site;5tate.has teal 0. Superftmd's e; Federal (1=PA) has lead Oot Superfund site; faint lead 0* Siiperfund_s Site is.under a Federal Facilities Agreement DOC. INDEX # J-3 Hazardous Sites Lis Central Region (Cont.) Contact Persons: Frosti Smith (509):454-7841 or Michael Spencer (360) 407-7195 County Site Name Okanogan Lloyds Logging Equip Yd (Cont.) Lloyds Logging Exc Soil Loomis Chevron Minnie Mine Molson Dump $ Montanye Property Omak Gull 611 Oroville Dump Pariseau Farm Red Shirt Mill Tonasket Post & Rail Unocal 0855 US DOI BLM Yakima 201 W Yakima Ave Agri Tech Yak Steel Fab Alders Chevron Allied Technology Group American Red Cross Banks Property Bay Chemical ®Bay Zinc Co Inc Bee Jay Scales Bissell Distributing Buena LUST Bush Property Cameron Yakima Inc Carlos Motors Cascade Natural Gas Circle L Cliffs Battery Service CMX Corporation Comet Trailer Consolidated Freightways Eglet Surplus Evergreen Products Fifth WheelTruck Repair Frank=Wear Cleaners • Gearjamnoer Truck Plaza ♦ Gold Nugget Market Halm Motor Company Interstate -82 Exit 33A Johnnys Texaco Kelloggs Korner Kelly Oil Kershaw Orchard La Rosita Maid 0 Clover Maid 0 Clover Sunnyside Manhole 34 Nearest City Rank Status Twisp Twisp Loomis. Carlton _. Molson Tonasket Omak Oroville Brewster Twisp Tonasket Omak Nighthawk Yakima Yakima Yakima Yakima Yakima. Yakima Yakima Moxee City Sunnyside Yakima Buena Yakima Yakima Yakima Sunnyside Sunnyside Sunnyside Yakima Selah Yakima Zillah Parker Yakima. Yakima Union Gap Buena: Yakima Yakima Sunnyside. Sunnyside: Yakima::... Gleed/Yakima :... Sunnyside- Yakimaca: Sunnyside Sunnyside • 5 Awaiting RA 5 Independent RA 5 Awaiting RA 2 Construction Complete . e: 5 Awaiting RA 4 Awaiting RA 3 Awaiting RA 5 Independent RA 2 Awaiting RA 1 Awaiting RA 5 Awaiting RA 2 Independent RA 1 RA in Progress 5 Awaiting RA 2 RA in Progress 2 Independent RA 3 Awaiting RA 5 Awaiting RA 3 Independent RA 2 RA in Progress 2 RA in Progress 1 RA in Progress 5 Awaiting RA 2 Awaiting RA 5 Independent RA 1 Construction Complete 1 Independent RA 1 Construction Complete 1 Awaiting RA 4 Awaiting RA 3 Independent RA 1 Awaiting RA 4 Independent RA 4 Awaiting RA 3 Awaiting RA 3 Construction. Complete :_. 1 Construction Complete 5 Awaiting RA 5 Awaiting RA 3 RA in Progress 5 Awaiting RA 4 RA in Progress 1 Construction Complete 3 Awaiting RA 5 Awaiting RA 2 Awaiting RA 2 Independent RA 3 Awaiting RA 1 RA in Progress • Hazardous Stl es List Leger Newsite added to,the ranked hst February2003 New site added to'the. Nat onat'Priorities List. (NPL) Ranking 09 5uperfund site, State has lead OA peiliund site, federal (:EPA) has Lead 0®.5uperfund site .Joint lead 0:5uperfund site, :Site is.under a Federal Facilities Agreement DOC. INDEX # J:3 Centrad Region (Cont.) Contact Persons: Frosti Smith (509) 454-7841 or Michael: Spencer (360) 407-7195 County Site Name Nearest City . Rank Status Yakima Martinizing Gregsona LLC Summitview Yakima 3 Construction Complete (Cont.) (Site will be delisted pending public comment period ending :March 18, 2003.) Medic 1 Facility. Yakima :. 5 Awaiting RA Nakano Foods Yakima. 5 Independent RA Noland Decoto Flying Ser Inc Yakima- 5 Awaiting RA Northwest Truck Repair Union. Gap..; 3 Independent RA NuWay Cleaners Yakima. =. 1 RA in Progress NW Pipeline St Grandview Grandview. 3 Awaiting RA NW Pipeline St Sunnyside Sunnyside 3 Awaiting RA NW Pipeline St Yakima Yakima 3 Awaiting RA Outlook School Outlook 3 Independent RA Pit Stop Naches Naches. 4 Awaiting RA Rainier Plastics Company Yakima 3 Awaiting RA Residence Chambers ' Yakima 4 Awaiting RA Richardson Airways Yakima 2 Construction Complete Roza Irrigation District Sunnyside 3 Awaiting RA Selah Dump Selah 5 Awaiting RA Shields Bag & Printing Co Yakima 5 Awaiting RA Snipes Mountain Landfill Sunnyside 4 RA in Progress Southgate Laundry Yakima 3 Construction Complete Sunnyside Municipal Well Sunnyside 3 Awaiting RA Superior Asphalt Yakima 1 Construction Complete Terrace Hts Landfill Pesticide Yakima 5 Awaiting RA Texaco Bulk Plant • Grandview 2 Awaiting RA Tiger Oil 16th St & E Nob Hill Yakima 2 Awaiting RA Tiger Oil 24th & W Nob Hill Yakima 1 RA in Progress Tiger Oil North 1' St Fmr 6013 Yakima 3 Awaiting RA Tonys Auto Repair Yakima 3 Awaiting RA Unocal 76 Yakima 2 Awaiting RA Unocal Bulk Plant 0766 Sunnyside 1 ' Independent RA US Army Yakima Training Center Yakima 2 RA in Progress Valley Dry Cleaners Sunnyside 2 Awaiting RA Valley Junk Yakima 3 Awaiting RA VanCleave Body- Shop Yakima 1 Awaiting RA WA DOT Rimrock Naches 3 Independent RA WA DOT Union,Gap Union Gap _ . 3 Independent RA Wash:.Cen.RR Roundhouse- Yakima,-.:;. 1 RA in Progress Yakima city Fire Department Yakima 5 Awaiting RA Yakima Gull 1614 Yakima 3 Awaiting RA ' Yakima Old City Landfill Yakima 5 Awaiting RA Yakima Speedway Yakima 5 Awaiting RA Yakima:Valley Spray Yakima..:.: 1 RA in Progress Zwight Logging - Yakima:-: 3 Awaiting RA azardous Sites List Legend dery site addedrto the rankedlist February 2003 6W -site added to -the National Priorities •List; (NPL)': Ranking'.0Y Superfundsite; Staff a has lead 0A:Superfundstte; Federal (EPA) has lead. Ora Superfund site, Jaunt lead } 0 `5uperfunds�te; 5ue'u under -.aFederal Facilities Agreement DOC. INDEX # J -3 Awaiting Further Remedial Action: Only a Site Hazard Assessment has been completed at the site. Remedial Action in Progress: Ecology has oversight. This can include sites undergoing: 1) Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study; 2) Interim Action (any remedial action that partially addresses the cleanup of a site); 3) Cleanup Action (active construction). Construction Complete: This category includes sites where_all major cleanup construction has been completed; but various: levelsof operation/ maintenance/monitoring may continue to be performed at the site. Independent Remedial Action: This category includes all sites with independent remedial actions underway currently or completed but work not verified by the department, or sites that have entered Ecology's Voluntary Cleanup Program. Hazardous Sites List: A list of ranked sites that require further remedial action. Interim Action: Any remedial action that partially addresses the cleanup of a site. National Priorities List (NPL):. Environmental Protection Agency:.(EPA)-list:of.hazardous- waste sites identified for: possible long-term response. •These sites. are either -managed by:the:.State under MTCA requirements,_managed:byEPA under. CERCLA.requirements, managed_by-both (co -lead); or under a Federal:Facilities Tri -party Agreement. Hazardous Sites List Legend: *New site added to the ranked list February 2003 ® New site added to the National Priorities List (NPL) .. Remedial Action: Any action to identify, eliminate, or minimize any threat posed by hazardous substances to human health or the environment, including any investigative and monitoring activities of any release or threatened release of a hazardous substance and any health assessments or health effects studies. Site Hazard Assessment (SHA): An assessment:_ to gather information about a site to confirm whether a release has occurred and to enable Ecology to evaluate the relative potential hazard posed by the release. If further action is needed, a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study is undertaken. State Remedial investigation/ Feasibility Study: A study to define the extent of the problems at a site and evaluate alternative cleanup actions. A comment period on the fmal report is required. Ecology selects the preferred alternative after reviewing these comments. Washington Ranking Method (WARM): Method used to rank sites placed on the Hazardous Sites List. A report describing this method is available from the department. Ranking OT Superfund site; O Superfund site; OeSuperfund site; 0* Superfund site; State has lead Federal,(EPA)has lead :Joint lead Site is under a'Federal. Facilities Agreement DOC. INDEX 25 DEPART T OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGR SITE INFORMATIOWSYSTEM CONFIRM AND SUSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES LIST .„. FS ID SITE NAME CITYr too:,"ppwwWARM LOCATION ADDRESS pp CODE oNtoiloviYiustuotw • JAI, 2003 VCP AFFECTED MEDIA „ - MEDIA STATUS ii13 i7C. .14 Fla i0 5t 22625296 201 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMAMIMIg.5,F,•5-9 201 W YAKIMA AVEft-visoopoarwodt El ACTIVITY - • STATUS START:: END LEGAL 7/7/2000 11/9/2000 C 11/13/2000 11/20/2000 • C 11/13/2000 .8/1/2901 2/28/2001 8/21/2001 C 8/28/2901 8/28/2001 ENL SHA SHA HSL 28495772 7 ELEVEN STORE 2307 27470H YAKIMA FAC:51WIFO:Ni,gA 810 E YAKIMA AVE . 98902 iffigi,KOCE54:1:00::3Ei ACTIVITY STATUS START END. LEGAL IRRP 11/4/2092 3/11/2003 556 ADELINE CITY OF YAKIMAYAKI" tr••-itv,;ti MA A -0•A I SHA IA RI/FS IRRP COM 16 N 1ST ST 98901 • ;. ACTIVITY STATUS • • START. END .LEGAL 2/1/1996 2/1/1998 6 ;C. 2/1/1996 • 11/10/1996 3 X 2/1/1996 11/10/1996 3 C 10/3/1996 10/8/1996 11/10/1996 12/31/2007 p•CF<VVf" 4641•Wri 4 1 4 1 1 12243 ADVANCED CARPET WAREHOUSE YAKIMA .• 124 S 2NDST ; 98901 0001koftroatwi El • • ACTIVITY • • STATUS • START ••• END LEGAL IRRP 7/28/1997 12/16/1997 . •,„ YAKIMA 98903' • 01-01#904,02,61.2062i •• 479 SHA • HSL t::1 RI/FS" AGRI TECH YAK STEEL FAB 8 E WASHINGTON • ;' : . - • ACTIVITY • STATUS • START END LEGAL 2/28/1991 6/30/1991 C 7/31/1991 7/31/1991 6 , . 7/7/1997 3/1/2003 - 4 4 4 C roi • M A c El, pri EMJ JZfel FS "g5,1 PAI F7 .711 ro 5 rf4 E4 rim Effil • p, .R1 Ki Vt; fo‘ Eig 5.m ti7:4 R.1 r5 'f,W FA R KT!) c El re go FrA ig VT".. c re, 0,5L Fg.R1 gz, g' c RN fa TT I'm C M c Ub7crdr -RI rp: )NTAMINANT KEY: S -SUSPECTED, c-cpwiRmED,N.REmEDiATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, 1 -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED FER TO ATTACHED LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DATA Page 450 of 473 r ff cscsI for web_pdf version DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGRATED SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM CONFIRMED AND SUSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES LIST July 10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CITY ECO'STAT s WARM °' AFFECTED MEDIA ZIP CODE ENTERED DTIAST I1PDT4 VCP MEDIA STATUS it tit i3 14 16 Ft 18 19 20 511 ALDERS CHEVRON YAKIMA mwo'' 1602 TERRACE HEIGHTS RD 9890.1 ACTIVITY STATUS START ,.. END • LEGAL II , ; ...o . 3/5/1992 3/5/1992 HSL . C: 9/7/1993 9/7/1993 51794365 ALLIED TECHNOLOGYGROUP'MARVII YAKIMA • - 2403 FRUITVALEBLVD 98902 PPP ACTIVITY STATUS START END ' LEGAL II C { 10/6/2000 10/9/2000 SHA C 10/9/2000 8/21/2001 I ENL C 10/9/2000 10/23/2000 HSL . -.0 ,' 8/28/2001 8/28/2001 j IRRP i ..1. 6/30/2003 6/30/2004 51712731 AMERICAN RED CROSS YAKIMA YAKIMA 98901 [T9/{i}J1999 :0/'►0/200. 0 ACTIVITY STATUS START END >' LEGAL 1:. $0/2003 0 Il IENL SHA HSL 302 S 2ND ST C 8/25/1999 8/26/1999 C 2/28/2000 2/28/2000 C 4/4/2000 7/14/2000 C 8/29/2000 8/29/2000 62627394 ARCO 4437 601 E YAKIMA AVE ACTIVITY j IRRP YAKIMA 98901 STATUS START. END LEGAL C 12/10/2001 3/7/2002 YAKIMA 98901 538 BANKS PROPERTY 1;02 N NACHES AVE SHA HSL RI/FS tOM /24/194} ` I `6/4/2U0 ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL -C ` 9/20/1994 12/30/1994 7 C 2/21/1995 2/21/1995 C . 9/30/1997 12/17/1999 1 _ f 12/17/1999 12/31/2005 4 s S 4 R 1 4 1 4 4 S C B B rtf FB - r e� )NTAMINANT KEY: S -SUSPECTED, C -CONFIRMED, R-REMEDIATED, 8 -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED EFER TO ATT iEGEND'FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DATA Page �173` r f_cscsl for � version DEPART 'T OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGR SITE INFORMATION'SYSTEM ° CONFIRM AND SUSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES UST • July10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODEtEREDDASIJPDT 111064tAVR1WARICO VCP MEDIA STATUS t2 11 2 i i4 20 Oqc?'1"-i- KI . . 476 FPA ; II FSI SHA HSL RI/FS BAY CHEMICAL 8 E WASHINGTON AVE ACTIVITY • YAKIMA 98901: i'•*27iff90f31.0/18i:200: El STATUS • START END. LEGAL C 6/27/1988 C 1/10/1989 C 2/13/1989 C 1/15/1991 C 8/27/1991 ,3C7/1994 8/15/1988 1/12/1989 10/5/1989 4/15/1991 8/27/1991 12/23/1997 17964725 BAY ZINC CO INC MOXEE CITY "gm , wmpT07.27771 liV q171/RRipli,RD 98936-0167 nifilikRIF8723000LJ RI/FS CAP CC ENL ACTIVITY STATUS START 4/27/2001 7/1/2002 I 11/1/2002 C 4/27/2011 END LEGAL 10/3/2002 10/3/2002 8/1/2004 2 4/27/2001 504 BEE JAY SCALES 116N 1ST ACTIVITY II ENL ; SHA ENL HSL ENL ENL 1 ENL ENL RI/FS S UN NYS ID E t'4::.0;!3!:=3!.•M 98944 R1bEi1491it12/1812003;LI STATUS START END LEGAL C 11/13/1991 11/13/1991 C 11/26/1991 11/26/1991 C 12/19/1991 2/1/1992 C 1/21/1992 1/21/1992 C 2/25/1992 2/25/1992 C 2/5/2001 215/2001 C 4/16/2001 4/16/2001 C 7/24/2001 7/24/2001 C 3/28/2002 3/28/2002 6/5/2002 9/30/2004 38481345 BIG VALLEY MOTEL YAKIMA 98901 ,),8/1/2002,71 0 28/ 0 ' - ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL • . 1504.. N STST IA IRRP C 5/21/2002 6/26/2002 I 6/26/2002 6/26/2003 C 8/21/2002 10/28/2002 4 1 4 4 1 1 4 RN PM A PP v.:. A A RPL, . El IR EP m RI F7 s PP R PP tP OP pg m ET giT P7 PI gg .F;7 7 Eg 1.ge . ;:to• ..4 p.,Th RFel PP K3 '41 •;.1 C 13,171 • re7., 0.1 R; .FA F,0 • C 55 41rrc4FP p3;11_ w Fcv; rig RF fcg. C rki 1.7.1 C 'RHEA TiA ;:p IR ri7_,Ig c:;;,;,, r,:';7:.; :1;7] • ;ONTAMINANT KEY: S -SUSPECTED, C -CONFIRMED, R-REMEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED tEFER TO ATTACHED LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION 6F16-0DED DATA Page 452 of 473 r ff cscsl for web_pdf version DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGRATED SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM, CONFIRMED AND .SUSPECTED C®NTAIU INATED SITES LIST July 10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODE EC05TAT WARM::=`{r"s. ENTERED DT LLAST JIPDT AFFECTED MEDIA - VCP MEDIA STATUS [41,90. '12 1 14 5 16 17 18 491 20 92688321 BISSELL DISTRIBUTING 311W1ST ill SHA ENL f HSL 56531667 SD iII RC ;COM !ENL ACTIVITY YAKIMA 98902 11/9/20D0 `1;0/15/2UQ2r STATUS START END LEGAL 4 C C 10/10/200010/10/2000 C 10/10/2000 8/21/2001 C 10/10/200010/23/2000 8/28/2001 8/28/2001 BLEYHL FARM SERVICE SUNNYSIDE' SU NNYSIDE . ,.., , .._..... 1720 EASTWAY DR':. 98944 '::9agi2600 ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL 4 C • 2/3/1997 2/7/1997 C 2/3/1997 3/7/1997 C , 3/19/1997 4/21/1997 I 4/27/1997 4/27/2003 C 9/18/2002 9/18/2002 17965393 BOISE CASCADE PLYWOOD LOG YAR YAKIMA P ; N,7TH & H ST ' 98901 F6/, 4(i 9x; T , ! ACTIVITY ;STATUS :START .- END • LEGAL II C . 4/23/1998 4/23/1998 6 j ENL - C._. 4/24/1998 4/24/1998 27377292 BUENA LABOR CAMP . BUENA BUENA RD & HIGHLAND RD 98921 gdiffiltia2 I;Q/15/2p02;` , �✓ IRRP F 0/1/20021 ACTIVITY . STATUS START END . LEGAL C . 6/1/2002 8/21/2002 522 BUENA LUST MAIN '& HIGHLAND DR ACTIVITY II ENL HSL BUENA 989216/10/1992;, STATUS START END LEGAL C '! 10/4/1985 10/4/1985 C 7/28/1992 7/28/1992 C 9/7/1993 9/7/1993 0115/200 III 4 2 4 1 4 i C S C C C CN4i"h C ;ONTAMINANTK 5 -SUSPECTED, C-CQNFIRMED R-REMEDIATED B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED IEFER TO ATT EGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DATA Page 473 rff_cscsl for • version DEPART. .T OFc4:-.)1_,opy --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGR 'SITEINFORMATIOWSYSTEM.t:' CONFIR AND'SUSPECTED'CONTAMiNATED SITES UST FS ID SITE NAME.'i'', !,'-;:.": '! ' ' ,'•::':•'' . ' , '?;''' '' "Ci-ry ' ,;06$4-AtiqVT,k410i, LOCATION ADDRESS ZIP CODE EWEREb*IlLABT..:UPDT,1 VCP MEDIA STATUS 1) • July 10, 2003 4275364 BUSH PROPERTY 5412 MORNINGSIDE DR ACTIVITY SD SHA ; HSL YAKIMA 98901 STATUS START END C 2/20/1998 2/23/1998 C 3/24/1999 7/30/1999 C 7/31/1999 7/31/1999 WWWW8P5 2i2410.1071*10/2003 LEGAL 458 II RI/FS SHA HSL RI/FS IA A COM CAMERON YAKIMA INC YAKIMA. RligrOWART ERRIRER 1414 S 1ST ST 98901-1729Otlififi8Til rnir6/2601 • ACTIVITY STATUS • START END LEGAL C 9/6/1985 9/6/1985 X 10/10/1990 4/10/1992 5 C 1/15/1991 6/30/1991. • C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 C 3/31/1994 9/29/2000 1 C 7/16/1996 10/31/1996 C 9/30/1999 9/30/2000 5 9/30/2000 12/31/2007 CARLOS MOTORS YAKIMA RAVF9 f,;;;N-RfAti.I 1ST ST & MEAD AVE • 98902 /7I1994 10115/2002 El ACTIVITY STATUS START • END • LEGAL 543 SD II SHA HSL C 4/20/1993 4/20/1993 C 1/1/1994 1/15/1994 C 6/30/1994 6/30/1994 C 8/23/1994 8/23/1994 492 CASCADE NATURAL GAS SU N NYS IDE 55:MO.15.7.W.:35:9,:j 512 DECATUR AVE 98944 6/5/i991 10/28/2002 111 . . . . . . - . ACTIVITY,. STATUS START END LEGAL SHA • C 4/15/1991 7/15/1.991 HSL C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 RI/FS C 4/15/1994 6/1/1995 CAP . C 4/3/1995 5/12/1998 ty PR i P 5/12/2003 5/12/2004 0 V 2 3 2 s pup p r4 p fR3 Vg R,707 FR KZ 4 • C Fq RO aq MP g0 RI Ff P4 7 PR•Fffl 2 S P.1 rAl r01 RUN Ntl F41 3 5 S ri pA rolro RiD Rig F-4 fu 10, S N * RN P5 R4 iPOOR !I R4 fF Pi 6 C gp, fq ro -7 FR PT 17 c PI g PI PA RI Pg RP Pg14 WP 0! P4 PI PI P. FP! 4 C c FOI firm4 ra k.7•4 ;4.s. 4 4 c .ro P.71, 17-0.1 r.41 47.1 f34 • K.! c 0Fig pi R-71 rig& • i!3-7,!.; ;ONTAMINANT KEY: S-SUSPECT,E.9 7c 0NFIR.,,MER, R-REMEDIATED, B -BELOW MICA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: p -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED iEFER TO ATTACHED LEGENIS;FOR EXPLANATION DFibODED DATA Page 454 of r ff cscsl for web_pdf version #ju# DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGRATED SITE INFORMATION'SYSTEM CONFIRMED AND SUSPECT.ED'CONTAMINATED SITES UST July 10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CJTY ZIP CODE rf7Edd STAT --1111ARM'';`'AFFECTED MEDIA ENTERED-to:LAST UPDT! VCP MEDIA sTATus:Zti i3! tai 8,• i4 15 16 49 "20 • 526 HSL CIRCLE L 809 STATE HWY 12 ACTIVITY SUNNYSIDE PRiV.59.r?..74•711FM 98944K5/417950;71:;f'..."1"265-31 111 1 3 4 STATUS START END LEGAL C 3/9/1993 3/9/1993 451 CLIFFS BATTERY SERVICE SUNNYSIDEUN!.7f.'"•.'W;),M5R•riSN'Fig SCOON & WOODIN RD 98944 . • .. - • „ F7.37i1i1956!05al20O2 111 ACTIVITY STATUS START • END LEGAL • C• , • ' 2/22/1984 2/22/1984 C. 9/1/1991' 2/1/1992 C 2/25/1992 2/25/1992 II SHA HSL 4 s ••W P.4trig k,,,,,••„ i,!,•,g Fig s rsj pai Fp, F.N FA pi p• rig s V4 '70 7 pzi M 51 c p„11 ro RI !R. ftl RP FA pg m ;.PA • 459 -CMX CORP YAKIMA . POW5WPWASTR? 206 W MEAD AVE 98902 =;44014640ilig 1=1 ACTIVITY STATUS START END • LEGAL 1 S [1W RP RR RI M ''' Wig 9 RR P r,-, :.-,, RI 4i,i'm , 1 11 . C , 4/2/1985 4/2/1985 ' 6 SIm RA PI PM FP RW ,p, :79 ip ig. RI FR pg n 11 43 FPA ' • C 6/1/1988 8/15/1988 4 C NI !iol Fp, • RI m tiii KA El RI p IN • f,55, Efl • p; ta rg i FSI C . . 2/13/1989 3/27/1989 FSI . • • C ' ' 2/13/1989 3/27/1989 I FSI C ' 1/1/1990: 2/9/1990 = SHA C 1/15/1991 6/30/1991 = HSL • C • 812711991 13/2711991 IA . 0 ... 3/19/1992 3/27/1992 1 503 COMET TRAILER CORP 501 S 1ST ST • ACTIVITY 11 II ENL SHA HSL ENL SELAH .98942 • ,!•6::-,g3w7.k:':•:,44,R,- k466.i 0014 liwiogoa STATUS START END LEGAL C 1/1/1985 1/1/1985 C 9/19/1991 9/19/1991 C 10/2/1991 10/2/1991 C 10/3/1991 2/1/1992 C 2/25/1992 2/25/1992 12/10/2002 12/10/2002 1 2 4 s ig [41 El RN • 10 Pi IA RI 17 g g? s (.0j • ig Es] R9,1 r,0 ricp , RI lig • c RI g OA PR RO rl PM M Fl P7r 01 NI Fr FN FA. IONTAMINANT KEY: S -SUSPECTED, C -CONFIRMED,- R-REMEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED !EFER TO ATT EGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DATA .• Page 473 r ffcscit for version DEPART INTEG CONFIR T OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM AND SUSPECTEDIONTAOIATED SITES LIST Ju, 2003, FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS N*001:100490.A.ftki.rgi ZIP CODE ENTElfittiOt FLAttUPOT1 VCP AFFECTED MEDIA ''„ - MEDIA STATUS F,R 6, '14 19 20 , . r 42789196 -CON6DOWRETAIL PROPERTY YAKIMA .K9Titni2M-01 = ,98901 .. . 41W2002 10/EJ P 6900,WiN0p OW; BLVD .;- I - 1 ACTIVITY . STATUS START END LEGAL IRRP. : 1: - ,-',-- 4/9/2002 4/9/2004 ' ' . —....,.. -,, 498 CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS YAKIMA 1*Y-4n4;04.4 i51' A54";-'40. 1105 S 3RD ST 98901 C6{100,91 l-0110200 0 WI Y V ,....,..•0 \ M •4 ... • I . . ACTIVITY STATUS - START . END LEGALL SHA • C 9/1/1990 2/1/1991 HSL C 3/12/1991 3/12/1991 39531262 DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE SCREEN SI YAKIMA ITV17RTZ7VOM 3705 W WASHINGTON 98908 Via472003ii.011572001 0 ACTIVITY STATUS START END • LEGAL 7/24/2001 7/24/2001 • I .P.77274915TN5,01 10045 EGLET SURPLUS 21 L LAH 14831 YAKIMA VALLEY HWY 98953 ktiNif6#61WriiiViddll Il ACIrneitir ' STATUS START • END LEGAL C 3/25/1996 3/25/1996 6 C 7/30/1996 8/5/1996 C .8/5/1996 11/1/1996 10/30/1996 11/5/1996 :3/24/1999, 7/30/1999 ENL HSL SD ENL SHA c I.: • e 7399801 EMERALD RANCHES FORMER POST 0 SUNNYSIDE KAnsal EMERALD RD • = ' 98944/J9/2668.9t;,3/30/2:0037 El I ACTIVITY STATUS START • END LEGAL IRRP I 3/13/2003 3/13/2004 68128388 EVANS FRUIT PIONEER WAY COWICHE ; PaRAMMUSMAral . PIONEER WAY . 98923 ilF*0077,,,I10700504 ACTIVITY : STATUS START END LEGAL C 5/15/2000 4/11/2001 • C 4/23/2001 4/23/2001 1, II ENL LI 5 4 4 4 1 2 4 4 4 C [TR 17: 11F-P.ri P Vc7,1. FP: Ral rj. IF4 FR pp t47 FoR !iol 6-71 pg. C gi c FrIm 13 KR RR 17.4 .1.311 RR F.1 • • C FrA !'",1 !r -i• c r s RA PillA gN PI RA se C V.1 RI C 111 S .13A PI RI C gi 141 'g•iiTi 3 I:7 Ri VP ti7,•:qri OP PA FR PI R4 PI PI fAA gR Ag iTO VT Fl [P: R7 ON P.;',9fr RN i;IAR$ M Ell F7 FR RN F7: pw F . R4: FOP" ri iT2 F :pi rg, f4117 P.M.i-A m ri iz] gp.p,7 tRi r::RR WI7J F CONTAMINANT KEY: S,SUSPECTEWCrcONFIRMED, R-REMEDIATED,,13-BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY:,p-PLANNED, I -IN PROC8S,97PD!VII!1g.1:,..p, X - CANCELED . REFER TO ATTACHED LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DMA Page 46 of . ffcsds1 fdr web_pdf version DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGRATED SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM CONFIRMED AND SUSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES LIST July 10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CITY " vtog$1Arp,,,e:WmaitifT;ip„ aitititootoottlitiati ZIP CODE vcp mEDIA Trm-us* F0047, id,12. . 14 si0'it'd 20 • • • •• • 20944 II ENL EVANS ORCHARDS 600•ROSaNKRANZ7 • ACTIVITY TIETON uz,NiFq74Fgwro 98947 PigitiglrfoMpotroi • STATUS START END LEGAL ' ,4-1- 6/21/1996 6/21/1996 C 10/2/1996 10/2/1996 554 FIFTH WHEEL TRUCK REPAIR 'YAKIMA p,'440iNiAW:InXV,,:'w 307 E ARLINGTON 98901 41.0:01Ve F17014007.1 ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL 1 ENL I C 2/26/1993 2/26/1993 6 RI/FS C 1/13/1995 1/13/1998 1 • IA C 1/13/1995 5/3/2001 1 SHA , C 10/15/1996 1/7/1997 HSL C 10/16/1996 10/16/1996 6 COM I 5/3/2001 12/31/2007 102 .• RI/FS .1 CAP i CED HSL • PR' CC FMC YAKIMA 4 W WASHINGTON AVE ACTIVITY YAKIMA • RAVORMli 98903 WOO8 TIV20bi0 STATUS START END LEGAL 0 6/1/1988 3/31/1990 C 1/1/1989 9/30/1990 4/4/1989 4/30/1992 C 9/10/1990 9/10/1990 •• 1 - 5/1/1992 5/1/1997 C 5/1/1992 5/1/1994 444 FRANKANEAR CLEANERS • YAKIMA 106•S 3RD AVE 98902 ACTIVITY STATUS : START END LEGAL C 9/10/1985 11/19/1985 C 4/1/1989 6/22/1989 C 6/6/1990 6/6/1990 C 1/15/1991 6/30/1991 C 8/27/1991 8/27/199.1 • X 8/27/1996 5/3/2001 2 7/28/1997 5/3/2001 2 5/3/2001 12/31/2007 • II • FPA FSI SHA HSL RI/FS IA COM 4 1 4 4 1 4 1 5 6 c tirh . NI , p*, fai C El g Pi g EP rl f„, ul F9 RI RI 5g Ffl El rl c 1-73 *10, p, R1 ra m • if..4 C idi1 F M : 1,0 gi IA ra fq4 ffi ri RI 0.t= P.7e; 175 • 19 rdl RI fig go Rgg 179 •Fl pp•Rif • i01 • r;1 rfg [;, • • P3 W r,R 19 R2 FO WR P5 PA Fi gg M FR R RI R7 R7. • 7O1 00, fg m Eq rm FMr P-71 fig FT CONTAMINANT KEY: S -SUSPECTED, C -CONFIRMED, R-REMEDIATED;,I3-BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO ATI LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DATA - Pag f 473 r ff cscsl for f version ci t DEPART T OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGR SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM CONFIRMED AND SUSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES LIST July 10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CITY ZIP.CODE ENTEREthLStUPDT AFFECTED MEDIA . . . , - , , VCP MEDIA STATUS r.41 r,61 44 Ft& 16 FiyA is, Ft& io Pqr 25977617 FRY BUILDING 11.1 S 6TH, pT • SUNNYSIDE 9.39440 ,„- ACTIVITY STATUS START • END : LEGAL ENL 7/.)012001 7/16/2001 . 26981244 GEARJAMMER TRUCK PLAZA UNION GAP 2310 RUDKIN RO 98903.1609' ktiftworciaidadoVi ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL ENL 4/23/1996 4/23/1996 SD C 3/11/1999 3/11/1999 SHA 4/2/2000 12/26/2002 28575673 GOLD NUGGET MARKET 1041 BUENA RD ACTIVITY II ENL SHA ' BUENA /..45;•201q;;;IK6',,:;,A0 98921 4004 ID STATUS. START END. LEGAL C 8/16/1999 8/16/1999 C 2/28/2000 2/28/2000 2/28/2001 12/26/2002 555 GOODWILL CITY OF YAKIMA YAKIMA ' Rgi,f45;;TAC:6:45PAPI 222 S 3RD ST 98901 K3401,666 r6/41;4'01 El ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL SHA C 11/1/1994 11/1/1994 6 RI/FS X • 2/1/1995 2/1/1997 3 COM I 2/1/1995 12/31/2007 IA C 2/1/1995 '2/111995 3 510 HAAS FRUIT WHSE YAKIMA 711 RUSSELL LA:. 98903 4)K992; ',7i9i.1.00J1LI ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL 1/13/1992 2/7/1992 ENL C 3/23/1992 3/23/1992 SHA C 7/29/1994 12/30/1994 1 c -FM PR Fl Fro 101 FR pr) 4 C ;';;vA rl Tg mog Mr7 RI P72: 1 4 c 0 R. Pifl 01.;4: f.z s IT1 Et41 "i R:c1 19, tgi fq f-.74 1 C kr„, $11 r9 F.0 RI 4 S WA' Figi F,,, RI R4.7. RI grl p ro 1 4 •• c go 5A RI rtil pg gq C M. A RI ig tif4 01;71 tgq Pi rgq vi.!;! F13; P•1! 174 1 4 s RI V, rl Fal rlo ER FP 1M R53 t71 •;'17 N Ii"•01 Pi V! FRI F ro flq FE 01 7. • • RI FR pm :ONTAMINANT KEY: S -SUSPECTED, CCONFIRMED, R-REMEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED 2EFER TO ATTACHED LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DATA Page 458 of 473 r ff cscsl for web_pdf version DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGRATED SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM CONFIRMED AND SUSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES LIST July 10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CITY' ZIP CODE ENTEREM011OssT.uppr VCP AFFECTED MEDIA STATUS 2 F3 r4$1 Val 54 54 16 Z 18 54 20 Ana 502 HAHN MOTOR COMPANY YAKIMA 1201 &1ST $T . '4: . ... 98901. ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL ) SHA .,! C ,7, 1/1/1991 4/1/1991 i HSL C 3112/1991 3/12/1991 ! RI/FS X 8/1/1993 4/1/1999 '9i10ii99fAri';.640561 vapalulagMENO. , ? 532 HARTWELL APARTMENTBLDG P7P4KKERWPPRi 214 E 3130ST 98951 • ;iiiii66401 ACTIVITY • STATUS START ! END LEGAL 3/5/1993 3/5/1993 SD 49841142 liELI FLIGHT AGRICULTURAL SERVICI ZILLAH • FAVERRIERMN 7490 YAKIMA VALLErHyvy.,, ;': ,; i, , 98953 , 45406tiif tiolitiitioll 0 ACTIVITY ' . STATUS :: START . END LEGAL SD .:i : d -:,., 8/911999 8/9/1999 _.f ' _,'' . , p:mr.,,,,..”,,,,,-;,,,,,71375,nri• 94128943 HICKENBOTTOM SONS INC sUNNYSIDE 301 WAREHOUSE AVE. :, ; 98944 : , UFO/MUM ig0/2b08.fj E1 ACTIVITY '- . 1 STATUS. START . END: LEGAL ENL SD C 4116/2001 4/16/2001 C 4/16/2001 4/16/2001 1927 INTERSTATE 82 EXIT 33A INTERSTATE 82 1 ACTIVITY SD II ENL SHA HSL • YAKIMA 2-4 -. 98901 V;T.7i8119kAi10i1311164 Lill STATUS START END LEGAL 1/11/1996 1/11/1996 6 C 4/9/1996 4/9/1996 6 C 4/23/1996 4/23/1996 6 C 10/14/1996 7/10/1997 8 C 8/19/1997 8/19/1997 4 6 1 2 4 4 C pi 0 F-1 0 :141 RIO fc,p, c fgf rOi p.7 RI R.1 RI R:1 Elr r c FM.0 RI VO RI R5 WI PIM PT, RI RP RN m 0 s IN • P4 gf OP WW1 PI IV PI PH2 09 s PM pl P9 PM Ppi Ma RM pu9 pq pR m W c R4 PI PI W RI 04 N 0 V; R PR! RN 4 C ro: Er4 PA 1 C Rfg 'Al FM PR rm. • 4 C 1•74 F.1 RI A Wo N, ra. s og ro 14 PR RI Wtmpil P; gr, gR r4T CONTAMINAN • S -SUSPECTED, C-CONFIRMP,.R7REMEOIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTE ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO Al LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DATA . Pag f 473 r ffcscsl for f version DEPART INTEGR CONFIR T OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM AND SUSPECTED:CONTAMINATED SITES UST FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODE ETERED.D11LASTOPDf AFFECTED MEDIA VCP MEDIA STATUS VI 48, is 16 Ri ai 20 -10-a ZT: 468 JOHNNYS TEXACO 636 E EDISON AVE ACTIVITY SHA HSL RI/FS I CAP SUNNYSIDE FO:1;;N:SWAI.r:;.111.41:Ig 98944-2202 fli844688A46118408.2; STATUS START END LEGAL C 5/1/1990 8/1/1990 C 9/10/1990 9/10/1990 b 7/21/1994 8/31/1995 1 I 7/1/1997 12/31/2003 473 KELLOGGS KORNER 200 MIDVALE RD ACTIVITY 1 SD IA SHA RI/FS HSL RC CC PR n 1 4 6 SUNNYSIDE • . .W.TAS;;;:r[k.N:11P;i11;1;ii 98944 ; 600l 1501.8121540 Ell STATUS START END LEGAL • C 4/26/1990 4/26/1990 C 8/31/1990 6/25/1991 C 1/1/1991 611/1991 0 8/16/1991 3/1/1994 1 C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 C 3/1/1993 2/16/1993. 1 C 9/1/1993 12/15/1993 3 P 111/2003 1/1/2004 535 : KELLY OIL 1309 N 1ST ST YAKIMA Fg0.1.g.41q.f0108W4, 98901 D7trigi1bri3i1 kfirsliodP ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL HSL C 9/7/1993 9/7/1993 1 2 4 6 4 1 533 IR ,( E SHAW ORCHARD KERSHAWRD 98901 GLEED/YAKIMA F,5:,;-,.,(;:,.?..,„, ,:ifiiiiigfitioil 1111 ; . . i-7 i8171760 1 ACTIVITY • - STATUS ' • START END • LEGAL 2 1 SHA ; ;;C : .'; 7/29/1994 12/30/1994 , 6 HSL C. 2/21/1995 2/21/1995 4 52475978 KISSEL PARK 32ND AV.E;8, MEAD AVE ACTIVITY • RI/FS CAP CED ; CC YAKIMA 98902 WW2 STATUS START END LEGAL 3/1/2001 3/21/2001 2 1 3/21/2001 3/31/2001 I 3/31/2001 11/30/2002 01/2002 11/30/2002 4 c reg M [Lgi, prf, c R.74 !RI fa Ft1 Fa S Fsfg-; wiRo: r pl 27,1. roN C F,51 n f-7.4 C 474 101 V! FR FT irq f17 C F:41 ro F:5 ro R ROW Vi.71 frq, FP F. ,r7 • RI P7 rf c rol • -s 11, [0.1 F3! rai Effl RP F.i.1 FR. PR. 134 RI ix .. FR.31 S prA rt; • rigi 07 fp rtg pr# . 113 gri F.M R5rr M.E.5 it4 r CONTAMINANT KEY: 5 -SUSPECTED; C-CONFARMED, R-REMED1ATED, B -BELOW MICA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, 1 -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO ATTACHED LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF DATA •, Page 460 of 473 • r ff cscsl for web_pdf version • DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGRATED SITE inwokmATIoN, SY!TFIVI, CONFIRMED AND SUSPECTED dONTAIVIINATED SITES LIST July 10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME CITY •ECO STkPk :wARM AFFECTED MEDIA LOCATION ADDRESS ZIP CODE ENtEREDO OS:T.40W VCP MEDIA STATUS Fij rij rdl Ili 41 53. 14 54 50 io . : 491 'E II SHA HSL LA ROSITA 200 N 1ST ST ACTIVITY SUNNYSIDE P.41.[PMFRO4SM51 98944 tr;--0:10140PR0T1I00.1LI STATUS START END LEGAL C 12/26/1989 12/26/1989 C 4/15/1991 7/15/1991 C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 79271271 LINCOLN AVENUECAR WASH YAKIMA 302 N1ST;ST ,• IRRP 98901. R4iiiV200.t7 El ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL I: 4/17/2002 4/17/2003 506 MAID 0 CLOVER 1802ENCIIHILL BLVD • ACTIVITY SD II ENL SHA • HSL 'YAKIMA 98901-3663 1,10671O92- itettogLI STATUS START END .LEGAL C 1/28/1991 1/28/1991 C 1/30/1991 1/31/1991 C 2/21/1992 2/21/1992 C 3/1/1992 8/111992 C 8125/1992 8/25/1992 520 MAID 0 CLOVER SUNNYSIDE SUNNYSIDE • . womookal 1530 ST HWY 12 98944 RAf2011004109116i2tho20 . _ .. . . . ...._.... ..... ,..... ......_ ! . ACTIVITY • : STATUS , START END LEGAL . 11 : , iC 5/8/1992 5/8/1992 ENL C ' . 9/3/1992 .9/3/1992 HSL 3/9/1993 3/9/1993 1 C rof -r 4 C rT1 pi 7 gr, W4 1 C roi pi. rol 4 C FA; RP, FA rp) iifFA r4 Fa FA pi 1 CPKA R. rffl tg p 7:: FR rm 4 C ffi r0 NT, RN VI PI 6 C if3 4 :V 3 S Riq Fl PA1 FO1 rui ro: 1 4 C Fig ta R11:: g c F21 F-74 v;A tTo f7,7_ CONTAMINANT v: S -SUSPECTED, C -CONFIRMED, R-REMEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO A 1 1 LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DATA Pag f 473 r ff cscsi for version DEPART T OF ECOLOGY --Tpxics CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGR 'SITE INFORMATOR SYSTEM CONFIR ANDfSUSPECTWCONTAMINATED SITES LIST . , 0, 2003 FS ID •'SITE . LOCATION ADDRESS ZIP CODE NTEREDy .. • AFFECTED MEDIA r VCP MEDIA STATUS Of 6. ri; id '44 Fa id it 18 9 20 470 MANHOLE 34 600-601 & 612 HWY 12 ACTIVITY II SHA HSL I EA RI/FS I CAP CED C 6/26/2002 8/4/2002 CC I 8/5/2002 12/31/2002 COM 9/15/2002 12/31/2005 SUNNYSIDE 98944 k67101:990(g./2312041L STATUS START -• END - LEGAL C 3/9/1989 3/9/1989 C 9/30/1990 12/3011990 C 3/12/1991 3/12/1991 C 5/21/1992 6/2/1992 2 C 9/28/1993 10/1/1994 2 P .8/1/1995 8/3/2002 2 16374394 MEDIC 1 FACILITY 315D!AvE; ; ENL SHA HSL Aditirry 'YAKIMA 98902 04:00.1010:000413.41LJ STATUS START END LEGAL 3/28/1997 3/28/1997 6 0 , 3/24/1999 7/30/1999 ...0 7/31/1999 7/31/1999 6 62969449 NAKANO FOODS 115W I.ST ACTIVITY ; IA II SHA I HSL IRRP YAKIMA 98902-1431 R810903113:0848,# STATUS START-, END LEGAL C 1/19/1999 1/19/1999 C 1/21/1999 1/21/1999 C 9/1/2000 12/21/2000 . C 2/27/2001 2/27/2001 4/2/2002 4/8/2002 39563633 NOLAND DECOTO FLYING SER INC YAKIMA RI°74nARlIZMFAI 2809 W WASHINGTON 98909-0993 Ff6K/2096R9212/2002i STATUS START END LEGAL 3/16/2000 4/28/2000 C 4/28/2000 4/28/2000 C 9/1/2000 12/21/2000 C 11/29/2000 11/29/2000 C 2/27/2001 2/27/2001 ACTIVITY II 0 ENL SHA SD g9 HSL 4 4 c VsRi FA 0 op oq.. PP f,;.:4 c f 5 KR P: 3610 • EF;7 Kg) c rc; drig Fl R.i41 S 1 4 C r$7 FR 101 RN 70 rq Fig P..v..ro Fzi, 4 C w :.q9 pig pi; gi 17.0 K;' C r-1 rfi IT • CONTAMINANT KEY: S -SUSPECTED, C7CDIMRMEDilH-REMEDIATED, 6 -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, 1 -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X-CNCEIPD REFER TO ATTACHED:LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DATA Page 462 of 473 r ff cscsl for web_pdf version DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGRATED SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM , CONFIRMED AND SUPtCTEDtCONTAMIkATED SITES LIST July 10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME • '- LOCATION, ADDRESS CITY ECOSTAT: ZIP CODE ENTERED110,4LASTAPOr VCP MEDIA sTmusai [3:4 171-) r5.1 .4020 16-e. r:4 494 SD 111 SHA HSL IRRP NORTHWEST TRUCK REPAIR 805 W AHTANUM RD ACTIVITY UNION GAP 98903 STATUS START C 2/26/1990 C 6/12/1990 C 4/15/1991 C 8/27/1991 C 8/29/2002 pq;i.,4tilWaTIvigg wider 111 END LEGAL 2/26/1990 6/12/1990 7/15/1991 8/27/1991 9/23/2002 54181479 NORTHWESTERN FRUIT & PRODUCE SELAH 10331 N WENAS 98942 ACTIVITY • STATUS START II C - , 7/1612001 ENL C 11/5/2001 f2/5/2o01 i0//2�bZ END LEGAL 11/5/2001 12/5/2001 484 NU WAY CLEANERS YAKIMA YAKIMA Prlfrn1PF.Ti.11,71,R; 801 S 3RD ST ;4L-.,, 98901 /2f/1991 /23/20O3 ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL FSI 6A; 07,11. 2/27/1989 1/31/1990 SHA HSL RI/FS ; COM 1C 1/15/1991 6/30/1991 C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 C 9/30/1994 .9/111998 1 C !8/4/1991 12/31/2007 -.„ 512 NW PIPELINE ST GRANDVIEW GRANDVIEW' Pft, EUCLID RD 98930 . SD SHA FISL CI ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL 2/1/1991 2/1/1991 8/27/1991 8/28/1991 4/20/1994 12/30/1994 8/23/1994 8/23/1994 513 NW PIPELINE ST SUNNYSIDE ALEXANDER RD ! ACTIVITY II ; SHA HSL SUNNYSIDE F1111;2g118t 98944 1.114/1.0/1490 WiT18/266271E STATUS START END LEGAL C 8/27/1991 8/28/1991 C 4/20/1994 12/30/1994 C 2/21/1995 2/21/1995 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 c MARA M „4, 17 FA P: pip pram pp s ry roj n rm rgy 573 157"4 p gi Ri.; C RI W m BA PO: gg Pg RI r, C :14 Pi 55 Fq friq tro c Ub,-kFa Fi; tw rig OR. fq..; C c Rq W FP g RIN1 7 gl 21 F7 PN rg NTS jcONTAMINANT PY: s-suspECTp, c,!CONFIRMEO, R-REMEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, 1 -IN PROCESS, C7COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO AlLEGEND'FOR EXPLANAcTION OF CODED DATA-- Fiag f 473 r ff cscsl for DEPAR, T OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEG 'SITEINFORMATION.SYSTEM.' CONFIR :4CONTAMINATED SITES LIST FS ID SITE NAME •crry C;EDD,STAV6:;11YARIVIi0; LOCATION ADDRESS ZIP CODE ENTEREDLiTilLASTAIPDTI July 10, 2003 VCP AFFECTED MEDIA STATUSE,W [W. RI 42 5i 15 16 18 9 20 10;'i; -,.--,;,i'. :,:::-.,,. • .,- , 516 ---''',•:NW PIPELINE ST YAKIMA ' YAKIMA WiRegaiMAVA151 - ... TERRACE HEIGHTS Rp, i 98901 . ugidiii-75-7,ftriiw ACTIVITY , STATUS START ' ' END LEGAL SHA HSL • C • -;- 8/27/1991 8/28/1991 C 4/20/1994 12/30/1994 C 2/21/1995 2/21/1995 63238148 OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINES YAKIMA . Kagggpfig10. 1505.E MEAD ST • • 98903,3915 WifeWiplopool 4 : ... ACTIVITY ' STATUS • START END LEGAL ' IRRP , . 2/21/2002 3/4/2002 489 OUTLOOK SCHOOL 3800 VAN,BELLE RD ACTIVITY ; II SHA HSL OUTLOOK rA,-.174-'(:;lq g?.73747-4 98938 8/5/1991 {0/1/200 El STATUS START END LEGAL C;. 7/25/1990 7/25/1990 C 4/15/1991 .7/15/1991 C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 505 PIT STOP NACHES lout Hvvy 12 ACTIVITY STATUS ! SD Pi,- " C SHA II ENL HSL -NACHES ri,M2M4F:194-pni 98937-9785 iftiontwilifciift"ititiALil START END LEGAL 5/21/1990 5/21/1990 C 9/1/1991 -2/1/1992 C 12/13/1991 12/13/1991 C 12/16/1991 12/16/1991 C 2/25/1992 2/25/1992 87248173 QWEST CORP W00268 YAKIMA Mi,,,Ne.riMilir,-`,12;NEMDM •,•-f-:P!-,1-4,..,..,;•-;,,,--t;.-,;1°,.,-.--,*lifq 71 W ARLINGTON ST 98901 i.0A2/170,001E;figifOoti 111 ACTIVITY ''. STATUS START END LEGAL 1 C 10/22/1996 5/12/1997. 4 IRRP 4 1 4 4 4 C RTAM Pg rz-1 (,0 FP 15 rTi C C Rp. pm C p m C Rs n PI Wq Rt ra cm. ra PRI Frz pm v7. gi Eff. ?7,5. r7:.! IP7 n rj..1 F.4 Fl PP, .g Pg NI RI PI g Fl m rz r{4 mr M p RI CONTAMINANT KEY: 5 -SUSPECTED, c-ppNFIRmp,,R7pEMEDIATED,137BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I.IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO ATTACHED LEGEND FOR FJ&LANATIbiloFi5bODED DATA Page 464:of 473: r ff cs6s/ for web_pdf version DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY --TQXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM r 4 INTEGRATEDISITEINFORMATION SYSTFIVI CONFIRMED ANIYS'OSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES LIST July 10, 2003 FS ID SITENAME .• • CITY• • rE00ST4tEirAIWA:it LOCATION ADDRESS ZIP CODE ONteRttilbJiD VCP AFFECTED MEDIA MEDIA STATUS WA 43 VC Rri 14i Ffo :... ;B.44 -,. 455 RAINIER PLASTICS CO YAKIMA 99202 ACTIVITY STATUS START FSI SHA HSL Krif-WARPOWN END LEGAL • C 8110/1987 3/1/1988 C 1/15/1991 6/30/1991 C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 529 RESIDENCE CHAMBERS YAKIMA W717.7P:711i7i5F4,47A 624 PIONEER LA 98903 V:c*00#55131#071464.1 0 • ACTIVITY STATUS START ' END LEGAL i SHA C 2/10/1995 12/28/1995 6 i HSL C 2/20/1996 2/20/1996 442 RICHARDSON AIRWAYS YAKIMA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT YAKIMA 98901 El ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL SHA C 2/15/1991 2/28/1991 HSL RI/FS CAP PR. C 3/12/1991 3/12/1991 C 1/30/1992 11/15/1993 2 C 5/9/1997 '5/9/1997 P 10/3/2002 10/3/2003 3 534 ROZA IRRIGATION DISTRICT SUNNYSIDE rig.4.1M 0540,44E4 . 125 S 13TH ST • , - '? 98944 ' rii..01.0.102P4TIRKW • " ' ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL HSL • C 9/3/1993 9/3/1993 IRRP • I 4/23/2003 4/23/2004 497 FPA SHA HSL SELAH DUMP SPEYERS RD ACTIVITY SELAH 24WellIMINKCI9 98942 T6i0409V1i715/26o 11 STATUS START END LEGAL C 7/20/1988 7/20/1988 C 8/23/1989 12/15/1989 C 4/15/1991 7/15/1991 C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 2 1 3 4 2 4 6 1 1 4 4 c „., 1 IT RI R74 Kg FRI N. Pg. pR Fg ;A p c !4 r1p c rl WI Pi 117,4 rs1 C pq FA rg;:i p- VA Fq If -t. S r' RIP= frilv,ft-10.1 El PP tT,3 P3 c gPI FT) rg V1 ,°=7..,r 179. ( S u P1 WI R9 Pq'rg rl Fl s P1 ff3 PI g-,4 t7 v; c 14 111 gl Fq 43 RO • PI pR ra RI, P.17, Fi R'; tq 77 [471. r••;:, r C Eq Fq R-1 PR t RI mg pa PP R6 pg CONTAMINANT EY: S -SUSPECTED, C -CONFIRMED, R-REMEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED r IT cscsl fo REFER TO A LEGEND FOR EXPLANATIONrOF,CODED DATA Pag f 473 df version (7] DEPARtNT OF ECOLOGY -TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEL D SITECINFORMATION SITES 'LIST. July 10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME''CITY LOCATIOKADDRESS ZIP CODE •ENTERED:1A I VASti/ kfiti VCP AFFECTED MEDIA ,„ , ,„‘„ . .,..„ MEDIA STATUS. F21 67,4, flU (41 1.:$ 12 43 14 Is 18 1Z 18 19 40 "TP RITIM 462 SHIELDS BAG & PRINTING CO 1009 ROCK AVE ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL FSI C 8/10/1987 3/18/1988 FPA ; C 8/18/1988 9/18/1988 SHA C 1/15/1991 6/30/1991 HSL C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 YAKIMA WEit-OZIWIRMV 98902-4629 OST1-4198e6bli5lioif2, LI 552 SMUDGPOT 340-342 KROUGH RD • SD II ; ENL IA 501 I SHA HSL ACTIVITY GRANDVIEW kFigiTiTTIT!FRW441 98930 qiiiVigifiJ 466600 El STATUS START END LEGAL •: •C 10/18/1993 10/18/1993 6 C 12/20/199512/20/1995 6 C 1/5/1996 .1/5/1996 6 • C 1/8/1996 10/1/1998 7 SNIPES MOUNTAIN' LANDFILL ' SUNNYSIDE 4444,70,0tj:F54#00, DEKKERRD 989381)I0.10/4:10811 0/141487t LI ACTIVITY • STATUS START • "END LEGAL • iC 2/28/1991 8/1/1991 C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 482 1SOUTHGATE LAUNDRY ' YAKIMA • P5.5444VitirA '40704.4fril 1020 S 3RD AV 98902; fliffiWON Rogow 111, ,• __ , ACTIVITY ' . STATUS START END ' LEGAL F SI: I . '.".C1:, 11/29/1989 1/11/1990 .... : .. SHA 1 C 2/28/1991 6/30/1991 HSL . • C .8/27/1991 8/27/1991 RI/FS ' C A/1/1996 12/1/1997 2 IA 1 • . C 7/1/1997 8/1/1997 I COM ' 1 ' I - 8/1/1997 12/31/2007 1 4 4 6 1 C RI vi f:i5; LT:7 ri C F$1 :71 rtz; p.7 R,1 PR .F.T. • • 3 S Fa 17-4 M K1 FA RI R•3 171 4 C rr�MI Ri ER R1 rifl Fl gr.,7 PiTi R. 1 S r01 .14 r0 P; trg :13$ CONTAMINANT KEY: .4-8psFT91-po, c-pprwiFmEp,r1-1EMEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELSAFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED , . REFER TO ATTACHEIiIZEGENDObriiikiiiAiiiik DECODED DATA ‘: • . • Page 466 of 473 r ff cscsl for web_pdf version DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGRATED SITE SYSTEM CONFIRMECi-ANDISUSPECTED'CONTAMINATED SITES LIST. July 10, 2003 FS'ID SITE NAME' ' ' ' ' ' '• CITY LOCATION ADDRESS ZIP CODE 400.*1-AvoiciAw3,-,F ENtEftwoli!tAvr:votiti AFFECTED MEDIA ,• '• „; • 1:a VCP MEDIA STATUS m,R:"!c 12 14 16 1 18 20 "' 465 SIJNNYSIDEMUNICIPAL WELL WELL 1 GRA Is11-§T ACTIVITY STATUS FPA SHA • HSL SUNNYSIDE 98944 atmgompWW5M5 gwooleafigi70$1)gifl START END LEGAL '•• C f'• 8/8/1988 8/9/1988 C 4/27/1989 8/31/1989 C . 5/1/1990 8/1/1990 C 8/28/1990 8/28/1990 488 SUPERIOR ASPHALT BEECH ST 2000 E BEECH ST • II i ENL . IA ! SHA RI/FS HSL I IA I CAP CED ACTIVITY • YAKIMA gaw-timpuipm 98901 R5/WT9TIF50g STATUS START • END LEGAL C 1/22/1991 C 10/31/1991 C 10/31/1991 C 3/1/1992 C 8/25/1992 C 8/25/1992 C 1/1/1994 I 5/30/1997 I 7/1/1997 10/1/1997 1/28/1991 2/19/1991 12/31/1993 1 8/25/1992 5/20/1997 1 8/25/1992 5/1/1995 1 12/31/2002 2 12/31/2002 12/31/2002 457 TERRACE HTS LANDFILL PESTICIDE YAKIMA inqfp;37,54IF,W67..F9 7601 ROZA HILL DR I.0PESTICIDE. 98901 ,.. . , :. ,. .... . • . • • . . , I ' ACTIVITY • STATUS START • END LEGAL HSL ' ; C ; ; 2/21/1995 2/21/1995 SHA C 2/21/1995 2/21/1995 tZ/ 514 TEXACO BULK PLANT GRANDVIEW4:449'75ii'X!'ilftgl 0 501 E WINE COUNTRY RD 98930 '! 4/8I1992 .4/8/2003 S.) • SHA I -ISL ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL C 12/15/1988 12/15/1988 C .1/1/1993 1/15/1993 C 3/8/1994 3/8/1994 4 1 4 3 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 E 1 4 C kg g Ei PI PI PRI !P4 u R4 K7 ',!.7! C P.'74 !Z PTA VU ri M PI M R5j Fg Pq PI RTO RT vi R C ._ R51 r5.1 0r4 fv1 DA RI M K1 fa fp.. Fiq C 0 Fa PM PR V3 RT R9 Ra RI R'?4 RI RW 0 RN P? RI m s ra Rii 114 RI P RI M,,, PTi P RP VI FP VI R,3. Wi pll r 6 ill RR RP pg _ ,,‘ 1 PI rl PI PTj pi P s n PI fq RN 000 A 4 „., tiO PI MI K'- /J M ri 0 rizA p c RR RI BP P% II g PI KIR R5 RP RI RI RP. Pg M RR P P.1 N s PP RP Rl PFI RP W RI FHP1 RP RI R7 PI R7 R. M, RI T p F S RI la RO PI RA X RN mi II gg RN RI gi p rg pg m p c;.' C f.M gl„ F•41 If3 C El 055: Fli PI Pill PI 04 P1 El al Pal B ER R4 0 tONTAMINANT =Y: S -SUSPECTED, C -CONFIRMED, R-REmEDIATEp, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, 1 -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED EFER TO A n.LEGENDFOR EXPLANATION OF‘CODED DATA Pag of 473 r ff cscs1 fo df version d O g DEPAR T OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEG .' SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM CONFIR'� • AND SUSPECTED' CONTAMINATED SITES UST FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CITY ECO sTAT' r ,WA M ZIP CODE ENTEREDDt'LASTUPDT 528 TIGER OIL -16TH ST & E NOB HILL 6 160 E NOB HILL BLVD 98901 `'�2/2aI1992 0/8/200 ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL HSL C `? 3/9/1993 3/9/1993 RI/FS: X 3/9/1993 6/1/1998 469 II CC IA SHA HSL RI/FS IA CAP CED CC TIGER OIL 24TH AVE & W NOB HILL YAKIMA 2312 W NOB HILL BLVD 9890214:19$ ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL C 9/10/1982 9/22/1982 C 9/20/1982 9/12/1985 C 3/30/1990 10/30/1991 1 C 9/30/1990 6/30/1991 C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 C 10/31/1991 4/1/1997 1 8/1/1994 10/1/2003 1 C 8/1/1997 3/13/2001 1 P 7/1/1998 8/31/1998 1 8/1/1998 8/31/1998 ,3 :1/30/2003; 477 TIGER OIL N 1ST ST FMR 6013' • YAKIMA 1800N 1 ST ST x - 98902 k3/27/1,99; SD SHA • HSL •ACTIVITY STATUS START • END LEGAL • :C '.. 9/15/1982 9/16/1982 C 1/15/1991 6/30/1991 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 1flL $ -b211 548 TONYS AUTO REPAIR '1220 S 6TH ST ACTIVITY STATUS START END ' LEGAL SD II ENL SHA HSL 98901 5,9/1 99.5 10 1612 1 1 C 3/13/1995 3/13/1995 6 C 3/31/1995 5/8/1995 6 C 7/20/1995 7/20/1995 6 C 1/25/1996 6/28/1996 C 6/29/1996 6/29/1996 6 AFFECTED MEDIA „�„ VCPMEDIA STATUS1 1 2> is ;e' O ;12'5. 4 44 srie 41. o 4 5 6 1 C 4 C 6 C 4 C r/ PI f151 1 f 11ti rrt CONTAMINANT KEY: S -SUSPECTED, C-CONFIRMED,R,REMEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS,.C-COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO ATTACHED, LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DATA : Page 468 of 473 rff cscs1 for web_pdf version DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGRATED SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM CONFIRMED AND SUSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES LIST July 10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODE FEGO$TAT' ` WARAII :`. ENTERED D`F'LAST'UPDT-4 AFFECTED MEDIA VCP MEDIA STATUS i1v 19 10 1 12 14 9`5: 16 til 18; 19 20 89865851 UNION GOSPEL MISSION 110, W YAKIMA AVE.,, ACTIVITY ;SD IRRP YAKIMA 98902, STATUS START END LEGAL C• : _: 4110/2002 4/10/2002 f 4/11/2002 4/11/2003 0/15/2102 53365837 UNOCAL 76 920 N 6TH AVE ACTIVITY SD SHA HSL • , YAKIMA 98902=1933 1.1,1-070400#11:4710150A ❑ STATUS START END LEGAL C 6/8/1998 6/8/1998 6 C 10/14/1999 2/2/2000 C 2/29/2000 2/29/2000 539 UNOCAL BULK PLANT 0766 511 LINCOLN ST ACTIVITY SD II SHA HSL SUNNYSIDE 98944 r4/26/19944 STATUS START END LEGAL C 1/1/1993 1/15/1993 C 4/1/1993 4/15/1993 C 1/1/1994 1/1/1994 C 3/8/1994 3/8/1994 voiorgoog El 105 US ARMY YAKIMA TRAINING CENTEAKIMA DENR BLDG 810; :, 98901-9399 F .0.11994 ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL SHA C 10/1/1992 9/1/1993 HSL C 8/22/1995 8/22/1995 499 VALLEY DRY CLEANERS 422 S 6TH ST ACTIVITY STATUS START d II n FPA ENL 1 ;SHA HSL DC SUNNYSIDE 98944 C 8/10/1988 C 4/27/1989 C 6/21/1991 C 10/18/1991 3(20b3;'a x.,6124/,119 END LEGAL 8/10/1988 6/30/1989 6/21/1992 1/18/1992 . 2/25/1992- 2/25/1992 4 4 z :�. eta x, S C SSm t pp3�pp�� y�S4 g �` rq �� (' 7 �7FR ��` Yp x 5 M k rt, "+;t �'' K">F Fi. v f 6'."ri t5xi4 k, 1 C'` (" %�'�� �[��'I i+�<}/_meg 4 C c Ki 4 � y ST+1 �d j f f �, I 3 S Ng 1 C 2 S 4 C 5 S 6 S 1 4 CONTAMINANT KEY. S -SUSPECTED C-CDNFIRMEDj R REMEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT . ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO A LEGEND -FOR EXPLANATION OFICODED DATAr fcscsl for _ df version Pag�f 473 � DEPAR T OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEL SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM CONFIRMED AND SUSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES LIST CITY ZIP CODE FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS July 10, 2003 AFFECTED MEDIA , EHTEREBV*Attithipti. VCP MEDIA STATUS M !•2111 4,51 Pt! pi 12 Fi4 20 igLyAKI 95444291f,11-VAILBY"JUNK 403 KEYES Fip It ACTIVITY SD SHA HSL YAKIMA PitniffiMARTIAta 98901 7J3W1998 1Q/2/2002. LI ......... ........_.. STATUS START END LEGAL 1 C :;p; 9/2/1997 10/2/1997 6 C 9/2/1997 9/2/1997 6 : C 3/24/1999 7/30/1999 C . 7/31/1999 7/31/1999 6 478 VANCLEAVE BODY SHOP 305 DIVISION ST , . YAKIMA 98902- wn77 74g7.11 0 4407N0112Q, ., . STATUS START END LEGAL 1 C • 2/21/1989 12/21/1989 3 C 1/15/1991 6/30/1991 4 .:... C • 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 • ACTIVITY FSI • SHA HSL 4 C Rg Rg 374 Pg V7 PT 6 540 WA DOT RIMROCK MAINTENANCE SIT'NACHES Wir444714W4r3ATO:::74;iy,14. HVVY 12 & HWY 410 JUNCTION , 98937 1,1?.401040401:. El STATUS START END LEGAL SHA ;: 1/1/.1993 1/15/1993 1 HSL C 3/8/1994 3/8/1994 541 WA DOT UNION GAP DISTRICT!SITE UNION GAF.z.- 2809 RUDKIN RD 98903-1648' -17,'":0011#7, 0100) El ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL SHA 1/1/1993 1/15/1993 1 SD C 1/1/1993 1/15/1993 HSL C 3/8/1994 3/8/1994 1." ACTIVITY • -; 545 WASHINGTON CENTRALRAILROADliYAKIMA • PRPOWAgigig 6 E ARLINGTON • ,- 98901 1Ji.4:01:11qi:I/2074 ACTIVITY ' STATUS START END LEGAL HSL C 8/1/1995 12/31/1998 RI/FS • X 9/30/1997 4/20/1998 1 0 6 4 4 LI 4 1 s RO g RP VI P1 S PI W El M PT; RR Eg s vl ri 0 R PM R 01 ta 5 Pi !? iT.;1 Fl 0 r n PR R71 Rri P.1, PA N.3 MR R RI COMM 11 FA RI kti M PI vo IR C 15 Ef:4 F,5 c .i01 C (pt rl 'J El CONTAMINANT KEY: S -SUSPECTED, C -CONFIRMED, IkREMEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO ATTACHED LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF -CODED DATA , • Page 470 of 473 r ff cscsl for web_pdf version DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGRATED SITE INFORMATION SYSTEM CONFIRMED AND SUSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES LIST July 10, 2003 FS ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CITY ECO STAT %g,'?.,WARIVI AFFECTED MEDIA ZIP CODE pNTERED DT•LA$TUPDTM VCP MEDIA STATUS E;7 If 5i 14 11 i2 14 1016Rf 16 A9 20 31700 WELCHS BIRCH ST 504 BIRCH ST ACTIVITY GRANOVIEW 98930: x11715/1996 (/15/2002` LI STATUS START END LEGAL •C' '' 3/31/1996 8/1/1996 C 7/23/1996 7/23/1996 7/23/1996 7/23/1996 46666512 WESTERN RECREATIONAL VEHICLES YAKIMA 3401 W: WASHINGTON AVE 98903,1138 x514/20021 WOO ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL '' I- 5/14/2002 5/14/2003 IRRP 32979712 WILDCAT QUICK'STOP • UNION GAP WF, ' 701 • 2535 RUDKIN RD ; 1 98903. • Y6/10O0 1ji012.1512002E E ACTIVITY STATUS START END ' LEGAL 1:1' I 61:14/2001 6/30/2003 IRRP 57713524 WONDRACK DISTRIBUTING INC UST 4'YAKIMA 1602 RUDKIN RD' •98901' • 5/1 l%21 ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL SD .. C '.: 573/2000 5/3/2000 IRRP C 5/3/2000 5/8/2000 1137597 YAKIMA AIR TERMINAL 2400 W WASHINGTON AVE ACTIVITY ;ENL YAKIMA 98903 STATUS START END LEGAL :0 7/24/2001 7/24/2001 Mgaga Efgita 4 C t s IN frig FA 4 C' 1 4 WO* El 4 54517643 YAKIMA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT YAKIMA 98901=2321 1 3/13/2000a I O/l5r2002 El ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL C 11/18/1997 9/28/1998 C 1.1/18/1997 8/26/1998 C 2/28/2000 2/28/2000 C 2/28/2000 '5/1/2000 C 2/29/2000 2/29/2000 C '4/4/2000 7/14/2000 II *d 'RC !ENL .SHA HSL I ; SHA 0 ri DC 401 N FRONT C 4 C 1 C 1 4 S C 5Y ar Fai CONTAMINAN Y: S -SUSPECTED, C- CONFIRMED, R-REMEDIATED .B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: PrPLANNED, I -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO D. LEGEND`FOR EXPLANATION:OFCODED DATA ` Pa of 473 r ff cscs/ fi DEPAR T OF ECOLOGY --TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGu OESITE INFORMATION SYSTEM CONFIR D AND SUSPECTED CONTAMINATED SITES LIST FS ID SITE NAME CITY ' 0.404tAtl ZIP CODE ENTBROBIIFLAStOlifiti VCP LOCATION ADDRESS AFFECTED MEDIA • July 10, 2003 MEDIA . STATUS ri3 ;T, rol w 53 54 51 fri Ff6 " 4073601 YAKIMA CONVENTION CENTER 10 N 8TH ST ACTIVITY SD YAKIMA P7s.vt-ZVAMV{57P'Nni 98901nA • l'I/28/2003,`I128/20okLI STATUS START END LEGAL C7H, 1/28/2003 1/28/2003 • • 456 YAKIMA COUNTY TERRACE.HTS LANE YAKIMA 7601 ROqt H114 ;4.. 98901 ACTIVITY STATUS START FSI 5/8/1987 SD 2/9/1990 38245986 YAKIMA GULL 1614 YAKIMA 214$ 5T11 AVE 98902:-3436B104040541,244:f128. ACTIVITY STATUS START END LEGAL MN477WWW 3/1/1988 5I8/200 111 • END • LEGAL 11/24/1987 2/9/1990 ENL SHA HSL ENL 1,', 5/13/1996 5/13/1996 ,8/7/1996 9/13/1996 C • 9/1/2000 12/21/2000 C 2/27/2001 2/27/2001 •. 9/9/2002 9/9/2002 7353498 YAKIMA HOPS INC 131 LENSEIGNE RD ACTIVITY ! II ENL MABTON VgaMn WORM, ffr8WOV1074512-06ii STATUS START END LEGAL C 6/28/2000 11/6/2001 C 11/6/2001 12/5/2001 98909-0697 463 FSI SHA HSL YAKIMA OLD CITY LANDFILL 'YAKIMA S 18TH ST & YAKIMA R MILE 112 98901 • Otafifigiof orfutholi ACTIVITY • STATUS START END LEGAL 8/1/1986 10/1/1986 C 19/14/1996 7/10/1997 6 C 8/19/1997 8/19/1997 4 1 4 6 1 4 4 4 1 4 6 C pg FO PI gq R g Rq FR PT PR K7' Fa rl PN s R4 E PI R4 RN P7 A MP R4 ug rg m rg • ' II RI FM • ro.7)rir • F5 p P;1 .P1 FP • • :44 p74 K MiNi J sr wti mrKimommecn'!',pmnp C c B R9 pl R El RY h,4rp r2 r rn-4 C S PO s ra PI PR R. Ki r.7q R. PT Wg R go. pj p w Rum pfoi,5 RpfjrT CONTAMINANT KEy: s7„susppc-rgp,C-CONFIRMED, R-NPVIEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, wPflOgES§, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO'ATTACREOLEGEIsD•FOR EX CODED DATA •Page 472 of 443- . • . r ff_c-/ for web_pdf version DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY —mops CLEANUP PROGRAM INTEGRATED SITE INFORMATION. SYSTEM CONFIRMED AND SUSPEtTEDODNTAMINATED SITES LIST July 10, 2003 Fs ID SITE NAME LOCATION ADDRESS CITY • • ZIP CODE ENTEittIti.WCLAttfUPtif VCP. AF:3=111=153 'TERi4 18 YAK, 500 YAKIMA RAILROAD 1ST ST CORRIDOR ACTIVITY 'RI/FS COM • YAKIMA WRFATAMPMM;Foso 98901 8/6/1991 10/15/0022 STATUS START END LEGAL C 6/1/1995 7/29/1999 7/29/1999 12/31/2007 550 YAKIMA SPEEDWAY 1600 PACIFIC SD II ENL SHA HSL ACTIVITY ; : • YAKIMA 98901-3454 W&4PiR'AW4r$,Pd Ptimilbaliid1012662, LJ STATUS START END LEGAL C 4/20/1993 4/20/1993 6 C 4/11/1995 5/8/1995 6 C 7/20/1995 7/20/1995 6 C 1/25/1996 6/28/1996 C 6/29/1996 6/29/1996 6 445 YAKIMA VALLEY SPRAYYAKIMA P -773V0.-3 MGM 1108 S IST ST • 98901%. Fflhqi0a0.WWW. ACTIVITY " STATUS START. - END LEGAL 11 C. 6/9/1988 6/29/1988 FSI 8/1/1988 6/1/1989 RI/FS C 7/12/1989 5/1/1998 1 HSL C 8/27/1990 8/27/1990 SHA C 9/1/1990 12/31/1990 II C 1/17/1991 2/1:7/1991 CAP C 5/1/1998 10/1/2001 1 CC 10/1/2001 6/1/2003 464 ZWIGHT LOGGING YAKIMA E792:7:IIFTWSM 222 KEYS RD• 98901. ACTIVITY WOW STATUS START END LEGAL FPA FSI SHA I HSL C 6/20/1988 6/30/1988 C 5/15/1990 11/7/1990 C 2/28/1991 8/1/1991 C 8/27/1991 8/27/1991 COUNTY TOTAL: STATEWIDE TOTAL: 1 2373 112 3 1 4 6 4 1 4 6 2 3 4 6 1 s P3 PI R E4 RO 17 PR FT PP !T,.; rq 7 C P11 Fl P4 PR RP Fl rg M FP t7 Z1 PR NI C M P?: F4 FP; ttril M N C Fl M 01 V U3 w N3 17 mi 77' Eli, C Nq NR PR [0, WA 17 P5 Ng 59 7 OR pl c W. A 0 RI RI 0 OP Ri g P1 Ri rE pg pp p4 c RP 0 RP RR la 0 F4 ta Fl gi,1.4 RI FM R9 f,7 Pq C iO3 PI KA rol VI 15 0.1 04 IN IM o.J s 0 PO kr4 rg gi). i—, 0 K S Fl rq V1 R9 W' RP PP P3 Fl W t. S pl FO PW;Rg RI PI Rg W S Pg RI El m f?J, m P1 Fl c 94 m PA IS RP , Fl Rp pg vN CONTAMINANT y: s-suspEcTED, C -CONFIRMED, R-REMEDIATED, B -BELOW MTCA CLEANUP LEVELS AFTER ASSESSMENT ACTIVITY KEY: P -PLANNED, 1 -IN PROCESS, C -COMPLETED, X -CANCELED REFER TO D LEGEND FOR EXPLANATION OF CODED DATA Pa of 473 r ff cscsi f df version • APPENDIX III: WORKLDRDER DOC. INDEX # J-: ENGINEERING—SU RVEYING—PLANNING BRADLEY J. CARD, P.E. DOUGLAS J. KUHN, P.E. The following information is a confirmation of work ordered to be performed. If any of the information shown herein is not in accordance with your understanding, please advise us immediately. We will not be responsible for any misunderstandings which may arise from lack of proper notification.: - TAKEN BY: /3 r a C'e oC DATE:::. 7,1/4, /to I LOUIE W. WISHERT, JR., PLS RICHARD L WEHR, PLS ID ORDERED BY: /2,,,"„)., �.� �,�, BILL TO! ADDRESS: ADDRESS:• . PHONE NO.: PHONE NO.: LOCATION OF PROJECT: TITLE INSURANCE CO.: JOB NO. 603%G._9 /t/v. 400.- Awl a -s i�ca r.r t, +9 Psi' e JA S'. ` Ai :se WA 9 L.P. DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED: 74 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Charges for the work described herein shall be on an hourly basis at the current established rates for those individuals performing the services. Estimates given are approximate only, based upon information furnished by the client; however, conditions may be encountered, which materially:_ alter this cost. The bill will -be :rendered -upon ..-completion of the work and is due within- 30'days.;after.:presentation. A service charge of 1.5%:per.. month, or a minimum. of $5.00, will be applied against the unpaid. balance 30 days: after each statement. In the event the client's account is referred to an attorney or collection agency for any reason, the client agrees to pay at PLSA option (a) collection. costs. -as liquidated damages in the sum of .fifty per.cent (50%) .of the unpaid balance of the account,. or (b) reasonable attorney fees. Client .agrees that.::the venue for any action relating to this bill may, :at the option of PLSA, be in the courts of Yakima County, WA.- or in =..the•court. which includes the largest city in any county 'in which -thecourt' has jurisdiction over the client. Cancellation'. of this order- does not relieve the responsible party -of payment. -for: work -.already completed. Corners-.-narked.or stakes set are not to be used for construction :until -confirmation- of work actually performed is received from: this office The standard -of care for all professional services performed or fumished by_ Consultant under this Agreement will be the skill and, _ z care used by members of Consultant's profession practicing under.:: similar circumstances at the same time and in the same jse, in connect' n with Consultant's locality. Consultant makes no warranties express or implied, under this Agreement or other services. _ SIGNATURE OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY: 1120 West Lincoln Avenue 0 . Yakima, Washington 98902 o (509) 575-6990 0 FAX (509) 575-6993 DATE: 46' (7//6 6 1 • • • APPENDIX IV: RELEASE OF THIRD PARTY LIABILITY AGREEMENT DOC. INDEX # J- 3 ENGINEERING & SURVEYING BRADLEY J. CARD, P.E. LOUIE W. WISHERT, JR., PLS KENNETH G. LOCKWOOD, P.E. RICHARD L. WEHR, PLS RELEASE OF THIRD PART.YLIABILIT.Y::AGREEMENT To: Preston L. Shepherd and Associates, Inc.:.. dba PLSA.Engineering and Surveying 11.20::..W..Lincoln Avenue Yakima -e- WA 98902 Hereinafter called PLSA. By the signature below, Owner/Client's Representative Street Address City, State, Zip hereinafter called the Client, does hereby request that PLSA prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, (ESA), for the following described property: CTiscar&f /.2 UrS1 9C- S I'r 5,/4 Address or Legal Description of Property The Client agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless PLSA from and against claims asserted by third parties alleging loss, damage, expense and the like as a result of the investigation and the ESA report thereon completed by PLSA, so long as said work and work product were accomplished in a manner consistent with the current standard of professional. practice. Furthermore..--the-:-scope of liability _.is_limited:::::exclusively .. to ,the investigation requested by the -Client and: ,this_.. is set forth: in the. report. Any further investigation: which may have been advisable, ;mas:..,not. requested by the Client: The report -prepared by PLSA refers only -to the'-. condition of the property: °:ons -the date of the investigation of the property and PLSA .�-is:•not responsible for any subsequent;. changes in said property: Although PLSA exercises:.. the:.; current standard of professional: practice, undiscovered items: may affect the determination set forth in the report. ._ Also.future changes in the use of the premises may affect the determination set forth in the report. PLSA is not responsible.:: for any of...: these aforesaid occurrences.- VI ccurrences - -'.la }`jP4.-! c a Clients Authorized Representative Title • Date 1120. West Lincoln Avenue e Yakima, Washington 98902 • (509) 575-6990 e FAX (509) 575-6993 APPENDIX V: DISCLOSURE OF PARTIES TO THE SALE DOC. INDEX # �-3 ENGINEERING yr & SURVEYING J . BRADLEY J. CARD, P.E. LOUIE W. WISHERT, JR., PLS KENNETH G. LOCKWOOD, P.E. RICHARD L. WEHR, PLS DISCLOSURE OF PARTIES TO THE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION PLSA Engineering and Surveying, (PLSA), is obligated_. to protect its Clients from performance of engineering. in -conflict of interest with PLSA. Therefore, PLSA requires•disciosure -of the identities of buyer, seller, agent, and financial institution, and disclosure of any environmental liability known to these parties, concerning .:the transaction for :which: the ESA is ,being prepared. PLSA will, at its discretion, notify the buyer,: seller, agent, and financial institution of its client relationships if a conflict is apparent. Additionally, if., during the course of theinvestigation, it is determined that an off site potential contamination: source is. from the activities or properties of a client with whom there is a continued business relationship with PLSA, the buyer, seller, agent, financial institution, and client will be notified of the investigation. PLSA reserves the right to withdraw its services to the client to perform the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, (ESA), at no cost to the retainer. Please complete the following: Type of Transaction: Intended Use of Property ,,,, A.,t= Name of Buyer: may. 2m 4 g Name of Seller: Name of Financial Institution: Name= -:of Agent: I represent the::::: above information- to be a true and factual disclosure of-. the parties=-:_ to, the ° real estate:. transaction for:..:. which :. I am : retaining :-PLSA Engineering and Surveying to ;:perform a .. Phaseg�I Environment 1_. Site Assessment, (ESA) . { y;{. P R- 4 P p l ti c: % �'!/„�c t!J! Clients Authorized -Representative T'i"tle Date- 2/../ ate- 9 • O z� 1120 West Lincoln Avenue • Yakima, Washington 98902 • (509) 575-6990 • FAX (509) 575-6993 p) A 14 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 129 North Second Street Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509) 575-6183 ® Fax (509).575-6105 Don Skone, Manager NOTICE OF DECISION Yakima Urban Area Hearing Examiner September 29, 1999 On September 9, 1999, the Yakima Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing to consider a Master Application submitted by Larry and Kimberly Loveless. This is a Class (2) zoning review application, coupled with a short plat to create four duplex lots in the vicinity of North 46th Avenue and Englewood Avenue, within the city of Yakima, Washington. This application was forwarded to the Hearing Examiner for review, public hearing and decision. On September 28, 1999 the Hearing Examiner rendered a decision to deny this application. 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 forms provided by the Planning Division. For further information or assistance you may contact Dan Valoff, Associate Planner, City of Yakima Planning Division, located on the 2nd floor of Yakima City Hall, (129 North Second Street), 575-6163. Don S. Skone Planning Manager encl. Date of mailing: 9/29/99 DOC. INDEX Yakhna Master Application by Larry Loveless for Class 2 >: Review and a Short Plat Creating Four Duplex Lots:. On North 46th Avenue Near . Englewood EXAMINER'S DECISION: City No. CL(3). #6-99` EXAMINER NO. IU9"9-1-13 The Examiner conducted -a public hearing on September:9, 1999. The staff report presented::::by,>Dan.Valoff recommended dehial....due::-to compatibility concerns. Mr. and -Mrs. Loveless were represented by attorney James Carmody. Several neighborhood residents :testified-•• with concerns:: or:.: opposition, and a significant number:. wrote expressing the same --sentiments. The Examiner has inspected the property both prior to and after the hearing. SUMMARY OF DECISION. The application is denied because the overall project creates a dwelling unit density incompatible with R-1 standards. A rezone to R-2 would be more appropriate, prior to developing this project. 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,.:atthe :hearing, the Examiner --makes the following: FINDINGS 1. Applicant. Larry and Kimberly Loveless:_ 2. Location. The property is located on::. -vacant ..land EXAMINER'S DECISION, 1 Larry Loveless::.: Examiner No. IU99-1-13 Doc. INDEX 0 0 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA; WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 • • on the east side of North 46`h Avenue, north of Englewood Avenue; Assessor's parcel numbers 181315-33040 and 33041 3. Application. This is a Class.: 2:=. zoning review application, coupled with a four lot short plate, treated herein as a .master application. 4 Proposed:Use. Duplexes 5. Current Zoning and Use. The site and adjacent area is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1). The ,property originally was orchard,' but... is now vacant. Adjacent properties have the following characteristics: Location,:. Zoning Existinq:-Use:; North . R-1 Orchard - South R-1 Single family residential -East R-1 Single family residential R-2 Single family residential (zero lot line) (Bellevue Manor) West R-1 Single family residential 6. Project Description. On June 11, 1999 the City of Yakima Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division received a -Class (2) zoning review and short plat application from Larry & Kimberly Loveless. The short plat proposed the creation of four 8,000 -plus square -foot parcels and a remaining larger tract. The applicant has applied for Class (2) review for the development of.duplex (condo) units on each of the lots created by this short plat. Notice :vf.:.Appaacation for this_.:devel.opment was: -sent to adjoining property owners on July 6, 1999, with the 20day comment . perio.d ending on July 26, 1999. During the comment Period,:...numex-.ous .:written comments were received;._. mostly dis.approving:.of::_ the.: -proposed development . Inacc.ordance with Chapter..: -.15...14.-040 (3-)'(e) of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance,. the -Acting Administrative Official:,. Bdb-....Shampine, EXAMINER?S .DECISION..- 2 Larry:-- -Loveie.ss,�:: . Examiner-- No I1J9.9.-1-13, DOC. INDEX ' HEARING EXAMINER " FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF .YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX:4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 referred this •application to the Hearing Examiner for review, public hearing, and decision. The two existing. parcels were created by a recent administrative lot line adjustment which served to delete that portion of the property which has frontage on -Englewood. The two parcels directly front on 46th, are of approximately,equalsize, and total 3.6 acres. Four lots would be created with frontage -on -,46-thThese . lots would be located starting :at the north edge.. of. the property, extending south. The remaining•..;,lar.ge parcelwould-,:be L=.shaped. The bulk of that lot would be_located behind (east) of the new duplex lots. The short -leg ,of_ the L would have -frontageon 46th, south of these lots. The ..4 6th Avenue frontage of the -larger -lot would accommodate another -duplex and an interior street to access • the remainder of the parcel. That portion of the project is not currently under review. The new duplex lots would range in size from 8,075. to 8,500 square feet. The minimum duplex lot size in R-1 is 8,000 square feet. Each lot will comply with all development standards established by local ordinance. This includes providing four offsite parking spaces for each duplex (two per residential unit) . . The intent is to build single story duplexes, which will meet all setback and building height requirements. Maximum.. allowable -lot cov.erage..(area covered with impervious surfaces), is....45%-in-R-1. This -.-=proposal. shows 43% coverage on the site plan. Utilizing the density calculations in the staff report:.,.-- based on_lots -.which. are:° ofslightly...dif.ferent.. siz,e..:than. the latest':site plan,.. bu.t. st l.l..._,over 8,00D square -feet _perlot, the:..:dwelling unit density:.for a _.:duplex unit on these:parcel-s _ is approximately 10.5 dwelling._:: units- per net residential ,acre. EXAMINER'S DECISION. - Larry Loveless Examiner No. IU99-1-13 DOC. INDEX # J_ • • • HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 • Public water and sewer will be provided. North .46th Avenue is an unclassified local access street: requiring 50 feet of right of way. The street is currently a.half developed street with 32 feet of right of way. Physical inspection indicates that; -the street is developed with pavement,. and curb and gutter on the west side. There is no curb. and gutter-. on the east side.' The pavement width is approximately 15 feet -,- Forty-sixth Avenue:-is:barricaded at the north end .of.:this property. Beyond the _barricade, based upon. my review .of city right of way maps, it appears that the city has - 16.5 :fee=t -of: right of way to the north, connecting with Modesto Way. This small. strip is improved .:with curb ..and .gutter on the -west- -wes_t- sid.e., ,anal has_ approximately 10 feet -of -pavement. It is bordered- : onthe-eas:t by.. Tom Gasseling's pear orchard, which also contains his residence. The reason for the street barricade is not clear on the record, but presumably is because of the inadequacy of 46th generally, in particular that'portion north of the barricade. City staff recommend that if this project is approved that the development be required to dedicate, along the frontage of the four duplex lots only, an additional 18 feet of right of way. Furthermore, along the duplex lot frontage, the developer will be required to complete the east half of the street to equal 32 feet of pavement together with a five foot sidewalk, and presumably street lights, all.along the frontage of these lots. Staff—did not recommend, and at the hearing the applicant did not propose, developing 46th. Avenue_:-from::_:.the;: south end • ofthis: •proj.ect - to the.- intersection he.-intersection withEnglewood. 7. Hearing. Testimony.: •Mr. Loveless. testified::.that- if this four lot -project:_.. worker. wout as he hopes that he intends°z to- develop the rest. of.::the-.vacant::property in a similar: fashion.: His... ability to market:.thes.etoiir-lots will determine.: the;;futur.ea size::.::, of other duplexes;.:;: as:to whether they should be smalleror:1arge_r EXAMINER'S DECISION::: 4 Larry Loveless Examiner No. IU99-1-13 DOC. INDEX HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND• COUNTY 'OF • YAKIMA POST --OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA,: WASHINGTON"98907 (509) - 248-0706 t. He anticipates being able to create, at the same density, approximately 14 to 15 lots total, which (condo) style dwelling units. Mr. and Mrs:. Loveless own the house at thesoutheast• corner of Englewood and,_..46th. This property is immediately.. adjacent to • this project, and will . provide the right. of::.."way: necessary for completion ...of::.:46th to Englewood in conjunction:: with proposed Phase 2, of this. project. Phase 2, consisting of: -they, development of 10 or 11 new lots, is not part of this. proposal. After the hearing:;::: by written communi.cation-.:..from:Mr. Loveless to the Examiner, Mr. Loveless indicated that:if necessary he will construct 46th to urban standards in conjunction with this_ four lot project; In other- words, 46th would be. improved to its.:: full width from Englewood north to the barricade at the north end' 'of the Loveless property. Mr. Loveless provided documentation and extensive testimony concerning the character of the. neighborhood. His Exhibit 2 includes a map, marked in blue, showing the various condominium. and- duplex developments in the area. This includes duplexes located on Estee Court and Garden Park Way, off North 42nd Avenue, means 28-30 duplex> as well as Bellevue Place, between 44th and 46th on well as the Englewood Crest and Casa Royale developments west of 48th, on Englewood Avenue. marked in blue on Exhibit 2, Mr. Loveless counts 141 and 70 houses, together with a church. He refers Englewood, as Condominimum In the area condominiums, to this area between 40th and . 50th as a ::condominium corridor:• alongthe north side of Englewood Accordingly., he -argues that. his =project-- is a logical extension :of the -corridor., and in fact -borders.- a portion of .the west side of::.BellevueManor., the zero•-lot.::,line devel:opmen:t-:-- - onBellevue Place. - Mr. Loveless. .prefers::::: that. 46th retain its barricade <: and : remain a permanent cul..de:::sac::: since 47th. provides' adequate'accessu EXAMINER'S DECISION - 5 Larry Loveless Examiner No. IU99-1-13 DOC. INDEX • HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND -COUNTY' OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE' BOX" .4 YAKIMA; WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 • • into the Conestoga area, and -is a natural buffer for single family access to Englewood. He also points out that it. pis .very difficult to find property on which to build duplexes::;,:. and:'that most of the new' single family... construction is being.,bult. wes.of Yakima, rather than in this__ more centrally located area He anticipates each:-dwel-ling.:.unit would have 1,400 to.1,500, .. square feet; and hopefully..sell._..•in the $100,000 to $120,000 range. He notes that the median: -price for condominiums in Yakima is .$117,000, and that theaverage.pr.:ice.:is $121,000 per unit. Several residents on North 46th testified. For example, Doug Pratt indicated that thea street width of 46th is completely inadequate. He, as - did. others,.. testified that any timeonemee.t:s a garbage truck .pulling -off Englewood onto 46th, that you have to back up in order to clear the intersection and the•street. He pulled no punches in. calling the street a disaster, and declaring that it needs widened now; regardless of this project. Several .neighborhood residents testified concerning the dwelling unit density, the .zoning, and the problem with a piecemeal development approach.' Lee Clark, 817 Conestoga, is characteristic. He is against the proposal because the density makes the area look like R-2 zoning.' The R-1 single family status of the area keeps getting. nibbled away. His second concern deals with the quality of the•project. He is concerned that there is nothing relative to the type of improvements that would be required, both public.. and.private.,:for. the overall pr-oj.ect, and.:: that there is no overall site=plan This leads --to This -third -: concern, which is that a piecemeal approach, reviewing first a four lot project .and:-..then,..a ..future. project, tends to.avoid.:..mor.e. stringent review of the:, whole:. prof ect . Tom .Gasseling, who:.borders_the property to the north; voiced -- the same concerns, indicating that. 140 condominiums are enough_;: EXAMINER'S DECISION - 6 Larry Loveless Examiner No. IU99-1-13 DOC. INDEX J � HEARING -EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND -COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA; WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 and wondering why Phase 2 is not being dealt with now. He pointed out that the duplexes on Garden Park Way are very nice, and:.: 4111 typically sell for $180,00'to $265,000 per individual unit. He is.. not persuaded that. these lower priced units, and the density, is_.. compatible with the existing R-1 zoned neighborhood. These are.,._: representative concerns which were - also voiced by other speakers::-: at the .hearing, and also reflected in.the correspondence received prior to the'hearing. Attorney Carmody, on behalf of Mr --and Mrs.. Loveless, built upon Mr. Loveless' testimony about:thecharacter of the area, He pointed out that standard information•avai-lable from the commonly used Trip Generation Manual indicates:. that, traffic generated by individual families typically. averages- :10°'vehicle trip ends per... day, whereas residential condominiums or townhouses generally develop six trip ends per day. He points out that city staff have concluded that there are no, capacity problems with Englewood, and that the street system can clearly handle this proposal. In a legal memorandum received by the Examiner after the hearing, Mr. Carmody reiterates Mr. Loveless' commitment to complete full frontage improvements on 46th to Englewood as part of this initial proposal. He also points out that public sentiment alone is not sufficient to deny.a project which .otherwise complies with all development regulations. 8. Post Hearing Evidence. Reference has been made above to, a letter and legal memorandum received from Mr. Loveless and Mr. Carmody:: respectively.. These were mailed -_:to my office -:after the hearing : I have reviewed- them and:conclude that they- should be included -.in the record. The primary reason is that Mr. Lovel=ess has -made a significant concession from the . original:-; . applica=tion. in agreeing to complete...:•46Avenue at this time MrTP Carmodys legal memorandum .simply_ provides. case authority forthe assertionshe made at the hearingreriewingsettled law. EXAMINER!:..S DECISION - 7 Larry Loveless Examiner,No. IU99-1-13 DOC. INDEX • HEARINGEXAMINER FOR THE CIT( AND COUNTY^OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE' BOX''4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON: 98907 (509) 248-0706 • • • Both documents are included in the official record, and were not solicited by the Examiner. 9. Environmental Review, This. project is exempt from.' review under the State Environmental Policy Act. The City's SEPA ordinance, YMC Chapter 6.88f adopt;s.•.by:reference the categorical... exemptions and threshold determinations set. forth in RCW 43.21C. (The~SEPA statute). See YMC°.6-88.185. Under state law the short' plat is exempt from environmental:review Under local ordinance., creating two dwelling units.on: one::-lo.t::-.in the R-1 zone is also exempt -from review. See YMC-'6.88 071. (A) .(1) (b) . 10. Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The 1997 Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map designates the preferred use of land in thisarea:as low-density residential, meaning less than 7 dwelling.units per acre. (See Map III -3, and pages III -6 and III -_9, 1997 Comprehensive Plan). Medium density.is 7 to 11 units; high density is 12 and over. (Id.). The Plan at page III. -11 states: "The distribution of the new housing units by location and density is specified on the, Future Land Use Map. The map's designation of areas suitable for moderate residential density development is -considered to be able to accommodate over 2,000 new units within the urban service area. If this is inadequate, the plan anticipates annual modification. (See Plan, p. IV -9). This proposal isnot consistent with the designation of this area -,under the Plan as preferred: for low:;..:dens-it.y residential. development. 11. Yakima Urban Area Zonina.,.Ordinance. The single family residential (R-1) zone is intendeto establish and preserve .,. residential neighborhoods for: detacheda:single-family dwellings free= from other uses exceptthosewhichar.e:: -compatible with, and serve the residents of, the R-1 zone. In..addition, the intent is EXAMINER'S DECISION - 8 Larry Loveless Examiner No. IU99-1-13 DOC. INDEX HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY:OF:YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX.:4 YAKIMA,. WASHINGTON .98907 (509) 248-0706 to locate moderate density residential development, up to .seven dwelling units per net residential acre, when --served by public water and sewer. (YMC 15.03.030(b)). Duplexes are a class 2 use in R,-1,.meaning that they are generally permitted but may be incompatible..at..a particular location. Accordingly, class 2 review -.is required on a case by case basis in order to review the proposal "...to promote compatibility with the intent and character -of the district and the objectives and development criteriaof the Yakima. Urban Area Comprehensive Plan." (YMC15.04.'020.(b).::) . The Two -Family Residential (R-2) zone is designed for both detached single family and duplex structures, with a dwelling unit density of up to twelve dwelling units per net residential acre: The density of this proposal, 10.5 units per acre, is far more consistent with R-2 than R-1 zoning. The clear language of both the Plan and the Zoning Ordinance indicate that duplexes may be scattered throughout the R-1 zone, but not placed in a concentrated fashion which is far more dense than seven units per acre. 12. Caselaw. Mr. Carmody cites cases for the proposition that neighborhood opposition must have some basis in fact or law; unsupported personal opinion does not constitute a justifiable basis for project denial. This is an accurate statement. However, in this instance, neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance countenance this.proposal at. this. location. Neighbors have a right to express their=..opinion.that this proposal is incompatible with the neighborhood and the predominant -R-1 zoning. 13.. Public Notice. Public .notice: of the hearing was:: provided in accordance with the ordinance;. EXAMINER'S. DECISION - 9 Larry Loveless Examiner No. IU99-1-13 DOC. INDEX J • • HEARINGEXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 • From the foregoing Findings, they Examiner makes the following:: CONCLUSIONS Th-e,Examiner has jurisdiction. •2.:. For the reasons. stated herein, theepplication does not comply-withtheobjectives of the. Utbarr:AreaComprehensive the intent,of•the Single Family Residential.. (12...-1) zoning district, and the provisionsof the Urban Area,Zoning•Ordinance, 3. • Theapplication is denied. DATED this Z day of September 28, 1999. EXAMINERIS DECISION - 10 410 Larry-IJoVeless. ExaminerAla. 1U99-1-13 PHILIP A. LAMB Hearing Examiner DOC. INDEX HEARING EXAMINER' FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 1 CITY OF YAKIMA; WASHINGTON Information Services - GIS FILE NO: PRESHT PLAT#5-99 & CL(2)#17-99 APPLICANT: LARRY & KIMBERLY LOVELESS REQUEST: CONSTRUCT DUPLEXES IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATION: VIC. ENGLEWOOD & N. 46TH AVE.• Scale ±,lin 0 150:V:. 300 SUblectProperty --- &listing Boundary Yakima City Limits n Flifi.31.7. -99 06/21/99 INDEX • - - — — • Plots: Producing the nite plea from this template is pre(ared, however, the =vial* can be substituted for your own rnedium.(computer aided is acceptable). . - .cr xis; . 4a-tc c: $719 hal ilypo RATOC-4 V, Prod ecJA f. ...ger" loos • Au- A arag 01)1111,C OP 6.201 A&E irt,makrePwiii L.14 @Annus L.. Sit BAS) Floposcra L3c‘EillelL (1111 - or SAciwroFu1144 CVAEI tr.71 Apo 161 ppvCrOOT • LkS AJGL. Leal col a -,(IS 771 EY s muci LAW6t. Th'--- 4 PaisSiso Pall 0S Age J SIT rOVERAG.4('J CULAIII QM '. e) Foomrin(s) of --E•wwg Scrueturr.(3) Fr b)Buildlag Addidoeffiew Scrucusre(s) Footprin(s)--SQ FT c) Paved Area(s) (Driveways, wallcways, pada:, etc.) Ibtal.-- , b 20 • SQ PT d) Proposed Paved Area(s) . sq Fr e) Total Impervious Surface (a+b+c+d .. e) 34 2 0•sq Fr 0 Lat Slit ._,...iaejLs(2 pr g) Lot Coverage (cif x 100 . g) -II-% MAP SCAT F (Please use the given scale, however; in some circumstances a different scale may work better.) eheekane pirefarred Scale: t inch on the tow - 20 feed an the :mad CuxwmSaile: I inch . 4'13 Template de maxim are flash apart Produced by (yriet)111114111.0116 LAW Dass JUN1 8 1999. CITY:OF,yAXIM1v4 1 1 • pARKING CALCULAII (RefaconeTabli'&1:of tbe-UrbeirkratZoningOrdlifirsee),,,,,,, 11) space(a)naquirc4 space(a) Provided A -a. Ler.- J OTINRFr)RMATIOli. Parcel s) )12)/31.- Sa0q,0 149[2i5.- g309,-. sim No Ava• mort$11:oF-Cpepoolco Legal Description (We() ArKfiROUND ThIFORMATIOti Applicant Name LA") rtl.'ciKlyn6c7LOVCIESS Site Address 9 0 00.•A4lejA4-iniA u/A. 41A9'09 Mailing Address Comsat Pereen-LA-D4-- 0=1%0= 013 'ip VW 8 • vv - Applicant Signe Datn: 4-041:tx 25 S , rGxIS-tlltlq 1(6131.5-330yo 2q0' c% 1 1 e? # I s r•INC/ 191&1.5•- 330 -'~ '1 E 1dt.) . L 1A. 9Z‘ la' O' o,- 85., 0 LExis1. Fine r 117pizorJ1- DE pt c.AlCD tZkj I•D•1. or (My 6 g RECEIVED Curz-I&. i vl t frOt AN 12 1 b + riCImEST" • JUN 1 11999 LA mil gl S3d ( Mo '� 6,4461, • Yakima City Council Action on Requests for Changes in Future Land Use Designations Action taken during the July 16 and July 23, 1996 Council GYM Worksessions Requesting Individual or Organization 1. Delmar Pearson 2. Gary Lukehart 3. Memorial Hospital 4. Bill Almon 5. Maid o'Clover Request Location East and west of N. 40th Ave Unincorporated area south of SR 12 / N 1st Street interchange Area near hospital Nob Hill Blvd just west of 48th Ave Block between S. 18th St. & freeway, and Nob Hill & : oggess St Council Action' Approved Land Use Plan as Requested Mix of low, med., high density, Neighborhood Comm., Professional Office. RPC and staff recommendations not approved Approved RPC Recommendation from Med. Den. Residential to Wholesale/Warehouse north of "R" St. to the interchange, denied post. RPC request to continue Wholesale down to "P" Street. Request deferred pending development of a neighborhood plan, plan requested by joint agreement between hospital and neighborhood residents Approved request and staff rec. to change from Low Den. Resid. to Prof. Off. along Nob Hill frontage Approved request and staff rec. to change Med. Den. Resid to Arterial Commercial ' items 1, 2 and 3 were originally forwarded from the Regional Planning Commission Council Approved Changes to Future Land Use Map Page 1 . IfeEPAS-10271m-sAISSZE---il ?-1146-.4,1kit4108 KERN WAY VAKIMAWASHINGTON 98908 5th452-0090 Plaqut and 4 session. Please consider this 'Ithter as aur forn council to modify the Comprehensive PIan consistent. withcomm.ents of our engineer, Bill Huibregtse of Huibregtse, made at the public hearings. • DOC. INDEX #1-1 Th DOC. INDEX .1-1 Memorandu July 11, 1996 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Yakima City Council FROM: Glenn Valenzuela, Director, Dept. of Community & Economic Development TO IC: Information for the July 16,1996 Council GMA Worksession The attached information has been prepared for the July 16, 1996 Council GMA Worksession to be held in the City Council Conference Room, 8:00 a.m. Enclosed with thismemo are three map requests deferred at the July 9 worksession: 1. Plath request, Citizen Map Change Request #8 2. Beggs request, Citizen Map Change Request #9 3. Pearson Request, Citizen Map Change Request #14 (RPC #1) Also enclosed is a request received by Planning Division July 10,1996, from Mr. Ralph Holbrook, and 'a copy of Council Action taken at the July 9 worksession. As soon as all map decisions/changes have been made by Council, staff will run an analysis on the new acreage amounts and percentages for each land use designation. DOC. INDEX # .t-1 • FINANCIAL�+ SERVICES, INC. 1440 NORTH 16TH AVENUE, SUITE 2 m P. O. BOX 22700 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907-2700 0 (509) 248-7930 June 26, 1996 City Hall City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima WA 98901-2614 PUBLIC HEARING / GMA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Dear City Council Members: RECEIVED ("TY CF "• • " JUN 2 7 1996 OFF:CE ryF ,- --V rr.;.4Il" Like Mr. Brown, representing the Builders' Association, I, too, wish to thank and commend the Regional Planning Council and the City and County staffs for the. hours of energy they have contributed into the draft of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. On June 25th citizens were invited to share their views regarding this proposal at the 2 p.m. meeting held at the Southeast Community Center. I had requested to speak, but was unable to do so as I had to attend a meeting elsewhere at 4 p.m. I appreciated Councilman Sims' initial inquiry regarding the long term impact of this PLAN vis a vis zoning, but was left confused as to the responses and their meanings. In the subsequent discussions, I thought I heard that the adoption of the PLN would not effect future zoning requests (if properties were already zoned in a particular area for previously approved activities).. If my perception is accurate, then I'm struggling with the notion of the "Comprehensive Plan" which suggests to me and the community the preferred plan of the future. It would seem that this plan, by definition, must include the ongoing and subsequent .use of people's property, in essence, establishing the zoning guidelines. Which is to say again, I'm confused ... how can a "plan" if adopted by the City and County, not send a clear message to landholders, developers, and/or citizens as to prospective uses of the specific properties? It is within this context that I would have preferred to have made my feelings known during the hearing. They are: 1) . Those authorized with the process of effectuating potential property use have a great, civic duty; the outcome including which parcels will increase in value and which ones will diminish relative to the decisions they make. LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE • GROUP INSURANCE • EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS • EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION • CORPARATE PLANN DOC. INDEX RETIREMENT PLANS • ANNUITIES • INVESTMENTS # F 1 City Council Members Page 2 June 26, 1996 2) I have a great concern for, and what encouraged me to attend this hearing and, subsequently, to pen this letter: the concept of overall fairness. Allow me to share a story... Seventy-five years ago Delmar Pearson was born and brought to his parents' home, a farm in the County they acquired 15 years earlier. During the early 1950's Delmar and Ellen brought their four children into the world and onto this same farm. For the next forty years Ellen's dual full-time jobs were rearing her children and managing the farm. Delmar was employed as an accountant and only able to assist her on a part-time basis. He did, however, make time to express his concern for others by innumerable civic and community involvements. His fingerprints are all over this Valley. In the mid 1950's the Pearsons moved off the farm to be closer to schools for their children, but maintained offices on the site. During the 1960's someone got the idea to develop the sagebrush to the west and above the farm into residential homes (at that time; this land sold for less than a couple thousand dollars an acre). The names of the streets today bare a striking resemblance to the nature of the property at that time; the pioneer wagon references. It wasn't too many years after the "wagon train" residents settled, that they were kickin' up quite a fuss every spring. They thought Delmar and Ellen shouldn't be allowed to use frost control measures to protect their crops, let alone spray during the rest ofthe year. This sounds somewhat reminiscent of the person who builds next to the railroad tracks then complains about the train whistles. During the 1970's Yakima was growing and elected to condemn portions of the Pearson farm so the community could have the last chance for another north -south thoroughfare - 40th Avenue! As driving patterns changed and traffic picked up on 40th, people began to complain that their cars were occasionally sprinkled as they drove between the orchards. To avoid potential liability issues, the Pearsons chopped down two rows of trees on both the east and west sides of 40th. For those not familiar with fruit farming, this may not seem significant, but when combined with the other industry trends (high density, large blocks) removing these trees, along with the production that was previously condemned for 40th, the farm went from being an agricultural asset to a liability. BM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. DOC. INDEX # .1-1 City Council Members Page 3 June 26, 1996 While the extension of 40th through the Pearson farm has been a financial blow for Delmar and Ellen, it has been a boom for their neighbors; to the north - restaurants, convenience, grocery, discount, and variety stores and to the south - churches, professional offices, attached housing, apartments, and a fire station. My suspicion is that even the Carriage Hill residents have experienced increases in their property values related to the convenience/access that the 40th Avenue thoroughfare made available. During the public hearing on the 25th, one of the 'Carriage Hillers" : made the statement that there as clear evidence that single family homes could be built on 40th and used as evidence the houses north of Fechter. Well, it is hard to account for everyone's thinldng. I cannot imagine building a house on 40th. If you had children, you would be constantly concerned for their safety which you would have a lot of time to think about since the road noise would keep you awake at night. Delmar's desire to put professional offices, banks, and restaurant facilities on 40th with turn lanes, re-routing Fechter to reduce its present safety hazard, combined with medium and low density housing to the west, with a buffer zone separating this project from Carriage Hill makes sense. Especially when considering that these are the types of activities that are within a few blocks of the parcel already. And, it is good for the City as the tax base would be higher. The issue is not whether the land fronting 40th is appropriate for the purposes summarized above, but rather is it appropriate/fair for some portion of the Carriage Hill residents to absolutely dictate how the property will be developed. I am asking that you consider amending that portion of the PLAN so that it will anticipate the types of development described above. Thanking you for your consideration. Sincerely, Craig B. Mendenhall CBM/tmg BBM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. DOC. INDEX .I-1 Yakima Urban .Area Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Comme ,ts.and Staff Responses Comments From June 25,1996 Joint City of Yakima / Yakima County Public Hearing Southeast Yakima Communty Center 1. Lee Clark ® Addressed future land use designation on D. Pearson property west of 40th Avenue, wants low density adjacent to Carriage Hill area Response: The Regional Planning Commission's recommendation for this area was forwarded to the Yakima City Council for their consideration. Their recommendation includes low density adjacent to Carriage Hill: Mr. Pearson has submitted a request that differs from the Regional Planning Commission's recommendation, showing a smaller amount of low density residential adjacent to the Carriage Hill area. 2. Verna Beggs e Addressed future land use designations east of Fair Avenue north of Nob Hill Boulevard. She has requested commercial land use designation for this area. an � Response: Staff has prepared a map (citizen map change request #9, included in the June 11 Hearing Packet) )with a recommendation of Arterial Commercial north of Kiwanis Park, and Medium Density Residential south of the park to Adams Street. 3. Bill Hays ® Supports the Regional Planning Commission's recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan ® Stated the Citizen Committee Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan shifts burden of payment from users to entire community Response: The Growth Management Act requires a city planning under GMA to include financing strategies for non motorized transportation purposes (RCW 35.77.010). As with parks and other community facilities, the cost of development and maintenance of facilities is shared throughout the community. If only the users of parks facilities were required to financially support these facilities, they would not be affordable to the users. Additionally, adopted City Council policy contained within the City's Parks and it Recreation Plan states "Ensure that bikeways and pedestrian pathways are made consideration in surface transportation planning for the City of Yakima." Public Hearing Comments and Responses, June 25, 1996 Page 1 DOC. INDEX # .T-1 • 4. Delmar Pearson ® Speaking on behalf of Citizen Map Change. Request #14 (east & west of 40th Avenue, between. Fechter & Englewood) o Stated cannot continue farmingdue to existing development in area ® Wants medium density near trailer court for transition, B-1 east. of 40th, Professional Office west of 40th south of Fechter. Response: Staff recommends no commercial or office designations west of 40th (see Citizen Request Map #14, amended 6/20/96, which differs from Regional Planning Commission recommendation). Previous City actions along North 40th Avenue have been conservative in establishing new commercial nodes, in order to protect the integrity and function of the arterial system. 5. Bob Young, on behalf of Central Washington Homebugiderr ® Submitted a petition from "Citizens for Governmental Accountability," with 31 signatures O Supports RPC version of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan. e Stated impact fees are not a viable source of funding • Development regulations should be dealt with later Response: See response under item #3 above related to Bicycle Plan comments. Impact fees are but one potential source of funding for transportation, parks, schools, and fire capital facilities as authorized by GMA. Development regulations will be dealt with at a later date. 6. Dan Tilley • Read from RCI stating development regulations must be consistent with & implement the plan o Displayed a map indicating densities per acres under different development scenarios Elderly high density developments need 30 units per acre, 20-25 units per acre for other typical high density. developments Response: As required by GMA, development regulations will be consistent with & implement the plan. The density ranges shown on the Future Land Use Map are not regulations, butare general guidelines. Fifteen units per acre is not meant to be a cap on density within areas designated as High Density Residential. The current zoning ordinance does not numerically cap units per acre within areas zoned for high density. 7. Bill Huibregtse ® Spoke for Delmar Pearson, on property along 40th Avenue. Pearsons want mixed uses as shown on their map, induding 300 feet of low density along canal in consideration of Carriage Hill area, Professional Office along 40th Avenue, and relocate Fechter for a safer intersection with 40th Avenue. Public Hearing Comments and Responses, June 25, 1996 Page 2 DOC. INDEX # T 1 es onse: Staff recommends no commercial or office designations west of 40th (see",� P � Citizen Request Map. #14, amended .6/20/96, which differs from Regional Planning Commission recommendation) 8. Melvin Carlson ® Agrees with Mr. Clark's testimony, and stated that once maps are adopted, they will me difficult to change. Response: GMA allows for annual amendrnents to the comprehensive plan, which may include amendments to the Future Land Use Map. Also see response to item #1 above. 9. Alice Ells • Spoke as Executive Director of Yakima Housing Authority © No provision on Future Land Use Map for multi -family housing O Make sure there is room for growth Response: Table III -5 of the Plan indicates 456 ares of lands designated for High Density Residential uses, compared with 351 acres currently used as multi- family, shown on Table III -3. 10, Dennis Kelly O Supports the RPC Recommended Bicycle &t Pedestrian Plan O Land Use Map still needs more work Response; GMA allows for annual amendments to the comprehensive plan, which may include amendments to the Future Land Use Map. ,i 11. Phoebe Nelson O Spoke as Director of Yakima County Coalition for the Homeless G Future Land Use Map does not accommodate needs of low income persons ® Confused about difference between 'zoning &t land use O Lives in Carriage Hill area and likes Pearson's land use plan Response: As stated in item #9 above, Table 111-5 of the Plan indicates 456 acres of lands designated for High Density -Residential uses, compared with 351 acres currently used as multi -family, shown on Table III -3. The zoning map is a regulatory tool, while the future land use map is a general guide for future land uses. GMA requires development regulations to be consistent with the plan. 12. Steve McKenna O Concerned as a property owner about possible widening of 16th Avenue Response: Alternatives to improving 16th Avenue include a lower level of serviS or alternative routes. Public Hearing Comments and Responses, June 25, 1996 Page 3 DOC. INDEX # .T-1 • Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 RECEIVED r '1OF..,.,".ik JUN 2 61996 t "c Y COUNCIL Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan °Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. I believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill,. (2) a "Medium Density Housing" area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class 11 and Class 111 reviews for proposed banks and. restaurants if property is zoned °Professional Office" I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am - expressing my opinion. Name ri _ 17_ DRIV� YA1/‹-/mA WA 9€903 • DOC. INDEX # .T-1 RECFAV • 1t., •10 '1 JUN 2 6 1996 Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan "Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. I believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing" area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class III reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office" I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. Name Address mielm, 98‘908" DOC. INDEX RECEIVED r.-vncYAW" a JUN 2 41996 OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan "Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. 1 believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing" area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the . Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration. areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class 111 reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office" I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor 1 am expressing my opinion. Address lil,.zZelal46-4AJ IN 5 ;j/ i/e) - 94tpl- ich Flt I7 0 hs `,!1 G e 4vo �Yf Ct3 /My f;7 e�/,ravo ( ®/ aa/ 5 . 1 rot p'c U e �. DOC. INDEX # J-1 Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 RECEIVED CRY OF YAK/Paii 'JUN 2 4 1996 OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan °Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. I believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing° next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing° area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the. Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a °Neighborhood Commercial° area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class ID reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned °Professional Office° I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. Name 1,z17 7th �/Li�f �ZJ Address .2 /v 2044''✓/ `�'L'�-G CPA0'71 ‘dtdi Oi DOC. INDEX # J-1 Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall. 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 RECEIVED, rrvOF SO 2 41996 OFFICE Ci- CM COUNCIL Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan "Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. 1 believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing" area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class III reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office" I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. Address V() 1/_,63 DOC. INDEX .1-1 RECEIVED r'w'YOFYAKM°4. JUN 2 0 1996 OFFICL CF C TY COUNCIL Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 Re; Draft of . Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan °Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. I believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a °Medium Density Housing" area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to thetrailer court. (3) a °Neighborhood Commercial° area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class 111 reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office° I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. Nam aedi:re 17 ,k.) EN 1-4 - Address pp � O 9 /L:o . Z3'� i�u-� ytcccal Go DOC. INDEX # _T 1 1 Realty Inc. WILLIAM E ALMON • COMMERCIAL • • June 23, 1996 Yakima City Council Yakima County Commission RECEIVED CfY CF Y3:;" .•q JUN 2 4.1996 OFFICE'.OF .;;Tit COU'tiCii Re: Draft Comprehensive Plan Pearson properties - N. 40th Avenue near Kern and Fechter Dear Council Members and Commissioners: Being very aware of the projected demand for additional residential -zoned land within the Urban Growth Area to respond to the anticipated need for more living quarters between now and the year 2010, I understand the reluctance to permit land presently zoned residential to be transformed into other uses. Notwithstanding that fact, I believe that the properties controlled by the Pearson family, via D.E.P. Properties, Inc. and Mt. Adams Cattle Company on N. 40th Avenue between Kern Road and Fechter, on both sides of 40th Avenue, are unfairly destined to be encaptured into future residential use only. It should not be overlooked that the land is not now utilized for residential, but has been maintained - despite many past opportunities to do otherwise - as an operating fruit ranch consistent with the vibrant financial history of our valley. It is only on paper that it can be considered to be residential in nature. While it appears a portion of the land will be permitted for transformation to professional office space and the utilization of four acres for the community's new Children's Village pediatric. medical facility, to sentence the Pearsons to mandated use of the remainder of the land as residential seems unduly harsh. In addition, it overlooks the obvious need, whenever there is scheduled a great number of new homes, for the goods and services necessary to provide for the existence of the inhabitants of the new homes, but to avoid their having to travel significant distances over public streets to obtain those items elsewhere in town, adding to traffic problems. That we, as a community, have a need for additional residential -zoned lands to address future needs, should not create a burden to be borne by one family. I urge you to consider allocation, in the Comprehensive Plan, to a blended use of these combined lands to residential, office and commercial purposes. Sincerely, Bill Almon, CCIM 4112 Summitview o Yakima, WA 98908 (509) 966-3800 u 1-800-388-0935 • Fax (509) 966-7183 DOC. INDEX # J-1 June.21, 1996 Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 � RECEIVED /.- 1 TV Cc vA,-..A JUN 2 4 1996 '''""'~i1:fjaSs2 I cannot be at the June 25th meeting however I have reviewed the. Pearson proposal for their property on 40th Avenue. I think their plan is well directed. It uses the land in the most beneficial way for the community. I am sure you will have complaints from neighbors that would rather look down on an orchard than new houses. They need to rerranber that their land was once orchard and they disrupted someone elses view. I think their plan is well though out and will enhance our cc nunity. Sincerely, Fred Plath 3604 Howard Ave Yakima, WA 98902 FP/db DOC. INDEX .T-1 • • RECEIVED .,n KIR. ti JUN 2 1 1996 OFFICr rt Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan °Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. I believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing" next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing° area of condos' and town houses next to thetrailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a "Neighborhood Commercial" area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class III reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if property is zoned "Professional Office° 41 I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. 1/4)1 ee.w®e...1r 7Te44� i DOC. INDEX # J-1 Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .WA 98901 Re; Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive plan "Future Use North 40th Avenue The undersigned has reviewed the proposed plan of Delmar and Ellen Pearson for their property on North 40th Ave. I believe the plan provides (1) a buffer area of "Low Density Housing° next to Carriage Hill, (2) a "Medium Density Housing" area of condos and town houses next to the trailer court, (3) a method of solving the Fechter road problem at 40th Ave by providing left turns and right deceleration areas at the Village Way crossing next to the trailer court. (3) a °Neighborhood Commercial° area next to 40th avenue to avoid unreasonable night sounds to people, and avoid unnecessary delay of Class li and Class III reviews for proposed banks and restaurants if propertyis zoned °Professional Office° I cannot be at the June 25th meeting , therefor I am expressing my opinion. Name Address /711 S. ,ryVvi L4 g450Y DOC. INDEX # J -t Requests and Staff Recommendations for Changes in Future Land Use Designations June 20, 1996 The following persons/organizations have requested future land use designation change(s) for properties shown on the Future Land Use Map, during or since the June 11, 1996 Council/Commissioners Public Hearing. Shown below are the original land use designation, along with the requested change in designation. A Future Land Use Map has been prepared for each request, and is attached to this document. Staff recommendations are as noted. Please refer to the attached maps for each request. CITIZEN REQUESTS FOR LAN USE DESIGNATION CHANGES Property/Location Future Land Use Map Requested Staff Designation Designation Recommendation 10. Congdon Orchards Mix of residential (modified request) densities • 11. Union Street Area Medium and High Submitted during hearing Density • 12. W. Lincoln Ave. Low Density (Bower request) 13. Rudkin Road:. High Density Werst Wondrack Hamilton (Kearn) 14. Pearson Orchards Submitted at hearing Mix with more Accept Proposed Commercial, Plan High Density Low Density Low Density Arterial Comm. Low Density Industrial Warehouse/ Wholesale Professional Office Mix of Commercial, No Commercial .or Office and Residential office west of North 40th Ave 15. Trailwagons Industrial Arterial Comm. Arterial Comm. DOC. INDEX # .1-1 Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Comments and Staff Responses Comments From June 11,1996 Joint City of Yalu na .1 Yakima County Public Hearing • 1. Bob Young • Spoke in support of the "Coalition of Citizens for Responsible Government". ® Primary concern was that the Proposed Future Land Use Map (page 111-6) is not consistent with the existing Zoning Map. Changes to zoning may not be in best public interest. Response: Changes to the zoning map are not proposed on a one to one" relationship of zoning to the Future Land Use map. The Future Land Use map is a guide to preferred land uses. Staff proposes a thorough analysis of existing uses to determine the appropriate zone for each property prior to any changes to the zoning map, as noted in a memo to the City Council dated May 7, 1996. A public hearing will be held when any zoning changes are proposed. This process will take several months to accomplish. 2. Bill Huiibregtse ® Representing Mr. and Mrs. Delmar Pearson for property along North 40th Avenue near Fechter Road. • Described request to change Future Land Use Map designations on Pearson property, particularly by showing Professional Office west of North 40th Avenue and Neighborhood Commercial on the east side of North 40th Avenue. Responses The Council was presented a detailed map request from Mr. Pearson at the hearing. Neither the staff nor the Planning Commission has connmented on this proposal. A different request was presented to the Planning Commission, which is part of the RPC recommendation. 3. Jerry Sturgill No opportunity for the public to review revised Housing Element or map changes. ® The Urban Area Boundary has been changed without any public process. ® Building moratoriums have been imposed in some Washington State counties because of invalid plans. ® Concern regarding consistency of Future Land Use and Zoning. ® There is not enough moderate or high density land nor mixture of commercial and residential in the area. Response: The purpose of the public hearing was to present information to the public and hear testimony. Since the hearing was continued to a date certain,, Public Hearing Comments and Responses, June 11,19'6 Page 1 DOC. INDEX #. T-1 1 40. Delmar Pearson O Property owner of land on North .40th Avenue and Kern. • No one wants to live on North 40th Avenue. O Part of his proposal is to re -align Pechter Road. O North 40th Avenue would be a good place for cornanercial, retail banks and restaurants. Response: The Planning Commission considered a different request from Mr. Pearson and made a recommendation. This proposal is new and in addition the recommendations of the Planning Commission. : Past City actions have been conservative in established new commercial nodes along North 40th Avenue in order to protect the integrity of the arterial street system, 41. Tim Monahan O Property owner along 50th Avenue and Chestnut. O High density designation should be higher than 12 units per acre. There is some demand for a range of 30 to 40 units per acre. © Need more high density and businesses on the west side of Yakima. o No consideration was given to appropriate land uses on arterial streets. O This is a political and legal process. Response: Density numbers are listed on the Future Land Use map as typical ranges and do not state that they are maximum. Arterial streets are vital as transportation corridors and should not necessarily be lined with commercial development. Council may wish to incorporate an "R-4" zoning category to allow for higher density when amending zoning regulations. 42. Larry Raths ® Resident of Northeast area. o There is no more room in Northeast Yakima. o We need .better code enforcement. Response: Future Land Use map indicates Low Density and some Medium Density designation in the Northeast neighborhood area. 43. Bev Luby Bartz O Resident of Northeast area. o Spoke in support of Comprehensive Plan. 1 44. Phil Hoge o Spoke in support of Citizen Committee recommendation for Bike and Pedestrian Plan. O Noted this process began some years ago with the Vision 2010 proms. O Deferred comments on residential densities in order to study information presented at hearing. Public Hearing Comments and Responses, June 11, 1996 Page 9 DOC. INDEX # A -l. Citizen Map Change Request #14 Individual/Organization Requesting Change: Delmar Pearson Location of Request: : Vicinity of 40th Avenue Current Zoning: Mix of R-1, R-2. R-3 Current Future Land Use Map Designation: Mix of Medium and High Density Residential, Professional Office Request Change To: Modified mix of Low, Medium and High Density Residential, Professional Office, Neighborhood Commercial Staff Recommendation: No Commercial or Office west of 40th Avenue Discussion: This request is modified from the recommendation forwarded by the Regional Planning Commission for this area. Map 14 indicates the Pearson's request for Professional Office west of 40th Avenue, north of the existing mobile home park, as well as additional Medium Density west of • 40th Avenue, and Neighborhood Commercial east of 40th Avenue. In order to preserve the ability of 40th Avenue to adequately carry traffic volumes without major road improvements, staff recommends retention of Medium Density Residential west of 40th Avenue. The remainder of Mr. Pearson's request is recommended for approval. Council Action: Approve Partial Approval Not Approved If partial approval, description: DOC. INDEX # x� Pearson Request Amended 6/20/9( Future Land LV Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential ak High Density Residential Professional Office Neighborhood Commercial Arterial Commercial CBD Core Commerce. Wholesale/Warehouse Industrial Parks/Open Space z 1 cJ Citizen Requesi #14 Request Mix of Office, Commercial, & Residential Recommend No Commercial or Office west "ha Scale - lin .400ft • 200 led: June 21,1996 ooenoonoholo on : vrte;; . 41 14/2 Mosaic of Digital Orthophotography flown 03/12/94 Citizen Reque: #14 01 re344, Ar* ok °off o Scale - 1 in = 400ft F511.41,174.1,12.3,1 0 200 41 Created: July II, 1996 Pearfenn Orchain odit., 06/20/6( Fut re Lan is! Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Professional Office Neighborhood Commercial Arterial Commercial CBD Cote Commer WholersalefWarehot Industrial El Parks/Open Space Citizen Request #14 Request Mix of Office, Commercial & Residential Recommend No Commercial or Office west of North 40th Ave z 44,8 Scale- lin = 400h 200 4( ated: ,Itdy 11, 1996 Och,wre a o SR Suburban Residential R-1 Single -Family Residential R-2 Two -Family Residential tr, R-3 Multi -Family Residential B -I Professional Business fi B-2 Local Business 11B Historical Business SCC Small Convenience Center LCC Large Convenience Centel Ni CBD Central Business District CBDS CBD Support M-1 Light Industrial M-2 Heavy Industrial A Citizen Request #14 0 4t ®4 Pea go et, `��e qs Scale - lin = 400ft 0 200 40( Created: July II,1996 Requests and Staff Recommendations for Changes in Future Land Use esignations June 7, 1996 The following persons/organizations have requested future land use designation change(s) for properties shown on the Future Land Use Map, subsequent to Regional Planning Commission public hearings. Shown below are the original land use designation, along with the requested change in designation. A Current Zoning Map. and Future Land Use Map has been prepared for each request, and are attached to this document. Staff recommendations are as noted. Please refer to the attached maps for each request. Staff also recommends changes as noted under Staff Recommended Changes, since some rezoning have occurred since development of the Future Land Use Map. CITIZEN REQUESTS Property/Location Future Land Use Map Requested Staff Designation Designation Recommendation Yakima Valley Memorial Hosp.l .! Delmar Pearson2 • Professional Office See Footnote 1 Low, Medium, High Density Residential, Professional Office See D. Pearson letter dated May 13, 1996 1. Bill Almon, . Almon Realty Low Density Resid. Professional Office along Nob Hill 2. Maid o'Clover Med. Density Resid., Arterial Commercial 3. John Kearns High Density Resid. Commercial Industrial Refer to Regional Planning Comm. Recommendation Refer to Regional Planning Comm. Recommendation Professional Office along Nob Hill Arterial Commercial High Density Residential3 1Letter dated May 14 1996 from Memorial Hospital indicates that the Future Land Use Map "appears not to take the future needs of the Hospital into consideration." However, no specific alternative land use designation is requested. The Regional Planning Commission recommended a modification to change future land use from Professional Office to High Density Residential north of Walnut between 28th & 30th Avenues (see RPC Recommendation Packet). 2The Regional Planning Commission has forwarded a recommendation for this area. Please see their recommendation in the RPC Recommendation Packet. 3The property is occupied by a mobile home park, is currently zoned R-3, and designated as High Density Residential on the. Future Land Use Map. Designating this parcel industrial would eventually result in the mobile home park becoming a non -conforming use. DOC. INDEX # a, Requests for Changes in Future Land Use Designations Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Page 2 Property/Location Future Land Use Map Requested Designation Designation 4. Gary Lukehart Med. Density Resid. Wholesale/ Warehouse Ed Trammell - 3 Sites 5. Site #1 6. Site #2 7. Site #3 8. Wash. Fruit & Produce 9. SE Neighborhood 10. Congdon Orchards Property/Location 1. Hunter Property 2. Coleman Property 3. Mead Avenue Vic. 4. Madison- Industrial Park Vicinity Low Density Resid. High Density Low Density Resid High Density Low Density Resid High Density Med. Density Wholesale/ Residential Warehouse Med. & High Density Arterial Residential Commercial Low, Med. High Den. Resid., Prof. Office Low. Med., High Den. Resid, Prof. Office, Wholesale/ Warehouse STAFF' RECOMMEN t E !)' CHANGES Future Land Use Map Designation Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential High Density Residential, Wholesale/Warehouse Staff II Recommendati Medium Density Residential4 High Density High Density High Density Wholesale / Warehouse Arterial Comm. N. of Park, Med. Den. S. of Park to Adams St. Low. Med., High Den. Resid, Prof Office, Wholesale Warehouse Staff Recommendation Professional Office & Med. Density Resid. High Density Resid. Wholesale/ Warehouse Wholesale/ Warehouse 4The Regional Planning Commission, as requested by Gary Lukehart and presented and recommended by Yakima County Planning, has recommended that the unincorporated area north of 'R" Street and south of the interchange be designated as Wholesale/Warehouse, which is a change of the area's original designation of Medium Density Residential. The area of request is currently occupied by residential uses. DOC. INDEX • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 129 North Second Street City Hall, Yakima, Washington 95901 Fax (509) 575-6105 Glenn J. Valenzuela, Director May 22, 1996 Mr. Delmar Pearson 4108 Kern Way Yakima, WA 98908 Dear Mr. Pearson: Thank you for your letter dated May 13 1996 regarding future land use designations for your properties. Your letter has been passed on to the Yakima City Council for their consideration. As you are aware, the Regional Planning Commission has forwarded a recommended Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan to the Yakima City Council.. The Planning Commission's recommendation includes changes made to future land use designations for your property both east and west of 40th Avenue. During a public meeting with the Yakima City Council Economic Development Committee held on May 14, 1996, testimony was given by two residents of the Carriage Hill area. Both residents stated that they were in agreement with the compromise reached by the Planning Commission regarding land use designations west of 40th Avenue. The Yakima City Council is planning to begin the formal public hearing process for the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan during the month of June 1996. The hearings will be held on June 11, 1996, 7:00 p.m., Yakima Convention Center, and June 25, 2:00 p.m., Yakima City Hall Council Chambers. If you are interested in following this process, I would like to encourage you to attend the upcoming public hearings on the Plan with the Yakima City Council during June. That would be your opportunity to express any concerns you may have about the Plan or land use designations for your property. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at any time'at 575- 6113. DOC. INDEX # .I-1 Cable T.V. 575-6092 • Code Administration 575-6121 • Engineering 575-6111 • Neighborhood Development 575-6101 • Planning 575-6113 D E LMA,R L, PLA.R S:ON 4108 KERN WAY • YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98908 • (509) 452-0090 May 13,1996 Yakima Urban Area Regional Planning Commission Yakima City Council Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, .W.A, 98901 Re Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Dear Commission Members and City Council Members: We are writing this letter on behalf of 2 family corporations that own the land East and West of 40th Avenue bordered by Kern Way, on the South and Fechter on the North, the Power House Ditch on the East and the Congdon Ditch on the West ( approximately 58 acres). Most of the property in question has belonged to my family since 1906. Until last year it has been a fruit growing farm with farm buildings and housing. At one time there was a medium sized packing shed on the property. This property was engaged in business before the 1986 zoning. RECEIVED MAY 1 4 1996 CITY OF YAKitv1A PLANNING DIV West of 40th Avenue The land immediately north of the trailer court along 40th is currently zoned R2. The land belonging to the Mt. Adams Cattle Company and to D.E.P. Properties west of the trailer court is currently zoned R-1. In the first draft of " Future Land Use" comprehensive report, part of the land to the west of the trailer court was reclassified as medium density. In the final draft, it was left low density. The staff must have felt the pressure from Carriage Hill. A rezone request was filed for the property east of 40th and for the property west of 40th. it showed a buffer zone of low density around the Congdon Ditch immediately next to Carriage Hill, medium density next to the trailer court, and B1 north of the trailer court in order to keep housing away from the noise of 40th Avenue. This was withdrawn at the request of the planning division and was to be a separate west side filing at a later date. This proposed rezone plan would be compatible with the neighborhood and also provide for day time use of the area next to 40th Avenue. In addition we tried to solve the increasingly dangerous problem of 40th and Fecther by providing public access across our land to 40th Avenue. Evidently this was not understood by the Regional Planning Commission, if presented by planning staff in conjunction with the revised draft of " Future Land Use". We showed our rezone plans to some of the Carriage Hill people and they felt that our plan was excellent. We are attaching a copy of the plat of our original rezone request. We wish that, you would give • this consideration when you adopt the Yakima Urban Regional Planning Commission "Future Land Use" report. DOC. INDEX # J-1 • • Page 2 continued East of 40th Avenue The. publicity is out that Yakima Memorial Hospital Foundation is going to build a Children's Village on 4 acres of our property, East of 40th along Kern Way. This may be incompatible with the medium density as outlined in your plan for part of the area East of 40th. It is permissible with the existing R3 zoning. We are proud to be a part of this project. We have a lease to build a branch bank on part of the property that is west of the Children's Village. This would not be compatible with proposed multi- family residential use of the land as proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan This would be a Class -3 use were the site to be rezoned to B-1 as proposed in our application now pending before the Office of Community Development. We also have an option for a restaurant that will provide services for the community. The proposed owner has contacted a number of people in the area and has received no objections. This also is incompatible with the proposed B1 use of the area along 40th Avenue. This was not presented at the February meeting of the Planning Commission. It is trusted that you will give this letter consideration along with our letter of January 30th and our testimony at the February meeting when you adopt your report. Thank you for giving attention to our request. Sincerely, Delmar L. Pearson Ellen Pearson • DOC. INDEX # J-1 '7"--- , i.1*/, r 1 _ • ft' II T �...'.. - c ;„;j;• 061.07611 R63bb 6.9 i • ammo. I —I i --T\ i. ®mroo a.i 1 1 1 _ I � / s....., r'-` 95 249.00 JLS 7/12/95 FAD195249.DS4 PEARSON PROPERTY Figure 2 SfTE PLAN OP • LIM a =777!PAIR TrfiDe MO:WM a-) DOC. INDEX .1-1 _The TRANSPO Group, Inc • January 30,1996 Yakima Urban Area Regional Planning Commission Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima WA 98901 Re: Draft Yakima Urban Area Compressive Plan Dear Commission Members: On behalf of our family corporations D.E.P. Properties Inc. and Mt. Adams Cattle Company, which collectively own orchard properties along N. 40th Avenue between Kern Way and Fechter in Yakima. ( approximately 56+ acres), we have the following comments regarding the Draft Yakima Urban Area, Comprehensive Plan with respect for which hearings are now being held. West Side of 40th Avenue For many years, we have utilized this property solely for agricultural purposes, despite the growing residential density of the surrounding land, including an adjacent. mobile home park and the residential area of Carriage Hill and Estes Park. This land is currently zoned R-1 and R-2 and is according to the proposed "Future Land Use' map to remain a mixture of Medium Density Residential, with the exception of 6+ acres owned by Mt Adams Cattle Company which looks like Low Density Residential on one of the maps. This land designation is not congruent with the land to the south across the ditch from Mt Adams Cattle Company which is zoned R-2. We do not oppose the recommendation of the Planning Department Staff, that the land be targeted for Medium Density Residential use in the future. However, we request consideration be given to the land immediately adjacent to 40th Avenue, between Fechter and ,he mobile home park, as a mixture of retail and professional office use to serve as a buffer between the busy arterial street and prime residential land which lies further west. Since our ranch employees protested living in houses near 40th Ave even if the house was furnished free with heating and utilities , we believe that people will not want to occupy homes adjacent to the ever busier 40th Avenue. Recognizing Carriage Hill's concern, we have plans reflecting a buffer zone of low density housing on both sides of a proposed road that parallels the Congdon Ditch. We would not object if you included that in your planning. East Side of 40th Avenue On the east side of 40th Avenue north of Kern Way, there has been submitted and is on the public record, applications for the utilization of four acres as the location of the Memorial Hospital Children's Village. This children's clinic will be a pediatric facility facility of about 20,000 sf. involving several local service agencies and medical providers. We are -proud .to be able to have a part in such a project. DOC. INDEX i 9 In furtherance of that facility, we suggest that the proposed ° Future Land Use° map designate a significant portion of the land around the children's clinic as B-1 Zone ( Professional Business) in order to make available the likely need for medical and associated office facilities close to the clinic. All of the property on the east side of 40th Avenue is currently zoned R-3, Multi - Family Residential. We recognize that planing staff desires to maintain residential zoning in this area . We note that on the south side of Kern Way across from the proposed Children's Clinic, is a vacant five acre tract which is surrounded on two sides by existing multi -family uses (R-3) and which the °Future Land Use" map proposes to change to B-1. It would seem appropriate to have that acreage remain designated as R-3 and designate the land immediately adjacent to 40th avenue (west of the Children's Village) as B-1, consistent with the applications now on file. Again, this would provide a buffer of retail and professional office use between the busy arterial and the children's Village and other residential uses. Very few people wold want to live next to noisy 40th Avenue. The retail and professional office designation of the area immediately adjacent :to 40th Avenue would provide support facilities on the same side of 40th Avenue as well as for the people living in the immediate area. Summary While we, like many of the residents of the area, have affection for the past and long for the ability to continue use of that land as an orchard that is no longer a viable option. We know we must accept change and acknowledge the need for additional land suited to siting of new residences and as well as services necessary to support the changing area. We respectfully request your consideration to our proposed revisions to the ° Future Land Use" map particularly along both sides of 40th Avenue. Thank You. Sincerely, Delmar Pearson Ellen Pearson DOC. INDEX # J-1 • 4108 KERN WAN, - YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98908 • (509) 452.0090 Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima, W.A. 98901 :o. Re: Draft of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan North 40th Ave Dear, Yakima City Commissioners, and Yakima County Commissioners, We recognize that the Growth Management Act asserts there is a need for additional housing in Yakima. In our plans we have provided for considerable housing. However, we feel that the Growth Management Act and the proposed 'Compressive Plan° do not• reflect the real estate market or the . hilly topography of 40th Ave. which magnifies from the noisy street. If apartments were built within a few hundred feet of the street there would be constant turnover and non occupancy. The property location and its assessibility is excellent for providing needed services such as professional offices, banking, and food services for people near and West of 40th Ave. In fact one of the persons wishing to purchase part of our property for a restaurant received neighborhood approval when he canvased the bordering area. We have had many requests for business property when the property was in orchard. Property immediately adjacent to the City in Terrace Heights, and West Valley is providing more than adequate housing for Growth Management needs in the Yakima Vicinity. The City of Yakima is providing needed services for the greater area. Our plan resolves a very dangerous crossing at 40th Avenue and Fecther. We and our older employees have all been struck at that comer. Kittleson and Associates, and The Transpo Group, Professional Traffic Experts, have prepared reports reflecting that we should bring Fecther down to a point North of the Trailer Court to alleviate the dangerous crossing. At the same time our plans call for the construction of left turn lanes and right tum deceleration lanes at the crossing of the proposed Fecther and Children's Way. This will speed traffic on 40th Avenue and allow for more usage of the street thus meeting the future requirements of 40th Ave. The attached information supports our request We wish that you would give consideration to our request in determining the Yakima Urban Area Regional Plan to: 1.Permit part of our property West of the trailer court to be medium density for condos. 2. Permit neighborhood commercial immediately East of 40th to permit banks, and other services 3. Permit other services and offices immediately West of 40th Ave. 4..Permit offices near Children's Village Area. See the next schedule and Exhibit A. Thank You. 110 De mar L Pearsor"` Ellen B. Pearson DOC. INDEX J-1 DE L4P S® 4108 KERN WAY • YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98908 • (509) 452.0090 Yakima City Council Yakima County Commissioners Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima,WA. 98901 .Re: Draft of Yakima Urban Comprehensive Plan: North 40th Avenue Future Usage Dear Yakima City Commissioners and Yakima County Commissioners, We have prepared maps showing the difference between the Yakima Urban Area Regional Planning Commission's draft of 'Future Property Usage° on North 40th Avenue and what the Pearson's plan for their property. For several years we have studied the best use of our property using traffic experts, engineering experts. and real estate planners to help solve traffic flow on 40th, and to blend our property to business usage, to medium density, and to low density housing to alleviate political animosity in the neighborhood. We have provided barrier zones between the proposed areas and the existing property in the neighborhood. Where areas can be changed by Class 11 or III reviews we are asking for a higher usage. le. we have a proposed bank at °Children's Village and 40th, and a proposed restaurant at Kern Way and 40th which require Class II and III reviews on BI- zoning. These differences are as follows: Our requested Usage 1. East of 40th Ave. Next to 40th Neighborhood Commercial 2. East of 39th Ave. (Children's Village) Professional Office 3. Tip of Triangle bordered by 40th and Powerhouse Professional Office Next to 40th 4. West of 40th next to Congdon Ditch Low Density Housing 5. West of 40th next to Trailer Court Medium Density Housing 6. North of Trailer Court to Fechter a. Professional Office b. Immediately next to 40th Neighborhood Commercial Regional Planning 'Future Usage° Professional Office High Density Housing High Density Housing Low Density Housing . Low Density Housing Medium Density Housing Medium Density Housing We have prepared charts showing the current usage of 40th Avenue between Summitview and Fruitvale. We also have scheduled the usage between Nob Hill and Summitview. P2e consider our re uest. De L. Pea Ellen BB. Pearson DOC. INDEX North 40th Ave and Kern Road Vicinity RPC Future Land Use LOf3 DEDSift IUIDEISTIAL NOM MUTT @ISIDEIITIAL ] MU DErSRT USIDIanAL VISI MGT MIDIEIA' PDOEUS100At OFFICE • aUCRDOBanne COE1ESIICIAL E AITEaIAL Cann= acIAL CID COIL COHESIICIAL m i0MALUwAIEaOUTI • D+DOSTDIAL • PAIDvowi SPACl • nancnon AIW L BEfVA_•U 1 S -lin=550ft 0 275 550 City of Yakima, Washington April 16, 1996 DOC. INDEX # 3-1 • imont.1 or) O•0.1 SI - ^'6 r/ -/•fl 4•q au �� NB:IDvti V +j 91Y f•b C\: -i is i•6 .\ _i �a -sa- -e A -x0.89 owb• e0 :e -e ease•�b• rep I it 'nu 'SE,L?J?dOMd r or •• F i 1 _ QTR fbr� 4E 4• • - _ .-b •.7.._5 x3 —_-- N7:.6.brl: • [•b VNLLs.xa C -b VNIlgixa 1 ' • -hi iclarft0 Cv Y •IIP/ ' 1 • y \,. / \y` i �% i I • •e'*�Sr s• /S. ®6` f,• bye 41,2(1 s • N .. t- Jig I- d ri 1 Vi%4▪ 1 7 iT •43.• uvw wm w.as o:. DOI .•m 41.440w1 roa.o•1•1 Transportation lrrpad Analysis for the Pearson Property - Exve Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following paragraphs summarize the major findings in the traffic impact analy- sis. The findings are broken down into three parts: (1) summary of the traffic analysis methodology: (2) the general impact analysis conclusions: (3) the recommended on-site and off-site improvements sportation A:' alysis Methodology • All analyses are based on the peak 15 minutes of the evening peak hour traffic. For the remainder of the evening peak hour and during all other hours of the day or week, total traffic demands are likely to be less than is indicated in this report. • The level of service (LOS) threshold used to determine an impact was LOS D for signalized intersections and LOS E for unsignalized intersections. Despite cur- rently adopted City of Yakima level of service standards. the city staff expressed that LOS D be used as a level of service threshold. LOS E for unsignalized inter- sections was used as an impact threshold because unsignaii'ed intersections that have level of service values equal or better than LOS E may or may not meet signal warrants. • The baseline used to compare project -generated trip impacts for Phase 1 was the future year 1997 without project. and for Phase 2 was the future year 2000 without project. Findings Phase 1 o Phase 1 of the proposed mixed-use development, is expected to generate approximately 4,185 weekday daily trips. of which 3.273 are new. and 575 weekday PM peak hour trips, of which 463 are new trips. o The main project access. as proposed at the 40th Avenue/Casclevale Road inter- section. will need to be signalized for Phase 1. Without the signal. the intersection will operate at LOS F. In addition to signalization. left -turn pockets should be 'pro- vided on both the northbound and southbound approaches of 40th Avenue. o Theeast leg of Kern Road at the 40th Avenue/Kern Road intersection should be limited to right-in/right-out access. The westbound vehicles turning left onto 40th Avenue from Kern Road, or left from southbound 40th Avenue to Kern Road. can divert to the 40th AvenuefCastlevale Road signalized intersec- tion. The turn restriction at Kern Road will enhance overall traffic safety due to fewer stopped vehicles. and less overall vehicle delay will be incurred on 40th Avenue. DOC. INDEX # J-1 • 9529 OO1JCS1952d9P 1 The TRANSPO Group; Inc. Page 5 Transportation Impact Analysis far the Pearson Property Festive Srmnary • All signalized and unsignalized intersections within the study area were foun to operate at acceptable levels of service under 1997 Phase 1 conditions with the mitigation as proposed. Phase 2 (Full Buildout) • •' For Phase 2, the proposed mixed-use development is expected to generate approximately 4.299 weekday daily trips, of which 3.839 are new, and 473 weekday PM peak hour trips. of which 427 are new trips. o In addition to right-in/right-out access at the east leg of Kern Road at the 40th Avenue/Kem Road intersection during Phase 1. the west leg of Kern Road should also be limited to right-in/right-out access. The vehicles turning left onto 40th Avenue from Kern Road. or left from 40th Avenue to Kern Road. can divert to the 40th Avenue/Castlevale Road signali'ed intersection. The turn restriction at both Iegs of Kern Road will enhance overall traffic safety due to fewer stopped vehicles. and less overall vehicle delay will be incurred on 40th Avenue. 6 Access to/from. Fechter Road at 40th Avenue should be prohibited. Vehicles using Fechter Road can utilize the 40th Avenue/Castlevale Road signalized 40 intersection. By closing Fechter Road at 40th Avenue. overall traffic safety will be enhanced. o All signalized and unsignalized intersections within the study area were found to operate at acceptable levels of service for. year 2000 Phase 2 (full buildout) conditions with the mitigation as proposed. Recommendations • Signalization of the 40th Avenue/Castlevale Road intersection is recom- mended for Phase 1 buildout. Left -turn pockets are recommended on all approaches oilboth Castlevale Road and 40th Avenue. o Castlevale Road should have three lanes. with a center. left -tum lane through- out the proposed development. Separate left -turn and right/through Lanes should be provided on both the eastbound and westbound approaches of the 40th Avenue/Castlevale Road intersection. • It is recommended that left -turns to/from Kern Road at the 40th Avenue/Kern Road intersection be limited to right-in/right-out only. • Close Fechter Road west of 40th Avenue. prohibiting all turns to/from Fechter Road at 40th Avenue for Phase 2 (full buildout) conditions. DOC. INDEX # J • • • Pearson Property Master Plan DRAFT Introduction SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The following paragraphs summarize the major findings in the traffic impact analysis. The findings are broken down into three parts: a) summary of the traffic analysis methodology; b) the general impact analysis conclusions; c) the recommended on-site and off-site improvements. Trac Analysis Methodology • All analyses are based on the peak 15 minutes of the evening peak hour traffic. For the remainder of the evening peak hour and during all other hours of the day or week, total traffic demands are likely to be less than is indicated in this report. © The level of service threshold used to determine an impact was LOS C for signalized intersections and LOS E for unsignalized intersections. Although there are currently no level of service standards adopted by the City of Yakima, the City staff expressed that LOS C be used as a level of service threshold. LOS E for unsignalized intersections was used as an impact threshold because the most likely mitigation measure for an unsignalized intersection with an LOS F is signalization; and, unsignalized intersections that have level of service values equal or better than LOS E may or may not meet signal warrants. • The baseline used to compare project -generated trip impacts was the future year baseline without project (year 2000). Findings • The proposed mixed-use development is expected to generate approximately 9,220 weekday daily trips of which 6,430 are new and 1,030 weekday p.m. peak hour trips of which 690 are new trips. ® The main project access at the 40th Avenue/Ellen's Way intersection will need to be signalized with the project buildout. Without the signal, the intersection will operate at LOS F. In addition to signalization, left tum pockets should be provided on both the northbound and southbound approaches of 40th Avenue. • Kern Road should be limited to right-in/right-out access. The vehicles turning left onto 40th Avenue from Kern Road or left from 40th Avenue to Kern Road can divert to the 40th Avenue/Ellen's Way signalized intersection. The turn restriction at Kern Road will enhance overall traffic safety due to fewer stopped vehicles, and less overall vehicle delay will be incurred on 40th Avenue. Kittelsori & Associates, Inc. Page 4 DOC. INDEX # J-) Pearson Property Master Plan DRAFT Introduction The following 2000 background conditions without project improvements All needed to provide adequate level of service: All -way stop at Engelwood Avenue/34th Avenue; north, south, and westbound right turn lane and double left turn lane at 40th Avenue/Engelwood Avenue. These improvements should be incorporated into the City's Six Year Transportation Improvements Plan and Capital Facilities Plan since they are necessary to provide adequate level of service to the 2000 background traffic without the project conditions. All major signalized and unsignalized intersections within the study area were found to operate at acceptable levels of service under 2000 full -build conditions, with the mitigation as proposed with the exception of the 40th Avenue/Engelwood Avenue intersection. This intersection can only be improved to operate at LOS D due to heavy conflicting movement. Recommendations Signalization of the 40th Avenue/Ellen's Way intersection is recommended with the project buildout. Without the signal, the intersection will operate at LOS F and provide poor access to the proposed development. 9 An all -way stop at the Engelwood Avenue/34th Avenue intersection should be 40 implemented in the 2000 background condition by the city to improve the lev of service from LOS F to LOS C. The addition of the following lanes at the 40th Avenue/Engelwood Avenue intersections are necessary in the 2000 background conditions to improve the intersection level of service from LOS F to LOS D: northbound right turn lane. southbound right turn lane, westbound right turn lane, and double westbound left turn lane. Since these improvements are needed to serve the future background traffic, these improvements should be implemented in the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan and Capitol Facilities Plan C� • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 5 DOC. INDEX # J-( • • NEIGH 1 ORHOOxj MEETING Gilbert Elementary School April 28,1994, 7:00 p.m. City Staff Attending: Joan Davenport Rich Faith Larry Lehman Shelley Willson The meeting began with a brief introduction by Joan Davenport. She pointed out the relationship between the Growth Management Act and our local planning efforts and reviewed the purpose of this series of meetings. GENERAL COMMENTS AT THE MEETINCa ® Isn't this just a method to circumvent the zoning procedures? Will this be a unilateral change of overall zoning or will each effected property owner be individually notified? (Staff noted that this process may lead to or facilitate some zoning changes, but it will also help protect property from rezone efforts that are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan). • Concerned about development along either side of 40th Avenue. Should not be high density residential. ® Developer impact fees should be assessed for new major development. Fees should cover impacts to schools, roads, parks, etc. ® New multi -family development should be provided as in -fill on east side of town. ® Recommended better access control standards for commercial development on arterial streets, espedally near intersections (Le. 40th & Fruitvale). Problem is especially bad with fast food facilities. ® Need a north -south arterial further west. Suggest looking at 66th Avenue, 88th Avenue, and Naches Heights. ® Recommend establishing a beltway connection with Ahtanum Road. ® Need to either enforce speed limits or change them to reflect actual traffic speeds. -- 0 ® Need to maintain roads to accommodate posted speed limits. Gilbert Notes Printed May 10, 1994 Page 1 DOC. INDEX # J-1 O The major problem in this area is the traffic on 40th and Summitview Avenues. O Concerned about increased traffic on Scenic Drive. O Concerned about through traffic using local access streets. Traffic from major retail development is cutting through residential areas. Conestoga is getting traffic from Fred Meyer & Bi -Mart. Would like more stop signs; or "local access only" signs to discourage through traffic. O Would like to see more bike lanes and sidewalks. O Should have more parks. ® Recommend Scenic Drive be a designated bike route. O Need to plan now for a Naches/Yakima traffic corridor for future growth. O Don't use our tax dollars to subsidize industry. Use our taxes to make our community a nice place to live. That is what will attract the business and industry. O It would be okay to see the Pearson R-3 property develop as professional office park. O New high density residential development should be in the east side of town. This is true even if they don't want it. Not everybody gets what they want. O Need predictability of land uses. O Unless we take action to preserve it downtown Yakima will be dead in 10 years. It is important to keep a strong downtown. O Need to improve appearance of gateways into Yakima. Need to encourage attractive, positive development near 16th & Fruitvale and on Yakima Avenue at the freeway. Should consider a redevelopment plan for North 1st Street. o Holtzinger property, airport area, and Ahtanum Road area are excellent opportunities for high density residential and/or industrial development. O Should require developer impact feeds. Need to have a minimum amount that all new development must pay. Shouldn't have sweetheart deals for special people. Gilbert Notes Printed May 10,1994 Page 2 DOC. INDEX # J —' o We need to develop positive and constructive ideas for how to accommodate growth. ® Annexed areas have not benefited from annexation. No street, sidewalk or lighting upgrades since in the City. • Fechter Road needs to be fixed. Consider cul-de-sac that doses it to thru traffic. ® Need sidewalks on both sides of 40th Avenue. o Concerned that City supported high-density residential development along 40th. Should have talked to neighbors first. e Englewood Avenue needs to be improved. Needs to be paved and have sidewalks and bike lane. m Scenic Drive speed limit should be 30 mph not 35 mph. Gilbert Notes Printed May 10,1994 Page 3 DOC. INDEX # J—I • • TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER K 1996 Minutes — RPC, Joint Board, & City Council iEXiH 1)OCUNIEN'I' 14 K-1 RPC Public Hearing Minutes: January 9, 1996 01/09/96 K-2 RPC Continued Public Hearing Minutes: February 7, 1996 02/07/96 K-3 RPC Business Meeting Minutes: February 27, 1996 02/27/96 K-4 RPC Business Meeting Minutes: March 13, 1996 03/13/96 K-5 Joint Public Hearing Minutes: June 11, 1996 06/11/96 K-6 City Council Minutes: June 25, 1996 06/25/96 K-7 City Council Minutes: July 9, 1996 07/09/96 K-8 City Council Minutes: July 16, 1996 07/16/96 K-9 City Council Minutes: January 14, 1997 01/14/97 K-10 Maps: North 40"' Ave and Kern Road 02/16/96 K-11 Written Comments Received as of February 21, 1996 02/21/96 K-12 Staff Responses to Written Comments and Testimony 02/22/96 a DOC. INDEX # City of Yakima Department of Community & Economic ' evelopment, Planning Division Staff Responses to Written Comments and Testimony for the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Public Hearings January 9 and February 7,1996 This document addresses written comments and public testimony received on the Yakima Urban. Area Comprehensive Plan through the close of the public hearings conducted by the Regional Planning Commission on January 9, 1996, and February 7, 1996, as follows: Part I contains written comments received priorto or during the close of public hearings, Feb. 7, 1996; Part II addresses written comments received:: after the Feb., 7 hearing (up. to Feb. 21);. Part III contains responses to public testimony at both hearings; Part IV addresses comments related to the Future Land Use Map, including maps for each area addressed. Attached to this document for reference is a copy of comments submitted by each individual or agency. Part L Written comments received prior to or during the February 7,1996 RPC Public Hearing a). Comments Submitted By: Clarence Barnett, Council Member 1. Policy.G4.2, Page I1-7 Staff comment/recommendation: delete language for density bonuses 2. Policy T5.4, Page 11-23 Staff comment/recommendation: add language to implementing action "in conformance ,with requirements defined in the Americans with 'Disabilities. Act." (Questions;3 through 6 have been addressed by City of Yakima Water Division. Cindy .Epperson,:,Finance Department,- has:.. made... corrections to figures and dates in text. :. Seee-attached memo from Dave Brown Water -Treatment -Plant Supervisor.)- 7;;Page rVn 15;16 Staffucomment1.recommendation: Add . inforrnation_related=to Stormwater Management -Plan:, Alternative 3A. S. Page VII 15, X16 Staff.. comment/ recommendation: Add information on costs for all Stormwater Management Plan Alternatives. Responsesto°Cornrnents February. 22, 1996 DOCPage 1 INDEX • • • • Comments 9 through 12 have been responded to by Public Works Department. See attached memo from Jerry Copeland, Dave Hussell, and Shelley Willson. Please note further clarification as follows: Comment 9-B: The Transportation Plan Final Report (as noted and summarized in the Comprehensive Plan) summarizes only the improvements needed to the street system to increase capacity specifically to attain Level of Service D (capacity only). The Capital Facilities Plan includes all major improvements needed for the transportation system, and includes projects already funded (like the I-82/Fair Avenue project), and pavement rehabilitation needs (capacity and non -capacity). Comment -10 mentions that Tables 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3 are in a more readable format than those presented in the comprehensive plan.:. The tables in the comprehensive plan were taken directly from the :format: in ..the, Transportation :Plan, Summary Section, Tables :S-2. S-3, S-4and S-5, which present arterial and collector improvement recommendations for.. Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4. b). Comments Submitted By: Larry & Betty Douglas, 4201 Fechter Road See staff response under Comment (g) - 9, for Map. III -3. Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. c). Comments Submitted By: Sarah Jokela, 2610 Cascade Road Comments request that the Regional Planning Commission table the plan until March 1996. Regional Planning Commission opened the public hearing on January 9, 1996. d). Comments Submitted By: Catherine Rajah, Dept. of Ecology, Yakima Office All comments are related to wetland issues: 1. Wetlands less than 1 acre in size and isolated wetlands are not protected by comprehensive plan policies. - Staff comment/.recommendation: No changes recommended 2..._"Significant wetland" as used in Policy E5.1 is not :defined_ Staff :comment/recommendation: Add definition for "significant;.; wetland" 3 :Adopt;;a policy statement which states a goal of "no :net ::loss" .of wetlands Staff ,commentr/recommendation: No changes recommended e) Comments :Submitted By: Wm. L. Weigand, Jr., Lyon Law,Offices Comments refer .to ::property at 3601 Powerhouse Road, on :behalf.: of Gary Germunson, Yakima : Wire Works. The request is to change -future • land use designationfrommedium density residential to light industrial., to reflect existing land use at this: location. Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 DOGPage 2 INDEX # ,'-/ Staff comment/recommendation: No change recommended - surrounding land uses are primarily low -moderate density residential. Industrial land use may continue as a legal non -conforming land use at this location. f). Comments Submitted By: Don Hinman, Yakima Valley Rental Association Comments state that using 1990 census data concerning vacancy rates does not reflect current rental vacancies. Staff comment/recommendation: The Plan utilized vacancy data from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Quarterly Economic Report, 3rd Quarter 1994. The latest data available is from the 1st Quarter 1995, indicating a rental vacancy rate of 4.7%. Staff recommends use of this rate in the Plan, p. 1V-3. g). Comments Submitted 3y::, Lee C. Clark, 817 Conestoga Blvd. General comments contained within opening paragraph: a) Consistency - See Comprehensive Plan pages 11-46 through 11-48, including Consistency Matrix, Table II -1 b) Need for higher paying year round jobs - see staff comment. under item 13 1. Policy G3.1, page 11-6 Staff comment/recommendation: No change recommended. Policy G2.2 and its implementing action encourages provisions for public discussion of development proposals, and early community involvement with the planning and permit review process. Staff currently notifies property owners within 300 feet regarding land use e proposals, which exceeds minimum notification requirements. 2. Policy G4.2, page 11-7 Staff comment/recommendation: The Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a general policy guide for land use decisions and urban growth patterns within the Yakima Urban Area. (Deletion of density bonus language has been recommended under I.1 since this concept does not relate to the accompanying policy.) Further clarification of regulatory tools used to implement the Plan will be developed subsequent to Plan adoption. Additional policies which encourage fiscally responsible growth patterns, such as in -fill development,are policies G4..1, G4.3, G4.5, G4.8, objective G7 and -underlying policies .G7.1 G9.3,.G9.4,Wand objective Ll, and underlying policy L1.2. 3. Policy G4.5, page 11-7 Staff comment/recommendation:; The Growth Management Act requires cities and counties to adoptdevelopment regulations which are consistent: withrahev- comprehensive plan. The Act requires cities and counties to first adopt a comprehensive plan, then adopt development regulations .-which implement the plan. Therefore, existing zoning should be modified to be consistent with -the plan, once the plan is adopted.;__ 4. Policy G4.8, page II -8;:;_ Responses.to Comments February 22, 1996 Page 3 DOC. INDEX # 1 • X3ONI '000 S s .Qa` a`S" cc;\--cfr-4-1 21.\"" a1;,Sa� `yam �fi� , is. , aI a' ' •� �Q Q`N. Q c,� arty " 1 5C� . 2 .0$ a5 .b,-4,-1--ti3 $fi o �a�ti°b• a• es t C o o°. b .3 tia a a1 S6 �}3 ►� �}, 4} � tiy} tip'' 01. �oti�fibe ai•ls oma` z411 2•'• �o Q •)P 2 a o a o� o fi�ti 1 .55 a . a�s�� °a pS� ° ,�.0�1ati5, �`tip5a�a�tis 1 1‘ 1,‘S\ •9 V' ° ,s‘• ,e2. �°ti o 0S4ap`�ao4,o,p0�raQ►��o 4�ei }°S�a��• as .02 1,"0' ..eaaQ� aofipas Ns, at' 4%)12'�5 •Qy5115 5 C:..0 C .0 C •t\ C C C CLC -,C -'C p .C_; C C .0 C~ :C C •:`C. € C=C C C.?C C C C E C C C =CSC ';C;::CSC OCCC to the lack of availability of lands on the west side of town for this land use. Residential densities portrayed in this :area represent an averaging of existing zoning in this general area east and west of 40th Avenue. Lands currently zoned for high density residential uses east of 40th "avenue were designated as medium density on the Future Land Use Map, while lands«west of 40th zoned for low density are shown as medium density on the Map. Residential land use designations shown on the Future Land Use Map represent the following housing unit density range per net residential acre: Low Density Residential: Up to 6 units per acre Medium Density Residential: 6 to 10 units per acre High Density Residential: 10 to 15 units per acre Under the existing Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, application maybe made for up to 12 units per acre within the R-1, Single Family Zoning District, subject to Class(3) review and approval. Assuming ..that the current flexibility of the existing zoning ordinance continues in effect upon adoption of the comprehensive plan,,: lands designated as low density residential::: could be developed as medium density_ residential, subsequent to the public hearing process required for Class(3) land uses. Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. 10. Page III -7 Staff comment/recommendation: The Growth Management Act requires development regulations (such as zoning maps) to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, which means the zoning map must be consistent with the Future Land Use Map. Development proposals, therefore, would be measured against a zoning map that will be modified to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map. (Also see staff response to comment #3.) 11. Pages IV -2 thru IV -5 Staff comment/recommendation: Although it is now six years old, 1990 Census data is the only data available for population and housing counts within the urban area until the next decennial census duringthe year 2000. Washington State Office ofFinancial Management (OFM)4provides annual population estimates. for :cities '' and counties, but not specifically for urban.areas. OFM also provides counties -with GMA population projections through the -year _ 2020, but this is a county -wide :figure only, and is not broken down by city;or urban area. (The Plan utilized vacancy data Ir. from U.S. Department of Housing and .Urban Development, Quarterly>Economic;. Report, 3rd Quarter 1994.) 12. Page IV -8 Staff comment/recommendation:.:, Please see staff comment under Item 13. Page IV -9 Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 . • • DOGage 5 INDEX I y • Staff comment/recommendation: No change recommended. Commercial and Industrial goals and policies support the; following strategies related to job creation and retention: ® stabilization and revitalization of commercial and industrial facilities; ® incentive programs to expand and .,diversify the area's economic base; ® private/public partnerships to facilitate development of industrial park sites; ® industrial retention strategies, technical and vocational education support; • strengthening competitive advantages of local industries 14. Map A-1, Future Land Use Alternative 1 Staff comment/recommendation: Since the large tract of land north of Kern Road: on both sides of 40th Avenue is a single,. parcel, it was not possible to split theaand use designation of this parcel. The land .use shown on Map A-1 in this location is a 'blend' or generalization of the zoning for these parcels. The B-1 zoning mentioned in this question was implemented subsequent-tode-velopment of Map A-1. 15. Map A-2, Future Land Use Alternative 2 Staff comment/recommendation: See staff comment under item (g)9, Map III -3, Future Land Use h) Comments Submitted By: Richard Zapata, 4209 Fechter Road Comments Received 1/10/96 Comments state support for leaving R-1 zoning of The Pearson orchard, and develop this location as low density residential only. See staff recommendation under (g) - 9, for Map III -3. Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. i) Comments Submitted By: Ray Lockwood, 608 North 47th Avenue Comments Received 1/15/96 Comments state opposition to multifamily zoning and development of a 336 unit complex west of 40th Avenue and adjacent to the Yakima Valley Canal, which will bring unacceptable traffic and problems to an. -otherwise nice family neighborhood.:. See -staff recommendation under (g)-..9 for Map IlI=3: = Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future. Land Use Map. j):;:::Cminments Submitted By: Cec Vogt, Yakima Greenway Foundation :.. Comments Received 1/22/.96 1. -..Transportation/Bike Ped Plan., Staff i`comment/recommendation: The-Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan is referenced within the :Transportation Element, and contains °a map indicating the Bike/Pedestrian:,..: Advisory's Committee recommended• pathway network. 2. Parks and Recreation • Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 DOge`6 .. . INDEX Staff comment/recommendation: Staff agrees with this comments, and notes that the Parks and Recreation Plan contains reference to the Yakima Greenway as an important component of the area's parks and recreation system. 3. Natural Environment: Critical areas and shoreline environment Staff comment/recommendation: Goals and policies within the Natural Environment Element concur with these;:comment, encouraging protection of :. critical areas and shorelines areas. k) Comments Submitted : y: ' osemary Small,1006 South 25th Avenue Comments Received 1/30/96 Comments refer to lack of school district's participation in GMA planning Staff comment/recommendation: While it is appropriate for school districts to participate with cities and counties during the comprehensive planning process, this has not occurred within the Yakima Urban. Area.. Issues related to housing unit densitieshave been addressed in this plan,- specifically shown on the Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map indicates :substantial reduction in density designations within our older, well established 'neighborhoods. The map also shows higher densities in many areas outside of our older neighborhoods. Staff recommends that school districts participate in the development of neighborhood sub -area plans. Issues related to population and housing unit densities may then be addressed by the school districts in relation to each school within the neighborhood. This process should begin soon after adoption of this plan. 1) Comments Submitted By: Bob Young, for Central Washington Home Builders Comments Received 1/30/96 Comments address impact fees as noted within the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Staff comment/recommendation: Remove language related to caveat on page 5-3 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. m) Comments Submitted By: Delmar L. Pearson, 4108 Kern Way, Yakima ._. Comments Received 1/31/96..- Comments address future land use designations both east and west of 40th Avenue Staff: comment/recommendation: No change in future land use designations in this,. arearecommended. n) Comments Submitted By: William,Rathbone, City of Union Gap Comments Received 1/31/96 - Comments reference the location of Union Gap';s urban growth area in relation to Yakima's Growth area, specificallyin the vicinity of the Yakima Airport, north of Ahtanum Road, between South 16th and South-' 38th Avenues and adjacent to Yakima City limits. Comments suggest that this area should be removed from Yakima's urban growth area, and be added to Union Gap's urban growth area, as shown on Attachment B of the comment. Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 - - - DOC. INDEX • • • Staff comment/recommendation: The area north of Ahtanum Road between South 16th Avenue and South 38th Avenue has been a part of the Yakima Urban Area since 1976, with the joint adoption of planning agreements between the City of Yakima, Yakima County and Union Gap. During the Growth Management Planning process, both the City of Yakima and Yakima County adopted the Yakima Interim Growth Area, which includes this area within Yakima's growth area. The area in question is also shown to be a part of the Yakima growth area on the RPC Recommended Future Land Use Map. The City of Union Gap has had the opportunity to become part owner/investor of the Airport in the past. Union Gap has also agreed to the City of Yakima providing fire protection to portions of the South Broadway Fire District in this area. Staff recommends no change to the Yakima Urban Growth Area-. in this location. o) Comments Submitted By: Richard Anderwald and Steve Erickson, Yakima County Planning Deparhnent __Comments received: February 5, 1996 1. Coordinated Planning Staff comment/recommendation: Although the Growth Management Act does not specifically state that cities and counties must follow a joint adoption process for comprehensive plans, it makes sense from a practical standpointin order to provide consistency and to continue implementation of urban area zoning. 2. Plan policies applied to the urban growth area. Staff comment/recommendation: No. comment 3. Existing zoning outside the Yakima Urban Service Area Staff comment/recommendation: Application of existing zoning to urban reserve areas would be a logical interim action, until specific future land use designations are developed for these areas. Since Terrace Heights is not a part of the Yakima Urban Area for land use planning purposes under this plan, staff has no comment regarding continuance of existing zoning to the Terrace Heights area. 4. Comprehensive Planamendment:process:.:_ Staff comment/recommendation:- Theramendment process for:this-planis stated within the Land Use Element, on page 1:11-6, setting forth specificprocedures for,:: amending the plan. 5. Priorities and timelines _-to ::implement Action Plan element,::;. Staff comment/recommendation:. The next logical step toward compliance with', GMA and plan implementation;, is adoption of development regulations, :or modification of existing regulations which are consistent with and implement the Plan. It may be prematureat -this time to establish specific schedules for .these actions, since several months may elapse prior to adoption of this Plan. Schedules and priorities should be established, however, in the near future, in a coordinated effort with affected agencies and jurisdictions. Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 Page 8 DOC. INDEX p) Comments Submitted By: Bert Carlson and Jeanette Carlson, 4303 Madera Comments received January 25, 1996 Staff comment/recommendation: See staff response under (g) - 9, for Map III -3. Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. q) Comments Submitted By: Carroll Palmer, on behalf of the Yakama Nation Comments received February 5, 1996 Comments address concerns related to protection of anadromous fish habitat. Staff comment/recommendation:- Paragraph 1, Comment letter, page 3, states the need to restore habitat function and water quality. Comprehensive Plan Policies E4.1 and E4.2 address protection of fish and wildlife habitat areas, and restricting development that is incompatible with protection of wildlife habitat. Plan Objective E6 and Policies E6.1, E6.2, and E6.5 address protection of water quality. Comment letter page 3 also addresses six topics for which policy statements should be included in the plan: 1. Storm water management: Comprehensive Plan Policy E1.2 addresses storm water management. Additionally, the draft Storm Water Management= Plan is currently under review by the Yakima City Council. 2. Public education for environmental stewardship: Comprehensive Plan Objective E9 and Policy E9.3 address public education for environmental awareness. 3. Riparian management: Comprehensive Plan Objective E3 and Policies E3.1, E3.2 and E3.3 address shoreline areas and riparian management. 4. Economic incentives for stream protection: Comprehensive Plan Policy E5.6 encourages land acquisition along river and stream corridors for wetlands protection. Policy E5.3 encourages land trusts. 5. Stream protection for annexed lands: The Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan applies to both incorporated and unincorporated lands within the Yakima Urban Area, therefore comprehensive plan policies will not change when lands are annexed to the city. 6. Proper wetlands management: Comprehensive Plan Objective E5, along with Policies E5..1 E5.2, E5.3, E5.4, E5.5, and E5.6 address wetlands protection and :management. - Comment letter, paragraph 1, page4, mentions the need for .buffersalong;riparian corridors. The city hasadopted inter-,im:.regulations for protectlon of critical areas, as required by the Growth= Management -Act. The Comprehensive Plan intended to Y: be a general guide for development within the Yakima Urban -Area :The k appropriate location :for specific:. riparian area protection methods," such.as ::buffers would be development regulations, which will be adopted and amended:,:subsequent to adoption of the Yakima -Urban Area Plan. • r) Comments Submitted By: Central Washington Home Builders Assoc. Comments receivedR-February 7, 1996 Comments address the Bike/Pedestrian portion of the Transportation Element • Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 Page 9" DOC. INDEX • • 1A. Loss of on street parking for bike paths Staff comment: The removal of on -street parking is one method of providing Bike Lanes on arterial streets suggested in the Bike Plan. No specific designs have been developed for specific street segments. As an option, removal of on -street parking would be presented to neighborhoods for their consideration. 1B. Eliminate streets considered for bike lanes if they create loss of on -street parking. Staff comment: Individual street plans would need be developed to identify areas of consideration for loss of on -street parking and would be subject to neighborhood comment and Council approval where street widths dictate such a need. 1C. Ban cycling from the downtown. 0 Low traffic areas and residential streets should be considered "shared areas".:with no loss of on -street parking: Staff comment: Bike routes identified :in:. the downtown area are: <: Lincoln, and B Street, South 3rd Ave, North 5th _ Ave. Shared Routes (where separate lanes may not be developed) are also identified for other streets, including Walnut. Low traffic areas should be shared areas with no lanes. The Bike Plan indicates this preference also. 2. "It is unfair to require builders to provide bike lanes or paths in new development areas, especially if that particular area is not considered as being part of the Bike/Ped master plan routes." Staff comment: The Master Plan does not indicate construction of bike routes other than those identified on the Map and staff agrees with this statement regarding bike facilities. Sidewalk construction is regulated by existing sections of the YMC. 3. References to impact fees. Staff comment: The Bike/Ped Plan simply identifies impact fees as a potential funding source. It does not advocate the use of them. 4. Who pays .for _:construction of -bike paths: -and lanes? Staff comment If the street improvement -is "a City project it would be part of the public costs. For ..individual -developments, if the site is locate('-on,a designated -bike =, lane, frontage improvements would include the bike lane. Other .op.tions:inc :ude= bond projects, use of funds available,to the City from state or federal sources which are designated for multi -modal --improvement projects, or Commute -Trip _Reductioi Funds. s) Comments Submitted : y -:: Don :Hinman, Yakima Valley Rental Assoc Comments received -February :7,1996 Comments address apparent -conflicts in the statistical data used in the Housing' Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the interpretation of that data 1. Market provided housing assessment: On page IV -4 the Market Provided Housing Assessment section lists the following 1990 census data: 30% people live Responses to Comments February.22,1996 DOGage ,10 INDEX alone, 63% of the area's population reside in a 1-2 person household, 27% people live in 'a 3-4 person household and 10% live in a household compromised of 5 or more people. This seems to add up to 130%. Staff comment/recommendation: U. S. Census Data, Appendix C, Accuracy of Data::: The data are estimates of the actual figures that would have been obtained from:a complete count. Estimates derived from a sample are expected to be different from.. the 100 -percent figures because they are subject to sampling and non sampling errors (C-1). Since statistics in this data product are based on a sample, they may differ somewhat from 100 -percent figures that would have been obtained if all housing. units, persons within those housing .units, etc. (sic) had been enumerated using the same questionnaires, instructions, enumerators, etc. (C-2). 2. Overcrowded housing data: This section also goes on to state 54% of all households reside in overcrowded conditions, with more than one person per room. Somehow. this suggests that perhaps::: the majority of the housing units, in Yakima has 2 rooms or less. This doesn't ring true. Staff comment/recommendation: Overcrowded: A housing unit containing more than one person per room (U.S. Census definition; also used by U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development)., Refers to the number of persons per bedroom; not the number of rooms per dwelling unit. 3. Existing housing needs: The document in the Existing Housing Needs section (page IV -3) 1990 HUD states that 25% of the households earn less than 30% of the area median income. On page IV -6 the document quotes census data that indicates that 19% of the Yakima area households are low income (those who earn less than $22,000 per year). On page IV -3 the median income of a family in Yakima is quoted to be $27,500 (30% of $27,500 is $8,250). How can 25% of the households be earning less than $8,250 when only 19% of the households earn less than $22,000? Staff comment/recommendation: Page IV -3 states that 25% of the households earn less than 30% of the area median income, and references in parenthesis, very low income households. On page IV -6, paragraph 1 refers to low income-housmng;_-as:.defined by HUD as "households with annual.. incomes between: 51: percent and -80 percent of the area medianrfarnily income." Therefore, 19 percent of all .Yakima area households have annual incomes between 51 percent and 80 percent of the area median income, i.e. between $14,139 and $22,178 annually. 4. Public housing assistance: On page IV -3 the Existing Housing Needs section -states 48% of all renter households and 31% of all owner households are paying greater:: than 30% of their income for housing :.the report is unclear as to the exact :number of households this represents but it does state there are 10,171 total rental units in the urban area. This means somewhere: around 4,800 households are deemed -as,: unable to find affordable housing by this report's definition. Yet only 692 families are receiving public housing assistance. Staff comment/recommendation: Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 Page 11 DOC. INDEX • • • The U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) defines affordable housing as housing where the occupantis paying no more than 30% of their gross income for housing costs, including utilities. (Appendix B -Glossary of Terms, Consolidated Plan, FY1996). When housingcosts, including utilities, exceed 30 percent of a household's income, then the housing is no longer considered affordable. Doing the math will reflect that housing costs for approximately 4,800 households within the Yakima Urban Area are greater than 30% of their annual::. income; which exceeds the HUD guidelines for housing affordability. t) Greenway MasterPlan Update, Submitted By: Cec Vogt, Yakima Greenway Foundation Plan update received February 7, 1996 Staff comment/recommendation: The decision to recommend the Greenway Master Plan Update to be adopted to the comprehensive plan by reference rests with the Regional Planning ;,Commission: u) Comments Submitted By: Dick Anderwald, Yakima County Comments received February 7, 1996 Yakima County Planning Department submitted three documents: 1)Letter to RPC dated Feb. 2, RE Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Draft Plan; 2)Memo to RPC dated Feb. 7, 1996 containing recommended text amendments to Comp Plan; 3)Sheet titled "Public Process Goal" 1. Letter dated Feb. 2, RE Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Draft Plan Staff comment/recommendation: See staff comment for this letter under Part I -o above 2. Memo to RPC dated Feb. 7, 1996 with recommended text amendments °Definition and Mapping Changes Concern was stated regarding the use of the terms "Yakima Urban Area" and "Yakima Urban Service Area" in the Land Use Chapter. The recommendation of .the County is to direct revisions.. of the 'document to cover the entire Yakima Urban..Area (except the .Union .Gap Growth -Area)." As an alternate solution the .County suggests the maps :be re -titled to -include . "City. of Yakima:- Service Area". Staff :comment TheCounty:-correctly identified two . referenceswhich.canlbe ,A. clarified. The. final :document, should be closely :checked, -to ensure' that references, are,accurate .The Urban Service Area is fully>;defined-onPage I11=2 All ;maps :do `contain line symbols which identify the "Urban Service Areal',: and the _ "Urban Growth 'Area". As already:noted, :this :Plan ,does not include the Terrace Heights .Growth Area. °:::Until a Capital. Facilities Element is developed for Terrace Heights,. Future -Land: Use. cannot .be designated, under the provisions of the Growths Management Act. Yakima County and the community of Terrace Heights will need to determine if they wish to be considered a separate growth area. like Union Gap, or be a part of the Yakima Urban Area. Responses to Comments DOra_ ga 12 February 22,1996' INDEX °Delete Gleed/Suntides Area from the Yakima Urban Area Staff comment/recommendation: Staff agrees with this comment. Other Recommended Text Changes ®Page I-4, Correct time period to read Tune 1994 through February 1996 :.. Staff comment/recommendation: Agree with change o Page 1-4 last bullet rewrite .to include Board of County Commissioners Staff comment/recommendation: Agree with change ®Page I-6 2nd column, correct chronology Staff comment/recommendation: Agree with change °Page I-7 relocate last:: paragraph to page. 11, bottom Staff comment/recommendation:.; Agree with change °Page 11-4 Goal Obj. & Policy G1 o Change urban area to Yakima Urban Area © Change responsible agencies from city to local government Staff comment/recommendation: Agree with changes °Page 11-13 Policy G10.2, add City of Yakima to responsible agencies Staff comment/recommendation: Since the City of Yakima is not providing capital facilities or land use planning within the urban reserve, it is not appropriate at this time for, the City to be a responsible agency under this policy. ()Page 11-14 Policy G10.8, add "and other service providers" to responsible agencies consistent with footnote 1, p. 11-13 Staff comment/recommendation: Agree with change o Page III -1, boxed ,goal; strike. "service" to make goal _consistent:with,the :main.- goal reference on p.114. . Staff comment/recommendation:_Agree with change ()Page IV -1, par. 1, line 2, replacemetropolitan with Urban Area. �. Staff comment/recommendation:_:,:;Agree with change ()Page IX -2, boxed policy G5:5,. -re. -label as Policy G5.1 and correct wording to be consistent with that policy_- Staff comment/recommendation: Agree with change Misc. Errata: Typos at p. 11-1, 2nd column 4th bullet, extra "a" and p. 11-8 Policy G5.1 remove ,,. apostrophe from 2nd line of implementing actions • Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 DOC. INDEX Page 13 • • Staff comment/recommendation: Agree with change 3. Sheet titled "Public Process Goal" Staff comment/recommendation: Staff has no objection to the proposed Goal P1 and related policies v) Comments Submitted :;y: Mr. & Mrs. Gerald A. Gaudette. 701 N 6th St. Comments received February 7, 1996 Comments suggest rezoning NE Yakima from R-3 to R-1 (lower density land uses). Staff comment/recommendation: The residential areas of the northeast neighborhood are designated as low or medium density on the Future Land Use Map. This designation supports these . comments. Future zoning will .:implement low -medium residential designations in this area. Also see Part IVB'which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. w) Comments Submitted By: Robt:& JoAnn Nowlin, 203 °N 9th ° St Comments received February 7, 1996 Staff comment/recommendation: See staff response to comment under Part I -v above (Gaudette). Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. x) Notes Submitted By: Rosemary Small, 1006 S. 25th Avenue Comments received February 7, 1996 Notes suggest adding neighborhood associations to Responsible Agencies for Policies G3.2, G3.3, G4.8, L2.3, L3.3, L3.4, T2.4, and adding school districts as Responsible Agencies for G4.8, T1.2, T1.3, T1.4, T1.6, and H1.4. Staff comment/recommendation: Policy G6.3 states "Include school districts, utilities, and other governmental entities in both planning and zoning review." Since most of the policies noted require implementation by local government, it may not be appropriate to add neighborhood associations and school districts as responsible agencies. It may be appropriate to add neighborhood associations to Policy L2.3, "Preserve historically or architecturally significant structures where feasible as a means of strengthening .;community identity: Neighborhood: associations have played .an-importarit role in the development of this- plan, and will . be the primary participant_ in the future development .of neighborhood -plans.:.. y) Packet of Information Submitted °By:.,Scott Nicolai, on behal of theNakama, Nation Comments received February >7i1996 Staff comment/recommendation: <: See staff response to Part I -q above (Yakama Indian Nation) Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 DOC. INDEX Page 14 Part II. Written comments received after the February 7.1996 RPC Public Hearin a) Comments Submitted By: Richard Larson, WA State Dept. of Transportation Comments received February 9, 1996 Comments recommend: ® Include state and federal agencies under Objective G6, P. II -9 ® Coordinate carpooling with WSDOT under Policy T1.2, p. 11-17. ® Change wording to "low -profile landscaping" so landscaping does not impede sight distance under Policy T2.5, p. 11-19 Staff comment/recommendation: Staff does not object to the above suggestions b) Comments Submitted By: Bob Mason,.612 N 2nd Street Comments received February 12,'1996 Comments state: 1. Older areas of Yakima need: to be: rezoned to R-1 Staff comment/recommendation:. See •staff response to comment -under Part I -v above (Gaudette). Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. 2. Builders need incentives to build nice single family homes and duplexes in older areas Staff comment/recommendation: Housing Policy H1.6.2 encourages compatible infill of existing neighborhoods. Other housing policies encourage: regulatory incentives for affordable housing; stabilization, preservation and improvement of existing residential neighborhoods; and the establishment of neighborhood plans. 3. Need codes for maintenance of the core areas Staff comment/recommendation: Policy H3.6 encourages enforcement of housing codes and non-compliance penalties. c) _Comments Submitted By::-StephenPenland, WA State ept. of. FishAz Wildlife_. Comments received February -12;1996 Comments include: 1. The need for buffers to protectwater quality and to preserve riparian....,. vegetation from adjacent landuses:_with a list of recommended buffers Staff comment/recommendation Buffers may be considered -during the implementation phase of this plan. (development regulations).:::;. 2. .The need for a 'zero rise' ordinance within the floodplain,. of streams within the UGA Staff comment/recommendation: This concept may be considered during the implementation phase of :;this :plan (development regulations). Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 DOC. Page 15 INDEX • 3. Greenways and buffers along streams be connected to the Yakima Greenway to provide wildlife movement corridors Staff comment/recommendation: See the Yakima Greenway Master Plan Update 1995 for information related to this suggestion. 4. The need to protect wetlands of :less than one acre Staff comment/recommendation:.See staff response to Part.I-d above (Catherine Rajala, Dept. of Ecology) 5. All wetlands within the UGA should be mapped and protected Staff comment/recommendation:. No comment 6. Use of the existing state 4 -tier wetland rating system instead of developing... a new rating system Staff comment/recommendation: _A wetlands: -rating system will be considered when development regulations. to .implement the plan are drafted. 7. Develop design standards for Policy E3.3 whichstatesthat native riparian vegetation should be maintained. Staff comment/recommendation: Design standards may be considered when development regulations to implement the plan are drafted. 8. Develop educational programs to enhance stream protection, particularly in established neighborhoods. Staff comment/recommendation: Objective E9 and Policies E9.1, E9.2 and E9.3 encourage promotion of environmental awareness through civic responsibility and education. 9. Policy E4.2 may not be feasible (restriction of development that is incompatible with protection of wildlife habitat). Change language of E4.2 to "Restrict or condition development .to, protect:: priority fish and wildlife; habitat," add implementing action "Draft regulations to protect priority:: fish... and wildlife habitat." Staff comment/recommendation::; .No comment. 10. Policy E5.6 encourages Greenway.foundation and others to acquire sensitive lands. Greenways canin some -circumstances adversely affect fish & wildlife habitat. Staff comment/recommendation:.;;;, No: comment. 11. Map IX -4 should be titled ish: and Wildlife Habitat." Staff comment/recommendation: ::Staff has no objection to this comment Responses -to Comments February 22, 1996 DOC. INDEX # ice Page 16 12: All references to the Dept. of Wildlife or Dept. of Fisheries should be changed to the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife. Staff comment/recommendation: Staff has no objection to this comment. 13. When the City revisits its critical areas regulations, the extent to which WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species program has been incorporated into the regulations .should be examined. Staff comment/recommendation: This may occur when the city revisits these regulations. d) Comments Submitted By: Don Videgar, NB Yakima Neighborhood Assoc. Pres. Comments received February 21, 1996 Comments state support for lower density residential designations in the northeast neighborhood area. Staff comment/recommendation: See staff response. to comment under Part I -v above (Gaudette). Also see Part IV, which:: discusses -recommended changes to the Future. Land Use Map. Part III. Verbal Testimony Received by the Regional during the Public Hearings A. Testimony received at January 9.1996 Hearing lanning Commission 1.) Lee Clark, 817 Conestoga Blvd: Mr. Clark stated concerns related to proposed moderate density designation on the Future Land Use Map for the area on the west side of North 40th Avenue, south of Fechter Road (property owned by the Pearson's). 2). Pat Clark, 817 Conestoga Blvd: Agreed with Mr. Clark. 3). Mel and Mae Carlson, 907 Conestoga Blvd: Agreed with Mr. Clark. 4). Richard Lane, 819 Conestoga Blvd: Agreed with Mr. Clark. 5) John and Carolyn Mazie, 823 Conestoga Blvd Agreed, with Mr. Clark. 6).r.'Victor Benzel, 4202 Donald Dr!. Agreed -with Mr. -Clark: - 7). r.Clark:7)."` Jack Roberts, 702 N 47th Ave: Agreed with Mr Clark: 5) ' , Lynn and Jean Seaward, 701 N 47th Ave:=Agreed-with Mr. Clark. 9) hs Bob Wilkes, 4601 Conestoga Blvd Agrees with:Mr °Clark. 10)=" Don Young, 913 Conestoga Blvd: Agreed withMr. Clark. 11).':'':George Olsen, 4503 Fechter: Agreed :.with:Mr. Clark. 12).'x. Rich Hochrein, 724 N 44th Ave: Agreed -with.rMr..Clark. 13).s Hector Felix, 915 Conestoga Blvd Agreed with Mr. Clark. 14) ,Bert and Jeanette Carlson, 4303 Madera Way: -Agreed with Mr. Clark. 15%Thomas Gasseling, 714 N 44th Ave: Agreed with Mr. Clark 16)Gerald and Diana Mellen, 904 Conestoga Blvd: Agreed with Mr. Clark. 17):'`" Jerry and Lavern Mercer, 4205 Fechter Rd Agreed with Mr. Clark. Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 DOC.. INDEX Page 17 • • • 18). J. Gouviea, 828 Carriage Hill Dr.: Agreed with Mr. Clark. 19). Charles and Cindy Lurnpldn, 603 N 48th Ave: Agreed with Mr Clark. 20). Stanley and Georgia Illsley, 712 N 44th Ave: Agreed with Mr. Clark. 21). Jim Tweedy, 4203 Scenic Drive: Agreed with Mr. Clark. Staff Comment: See detailed written comments related to the letter submitted by Mr. Clark on page 3 of this staff report: Part I, comments (g). 22). Don Hinman, 4605 Scenic Dr: Agreed with Mr. Clark. Also, commentedthat the number of housing units and population data seemed overly optimistic. the suggested looking at 30 year construction data rather than 1990 census data on income and rent. Staff comment: Refer to response to -letter from Mr. Hinman inPart', comment (f). 23). Larry Shellenberger, 206 S 69th Ave: As a member of the West Valley Community council, _questioned if there will be separate meetings to discuss that l_ area. Staff comment: In response to Mr. Shellenberger's question, Mr. Anderwald responded that the City and County have a mutual interest in the Urban Reserve. A separate land use and fiscal element will be developed for the Urban Reserve over the next year. 24). Cathy Rajala, Department of Ecology, 15 West Yakima Ave: Reiterated her written comments regarding wetland protection and "no net loss" of wetlands. Staff comments: Please refer to response of Ms. Rajala's letter, found in Part I, comment (d). 25). bill Huibregtse, 3800 Summitview: Asked to confirm the hearing would be continued to February 7, 1996 and would defer his comments until that time. Staff comment: none 26). Stan Berndt, 215 Belaire Dr: Expressed support for the Parks and Transportation elements of the: Comprehensive Plan; -:as:.they . both relate to quality of _ life issues :and have realistic :funding plans related to them.- Staff hem.Staff comment: no changes suggested. 27). Jerry -Sturgill;.211:N:55th:P1 Stated:support for higher ::density land in the-, western portion; of the Urban Area and noted that North 40th Avenuer:is not a good location for low density development. Staff comment: The. Future Land'Use Map indicates areas of higher density in the western portions of -the urban. area. This was necessary not only:to meet the requirements of GMA, but more importantly to provide potential land areas fors:: medium to high.density residential development and affordable_. housing opportunities for residents of the community. Also see Part IV, which: discusses recommended changes.: to the Future Land Use Map. Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 DOC. INDEX Page 18 28). Lee Clark, 817 Conestoga Blvd: Noted the existing zoning of the Pearson property had a r-2 zone near North 40th Avenue and that there was no need to expand that R-2 area west. He felt there should be a statement in the plan which says existing zoning takes precedence over the land use map. Staff comment: GMA requires adoption of a Future Land Use Map which will guide land use actions, such as zoning. Refer to comments related to Future Land Use Map and this area, Part I, comment (g). Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. 29). Mel Carlson, 907 Conestoga: Questioned how the public had been notified of the RPC hearings. Staff comment: Two large display ads were published in the Yakima. Herald:.. andthe::: regular RPC notice was also published. Meeting notices were mailed to the neighborhood mailing list. 30). !: ill Cowman, 921 Conestoga: Questioned the impacts of further-: density. in .the vicinity of North 40th Avenue wouldhave on schools and the environment and felt these issues needed to be studied. Staff comment: See Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. 31). Clarence Barnett, City Council member: Summarized the points raised in his letter. Staff comment: please refer to detailed response in Part I, comment (a). 32). Jerry Mellen, 904 Conestoga Blvd: Stated he felt the Comp Plan should not dictate zoning and maybe we should adopt the zoning map as the future land use map. Staff comment: GMA requires a Future Land Use map. The existing zoning map does not adequately address all of the community needs for additional vacant moderate and high density residential land as well as other land use needs. Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. 33). Gene ! uli, 8806 Occidental: - Questioned --=why any of west ,-valley-was-in the ., Urban Area plan. Staff comment:. Yakima County adopted the Yakima Interim :Urban ::Growth -Area as recommended by the Regional -Planning Commission-and:.the Yakima City. Council; subsequent to a broad -based -citizen participation effort, including a series: of Yakima -y, Upper Valley Round -Table Open =Houses during the Fall of 1993. The RPC may,:: consider modification of the:. Interim;:. Urban Growth area prior to their final recommendation to the legislative bodies. B. Testimony received :at February: 7, 1996 Public Hearing 34). Don Hinman of 4605 Scenic Drive, and the Yakima Valley Rental Association: spoke on the written comments he submitted this evening. His main concern was Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 DOC. INDEX # Page -19 • • • • on the Housing element, and pointed out several areas where the statistics were not correct, such as rental property and vacancy rates. Staff comment: See staff response :under Part I -f and Part I -s, Don Hinman. 35). Bob Young of 1018 S. 33rd: Avenue, and Central Washington Home Builders: mentioned his written comments.: submitted this evening and dated 1/31/96. The;,;,, Home Builders feel that the Comp Plan is basically a very good document, although::. the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan should be revisited and revised. Staff comment: See staff response under Part I-1, Bob Young. 36). Lee Clark of 817 Conestoga Blvd. spoke on the proposed rezoning (according to the Future Land Use Map) of the orchard property off 40th Ave. and, FechterRoad::. (the Delmar Pearson property). He mentioned page 6 of the Staff.. Report:: He feels -' that it should not list the entire parcel as one. It should be shown broken:, down into individual areas which could be rezoned separately in the future. Staff comment: See staff response. under- Part I -g-14, Lee Clark Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use .Map. 37). Tom Gasseling of 714 N. 44th Ave. also commented on the Pearson property. He is not in favor of high density housing in this area. Staff comment See staff response under Part I -g-9, Lee Clark. Kara Kondo asked Mr. Gasseling if he was aware of Mr. Pearson's written comments concerning his property, and suggested that he take a look at them. 38). Bev Luby Bartz of 701 N. 6th St. submitted comments and spoke for herself as well as Betty Gaudette and Robert & JoAnn Nowlin. They are all residents of Northeast Yakima and are pleased with the Comp Plan. They want to encourage changing the Northeast Yakima zoning from R-3 to R-1 as proposed. Staff comment: See staff response under Part I -v, Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Gaudette. Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. 39). Bill Cowman of 921 Conestoga Blvd. commented on the Parks element of the Plan, specifically mentioning land use and: the Pearson property west ,of 40th Ave:. Noting Chesterly Park, he feels there -is a definite need for a neighborhood.. park for activities other than soccer in this area, and suggested the Pearson property °as a potential location. Staff comment: No changes suggested., Also see Part IV, which .discusses,,;-- recommended iscusses .--recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. 40). Robert Boggs, Attorney, 222.N. 3rd Street submitted written commentsprior.: to the hearing which mentioned the:>.Castlevale and Powerhouse area. He noted .: . Yakima Wire Works at 3601 Powerhouse Road, and would like to see the Comp::;:.,, Plan reflect the area as industrial rather than medium density residential. Staff comment: See staff response under Part I -e, Lyon Law Offices. Responses to Coinments February 22, 1996 DOC. INDEX Page 20 41). Jerry Mellen of 904 Conestoga and Heritage Brokers addressed the aerial map and commented on the east (business) side of 40th Avenue (Pearson property). He feels that 40th Avenue could not support medium or high density zoning on the west side as well as business and professional office on the east. He would like to see the Future Land Use Map reflect the area on the east side of 40th as R-1, low density. Staff comment: No changes suggested. (Frank Gutierrez explained the definition of medium and high density and Mr. Mellen agreed that the figures were not as high as he had originally thought.) Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. 42). Paul Nagle -McNaughton of 207 S. 31st Ave. commented on the Memorial Hospital area. He stated that the neighborhood has spoken out against the Hospital expanding. He questioned the Future Land Use Map showing "Professional, Office". zoning on several parcels in the Hospitalarea which are presently zoned R-3. He would like to see the map changed to reflect zoning to remain R-3 as it is now. Staff comment: See Part IV, which. discusses _recommended changes to the -Future Land Use Map. 43). Bill Rathbone for the City of Union Gap, 102 W. Ahtanum Rd. The City of Union Gap is requesting the area south of the Yakima Airport between 16th Avenue and 38th Avenue and north of Ahtanum Rd. be designated as Union Gap growth area. Staff comment: See staff response under Part I -n, Wm. Rathbone, City of Union Gap. 44). Dick Anderwald, Yakima County Director of Planning submitted three documents and gavea brief overview of each one. They are as follows: 1) Comment letter dated 2/2/96 regarding: a. Joint adoption of Comp Plan b. Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies c. Future Land Use Map d. Comp Plan update (amendment process) e. RPC evaluation,recommendations and timelines 2) Public Process Goal including Goai <P.1and Goal P. 2 3) Memorandum regarding -recommended text amendments to DraftoComp Plan There was some discussion on the Gleed area not .being included. as a City of Yakima growth area Staffcomment: See staff response under -Part I -u, Dick Anderwald. 45). Cec Vogt of the Yakima Greenway,Foundation, 103 S. 3rd St., presented the Greenway's 1995 Master Plan Update..:Cec -referenced the previous RPC reviewof the draft Master Plan and summarized' the changes based on citizen comments :,:.She would like to see it incorporated into the Comp Plan by reference. Responses to Comments February 22,1996 DOC. INDEX # n --/c,2 Page 21 • • • • • Staff comment: The decision to recommend the Greenway Master Plan Update to be adopted to the comprehensive plan by reference rests with the Regional Planning Commission. 46). Scott Nicolai of the Yakama Indian Nation - Fisheries, submitted technical information which he feels should be considered in the Plan. Hegave historical perspectives on the Yakima river and several area creeks, commenting on the protection and restoration of the remaining habitat for salmon and steelhead. He questioned the language used in the Habitat, Storm Water and Wetlands element of the Plan. He feels that the word "shall" instead of "should" would be the preferable language to address these issues. Scott also noted that the Plan says 'Wetlands over 1 acre will be protected". Scott suggests this figure be reduced to 10,000 square feet, as smaller wetlands also need to be -protected. This would also be consistent with the. quality of life issues in the Plan. Scott's final comment was regarding page 2-39, Policy E 6.3. He would like to see one action added to water conservation; "Require fitting of homes with water conservation devices upon sale." Staff comment: See response to comments under Part 1-d, Catherine Rajala .Dept.,of Ecology, and Part 1-q, Carroll Palmer. 47). elmar Pearson of 2101 St. Helen's St. previously submitted written comments on his property in the vicinity of 40th Ave., Fechter Rd. and Kern Way. He gave a brief history of the area and explained that it is not just one:big piece of land, It is separated into several parcels and this should be.considered in future zoning. He pointed out that the Congdon Canal separates his property from the low density area near Conestoga Blvd. He feels that low density housing would be incompatible next to the existing mobile home park. He suggests medium density in this area and B-1 zoning along 40th Avenue because of the heavy traffic and noise level. Staff comment: See Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. 48). Bill Huibregtse, 3800 Summitview feels that the Comp Plan is a good one. It is a reflection of the requests from citizens and addresses zoning issues well. He mentioned Mr. Pearson's letter of 1./30/96, and agrees with his comments on heavy traffic and noise on 40th Avenue : Bill suggests office designation on the -:east side:of 40th Avenue, with to medium to low density to the west. Staff comment: See Part IV, whichdiscusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map.. 49). Richard Zapata, 4207.Fechter Rd. gave a brief overview of his written =: comments. He would like to seethe Plan respect the environment and also: current.,. homeowners wishes to keep =;their neighborhoods single-family residential. Staff comment: See staffresponse under Part I -h, Richard Zapata. Also see Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. 50). Maud Scott, 309 Union Street referenced the Future Land Use Map. She suggests the area between East Chestnut and East Walnut as a buffer with R-1 Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 Page 22 DOC. INDEX # /�—� zoning. She also stressed the need for open space for children to play. We need to look to infill in the downtown business core, not the already over populated neighborhoods. She noted that the Capital Facilities element does not address the schools and the encroachment of business in these areas. Staff comment: See Part IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map.. 51). Rosemary Small, 1006 So. 25th Ave. submitted written comments and went over the information in her letter: Rosemary feels that the Comp Plan should indicate an increase of affordable, low income housing for people on the West side.: of town so children can attend schools in their own neighborhoods. Staff comment: The Future Land Use Map indicates some areas of higher density within the western portions of the -Yakima Urban Area. The Housing Element also contains a number of policies related to affordable housing. See staff response in Part I -x, Rosemary Small. Also see Part, IV, which discusses recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map.. 52). Phil Hoge, 1512 Folsom Ave. Phil listed three items to consider: - 1) Analyze available vacant land for appropriate density according to City services, etc. There is a definite need for additional medium and high density land in this community. Phil suggested a map which identified sewer lines and vacant land as a tool to help assess feasible development areas. Staff comment: The Land Use Element containsa discussion and analysis of vacant lands, while the Future Land Use Map identifies land uses for these vacant areas. Also see staff response in Part III -27 above, Jerry Sturgill. 2) The Comp Plan should mention criteria regarding lot coverage, fence height standards, etc. There should be some discussion as to why we have these standards. - Staff comment: These items are more appropriately address within development regulations which implement the plan. 3) Regarding .the ._Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, an additional map couldbe added. This_-map-would:not only show the bike routes, but also: what :we<are striving for, such as additional- lanes;- sidewalks, etc. Staff comment:: No changes suggested. art IST. Staff. Recogngnendatio s for Changes to the Future Land : JselvdVW The following are. suggestions-forchanges in the Future Land Use Map: in response to comments in the North -.40th Avenue area, the Northeast Neighborhood areal ,. and the Southeast Neighborhood .area: . Responses to Comments February 22,1996 Page 23 ,: DOC. INDEX • • • 1. North 40th Ave and Kern area: Extensive testimony was received by the RPC from the neighborhood requesting a low density designation of vacant land near..: the canal and southwest of North 40th Avenue and Kern Road. In addition, testimony was received: from the property owner regarding office designations on the east side of North 40th Avenue. The owner of the Wireworks:.. on Powerhouse Road also requested an industrial designation. Staff comment: In response to -testimony, some changes appear warranted : and are reflected on the enclosed map of Future Land Use for. North 40th Avenue: 2. Northeast Neighborhood: Testimony was received regarding the request for moderate and low density designations in the Northeast Neighborhood area. No specific areas were identified. Staff comment: The residential areas of the northeast neighborhoodare designated as low or medium.. density on the Future Land Use Map. This designation supports these comments. Future zoning will implement :low medium residential designations ° in this area. The enclosed Future Land Use map of the Northeast Area identifies the recommended land uses. No changes are recommended. Please compare to the zoning map to identify regions of changes. 3. Southeast Area: Testimony was received regarding a request for residential designations rather than commercial in the vicinity of Chestnut and Walnut Avenues. No specific region was identified. Staff comment: Please refer to the maps enclosed for the Southeast area to compare zoning to proposed Future Land Use. No changes are recommended. 4. Memorial Hospital Area: Testimony was received concerning the Future Land Use Map showing the land use designation of Professional Office on parcels currently zoned R-3. Staff comment: R-3 and R-2 zoning at this location does not reflect the established use of this area:: The designation of Professional .Office for the Hospital and surrounding: properties: recognizes the Hospital as an : established use. No changes are recommended. Responses to Comments February 22, 1996 Page 24 DOC. INDEX #-�� nEcev JAN Y 2 fig, caturepor 1530411A. Glun 12: vets. ESQ €7 January 11, 1995 TO: FROM: 0402 764 1 TS an: *0) 6-447O Writ Yakima Urban Area Regional Planning::Comr- fission Dave Brown, Water Tr®almrst NOM Su. rviaof, 575-177 SUflJECT: January 9, 1996 Public Heating Memo from Clarence Barnett=dste January 9, 1990. Questions 3,4.5 & 6 Ouestion e3 from Mr. Barnett'8 Memo about Policy E31 Pago 01-39. We also recommend that the policy should be changed` to *Review/modify cater quality monitoring program for compliance with regulations*. Currently there is some monitoring being done. 0t may also be nefocisl to separate the industrial and agricuttural practices. Question 84 from Mr. Barnetts Demo about Page 401-4. Mr. Barnett is comet, the stated water right •-f Incorrect. 0t should r , d as follows: Institutionally by the City's water : hts of 0.40 MOD (10 cfs) throughout the year plus 19.38 MGD (30 cfs) available October 13th. to Jud 15th (however this may become unavailable as won as April 1st depending a river flows and reservoir levels) plus 4500 acre feat of storage in Rimrok Reservoir (the storage water is subject to oration in water short years). Question 85 from Mr. Barnett's Memo *bot Page V00-5. Mr. Barnett is again correct. Ther® was a change made in the Water Comp Plan to increase the individual cost of converting to domestic watffr * 85 0.00. The total cost Should be $5.5 million. Question N from Mr.-8ornett's.;MomoaboutR a 113 Mr. Barnett is torr et 1994 datais aveilablephowever 1995 `°data Is now available. -TWa ADD should be 12.63 MGD andthe MDD ihould.be 19.9 MGD. The referenced year should be 1995.. On page V0I-7 The second paragraph: -:under Mistratution System Evaluation* is not correct.- it orrect h should read as follows: Hydraulic analysis results indicate that-duringexisting hour condition, all customers are served by system-pressures.greeteri:. than 30 pounds per square inch (psi)j,. Ole system improvement are needed to improve system wide pressure. The above corrections have been submitted= to Cindy Epperson, Finance Division for inclusion in the Ian. copy: Clarence Barnett Cindy Epperson John Baden e." Du = r:ne Calvin DOC. INDEX Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM January 30, 1996 Dick Zais, City Manager Members of a City Council Members of the Regioi al Planning Commission Jerry Copeland, IDirector of Public Works David Russell, Street and Traffic Opera : ons Manager Shelley Willso Supervisg Traffic Engineer Clarence Items 9-12 Question 9 - A. ettMemo - January 9, 1996` Levels of Service will be corrected to read those noted in e Transportation Plan Final Report. The Transportation Plan Final Report refects the correct filnal figures. The Connpre 2 c side Plan will be changed to reflect the changes. 10. The format in the Comprehensive P changed to e same format used in Transportatio Plain. Final Report. 11. The,Transportatio =• Plan will be: changed to reflectIL-MTt City Code regar ng sid-. widths. will be e 12. We will insure .that F• e ' arrativediscussons and . .the • lacy statements concerning concurrency will be consistent. 3 DOC. INDEX # j-/02 • ritte eceive ua f DOC. INDEX Co rne•nts Received for the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan The following is >a list of written comments received for the comprehensive plan as of February .21,1996: Comment.: Received From Date Received 1. Clarence Barnett, Council Member 1/9/96 2. Sarah Jokela, 2610 Cascade Road 1/9/96 3. Catherine.Rajala, Dept. of Ecology 1/9/96 4. Larry & Betty - Douglas, 4201 Fechter Road 1/9/% 5. Wm. L. Weigand, Jr., Lyon Law Offices, 222 N 3rd St. 1/9/96 6. Don Hinman,.. Yakima Valley Rental Association. 1/9/96 7. Lee C. Clark; :817"Conestoga Blvd 1/9/96 8. Richard Zapata, 4207 Fechter Road 1/10/96 9. Ray Lockwood, 608 N 47th Ave 1/15/96 10. Cec Vogt, Yakima Greenway Foundation 1/22/96 11. Rosemary Small, 1006 South 25th Avenue 1/30/96 12. Bob Young, Central Washington Homebuilders 1/30/96 13. Delmar L. Pearson, 4108 Kern Way 1/31/96 14. William J. Rathbone, City of Union Gap 1/31/96 15. Carroll Palmer, Yakama Indian Nation 2/5/96 16. Bert & Jeanette Carlson, 4303 Madera Way 1/25/96 17. Bob Young, Central Washington Homebuilders 2/7/96 18. Don Hinman, Yak. Valley Rental Assoc. 2/7/96 19. Cec Vogt (Greenway Master Plan Update) 2/7/96 20. Dick Anderwald, Yakima County 2/7/96 21. Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Gaudette, 701 N 6th St. 2/7/96 22. Robt. & JoAnn Nowlin, 203 N 9th St 2/7/96 23. Rosemary Small, 1006 S 25th Ave 2/7/96 24. Scott-Nicolai,..Yakama Indian Nation _.(packet .of info.) 2/7/96 25 ' ` Richard LarsonFWA. State DOT 2/9/96 26. Bob Mason, 612:N"2nd Street 2/12/96 27. Stephen :° Penland ::WA State Dept. of Fish.& Wildlife 2/12/96 28.. Don Videgar, NE ,Yak. Neigh. Assoc: -,President»': 2/21/96 DOC. INDEX #-/I RECEIVED JAN 2 51996 cOMMU�NITY o� OpMEir 4, 1r / s -X34-3 -DOG. INDEX 4108 KERN WAY • YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 90909 C8808.(508)452.0080 January 30,1996 Yakima Urban Area Regional Planning Commission Yakima City Hall 129 North Second Street Yakima WA 98901 Re: Draft Yakima Urban Area Compressive Plan Dear Commission Members: RECEIVED JAN 3 1 1996 fY OF YAKinvi PLANNING DIV. On behalf of our family corporations D.E.P. Properties Inc ° and Mt. Adams Cattle Company, which collectively own orchard properties: •along N. 40th Avenue between Kern Way and Fechter in Yakima. ( approximately 56+, acres)„ we have the following comments regarding the Draft Yakima Urban:Area Comprehensive Plan with respect for -;which-hearings are now being held. West Side of 40th Avenue For many years, we have utilized this property solely for agricultural purposes, despite the growing residential density of the surrounding land, including an adjacent mobile home park and the residential area of Carriage Hill and Estes Park. This land is currently zoned R-1 and R-2 and is according to the proposed °Future Land Use° map to remain a mixture of Medium Density Residential, with the exception of 6+ acres owned by Mt Adams Cattle Company which looks like Low Density Residential on one of the maps. This land designation is not congruent with the land to the south across the ditch from Mt Adams Cattle Company which is zoned R-2. We do not oppose the recommendation of the Planning Department Staff, that the land be targeted for Medium Density Residential use in the future. However, we request consideration be given to the land immediately adjacent to 40th Avenue, between Fechter and the mobile home park, as a mixture of retail and professional office use to serve as a buffer between the busy arterial street and prime residential land •:which lies further west. Since our ranch employees protested living in houses near,40th 'Ave°v even if the house was furnishedfree;withheating and utilities , we believe that people will not want to occupy homes .adjacent. to :.the ever busier 40th Avenue.,: Recognizing Carriage Hill's concern, we have,plansreflecting a buffer zone of.low:.density= housing on both sides :of.::_a proposed .roadzthat:parallels the Congdon Ditch.We would not object if you included,that in your.planning:;:.. East„Side' of -,40th Avenue On,the :east ;-side . of 40th Avenue north of Kern: Way, .there has=been submitted and is on the =public .record, applications for the utilization of =four::: acres': as the location of the Memorial,'Hospital Children's Village. This children's clinic will be a pediatric facility facility of about 20,000 sf. involving several local service agencies and medical providers. -We are proud to be able to have a part in such a project. DOC. INDEX • • In furtherance of that facility, we suggest that the proposed ° Future Land Use° map designate a significant portion of the land around the children's clinic as B-1 Zone ( Professional Business) in order to make available the likely need for medical and associated office facilities close to the clinic. All of the property on the east side of 40tf Avenue is currently zoned R-3, Mull - Family Residential. We recognize that planing staff .desires to maintain residential zoning in this area . We note that .on the south side of Kern Way across from the proposed. Children's Clinic, is a vacant five acre tract which is surrounded on two sides by existing multi -family uses (R-3) and which the °Future Land Use° map proposes to change to B-1. It. would -seem appropriate to havethat acreage remain designated as R-3 and designate the land immediately adjacent to 40th avenue (west of the Children's Village) as B-1, consistent. with the applications now en file. Again, this would provide a buffer of retail and professional office ..use: between the busy arterial and the • children's Village and other residential .uses=Very,;few people wold want to live next to noisy 40th Avenue. The retail and professional office designation of the area immediately.adjacent to 40th Avenue would :.provide :support facilities on the same side of 40th Avenue as well as for the people living in the immediate area. • Summary While we, like many of the residents of the area, have affection for the past and long for the ability to continue use of _that land as an orchard that Is no longer a viable option. We know we must accept change and acknowledge the need for additional land suited to siting of new residences • and as well as services necessary to support the changing area. We respectfully request your consideration to our proposed revisions to the ° Future Land Use° map particularly along both sides of 40th Avenue. Thank You. Sincerely, • Delmar;.:Pearson Ellen 'Pearson DOC. INDEX # -I! JAN 1 0 1996 urovklien. wvar5144- <9' '40 DOC. INDEX 0 9 eh many 1994 To: The Yakima ®r jam Area Reglemal Hamming Commies/ m Subject: Coemeats on the ,'> ,comber 1995 dr ft ®f the Ultima Area Ce mpreheasive Plan RECEIVED From: Lee C. Clara so Conestoga Mind Yatima, VA 96968 JAN 0 51996 CITY OF YAKIMA A general consent o€ . the docmmemt As thaelliN VPD to ha mnedited. That ie to say the different sectio is ars} ®,_t comsiatent la stn ctmro or coateeet. la some rectioas, such as mousing, a great deal is maid but nary few p1a3Hs presemt=. . The sass cam be fluid f®r Commercial mad lad atrial Develop at. Although goals sad objectives W®r® presemted, there was Be coorallamt®d plea to Improve Uhl {gAa ° s aH i ll itg:::g,;b attracts d roam/ more year amp ul higher payli g jobs. They cooly stable n}md effective answer to higher the® mor al aaemp-loy eat sad low inco®ens is the avaliability of quality Jobs .with /slogan ies that r®nide mese . ;omies u'e'l the area. Specific Co meats: PAGE REFERENCE CE C®R@9H:l T 11-6 6 3.1 Add this Implement/mg Action,®'� , velop a compoterieed trach®g systce for the early aotificatioi of coo®®`its+ orgamlaatioas ear individ®alms co carr®ed abet specific development areas ®r pr J®cts. iH-7 6 d.2 . They proposed lmple®®nting Action, demalty he ,: ,, mos, does ©t address the problem of 'leap -frog' patterns of growth aid should, theref®r®, he replete with 'bon gas fee contigue®s or "fill -i®© developremtt°. 10-7 G 4.5 Add to the laplomentlmg Actioa, "Hm they • advert f a coaf l ict between this plait rad eatatt®g 1 2© l go. tit® ®t•lstl g ze i®g shal>l' to e,,,prec®deat B . 1170 • h 4. D Delete from the H e®l e®e®t i eg qAct i ®a®d:,.;. higher residential de®sltr®. Nigher residential density user aog°wmeceaearily; shorrtea the listanc be+ wee®,,vesidamtial areas and other s®rniemsamd -is la direct coaf l ict with the prabl-ie.>.;respoago ®a .pro;. ,ss Increases in reside ti®1Aens ti®so 11-23 1 e 1 Tle® esea ®f accessory homa,i.mg malts has . already Leel to degraelatio®::.;1® the G®m1•ity DOC. INDEX # PACE RE. ENUEUCEE4T • .•a•••=19 e. •• • �'e - • ®S :nom® older ®mighlors ®d is in conflict eith jective II gra. Page O . • O NAP OIII-2 The map dated A®gest 1S. 1995 mad titled "Existing Lead ; se' does a©t ref l eet the lead eve ®f thet d to ,Dor of l ..4 ..,1 as aagges3ed by the text in this sectio®. Specific ®rums i me l ede : mmdocemented Mese ®I ®®g 49th Ave.. ®rth of Englewood Ave. amd east of 4 th Av . cad &oath ®f Emg l ewe m®d vest of 46th Ave.: ®aaltl-family dnelliega. the mobilo hoe ark et 4®th Ave at Reye 2d.: a ®d the agric literal lad irdered by th:, 8aI1na Valley Canal. Fechter Rd. and ®nth dive These tyR es of errors cants coesidera lle doubt late the competeace f the Band ase analysis and recommeadatio®s. 011-6 3rrd porn Add <_to,:• --the insisting e4;temoea 'aid existing %e®i®g If there is to be.�o ord rly mad, controlled defied®'mach within the area, t eGeide to ad.developers sho®Id.he able t® a' : i y ®® the safe gmards and processes of the ®xisti®g lams a®d reg®Iatioas. 111-5 4th are. Add this seenteince: ®A di> eessi ra ®f Alternative lead Use prr®posala is presented ie Appendix A.®. This is another example ®4 internal $aac®®sisteaces. ®thea' aectioms, like Utilities discuss the alterr> atives o. only within their ®tem sectio®. NAP O691e3 Plats 34535, 34534, 34052. cad the poPBBoe of 31551 adjacent to the Yak! a Valley Canal and west of it 331065 i e the SU corner of Sectio3,. 15 T©i R3 Bang 15 E.U.f. ( the aatardevel®ped portio® of these 'lets come®mIy referred = to ee the Pearson Orchard) :`should remain .low deo sits residential= This ,eree;-is sed 2-1 as:d is bordered ®m threesides by R-1 developments. Am lacrreased _d ®malty ie mot c®® atible with either the mfrs strectaare a r the existing eeighb®rhood. 45th Ave. is already om of the most C©% roadways ;;Am, the city. Nigher 4®oaity b®nsi»g wo®9d' adveraely affect the traffic a existing ataadies have ladiceted that addling traffic s i g o„ a Is between Englewood and Powerhouse; .Ed . cce I d present a major safety hazard and - eight prevent the ®eve® ®t of tro-_ eke ...deriag;the . ®h. Doc. INDEX Page 3 PAM' MEURER= COMMENT wi®t®r. o The seta .s, l s ares air ®adg . ®sari mg are at capacity ai,d School officlels lav indicated maj ,r upgrades sad en aasieas would be r®eeired by higher de sits hoeaiag. 111-7Under Z®a i ®g Corns i �tet�cy claarlga tel asst sent®ace to read: 'llf• ff the ®tare i sad ®s Nap Dopportt8 a pro s deve l'®pss®8t bat cg.rreet 7o®iag does mot relate t® the pry Loos. d developeat the =arrant c`aieg shall % ie gracedz,rce.®. Zo"*mg processes amd procedures est be preserved to callow gr ;>mth planalmg a dew®lopmeat to co time i® aa orderly a®d predictable samoor. S c.D1 The ..ms a of 1 ` - data interest bet At does remiity., of 1995. AS metal vecenciem are • lay be f hissstoricel mot represent the as example carr -cat arromad 7 percent Tis® asp® <. f ecees8®ep h®as i•®g mita sea®ds more lihe.a way to over -creed amd degrade a neighborhood them a way to improve it. Hy -9 A critical compomeat t®a s$accessi's H affordable Masi strategy for Ultima s horrid . r , the ®nps as i Pa ®f job ops rtar itiess f®r thevery low a Dom imcoee flies. The to tare solatiom to affordable ho alma ca® My b® ®tt who these families have a® oppont®®ity to earn a living wage. NAP (SAP A-1 This map dated 9/25/95 doer sot reflect • tautest s®tmi®g or land arse. This map should be replaced by the cermet momma. A ssp cific area f c®acerb is the ®isleediag and incorrect depicti® alo®g 4@th Ave. The fires Jena east of the Carriage Mill ®e:velotme®t adJac®®t to the .Tahi®a.Valley Caa L=`iso zor;®d Hi -1. The s ret north .`04.;:>tls mobile ho®e park at 46th Ave. m®d. Berm Rd. Is eco®ed 3-2. The area jest so th . of Eaglets aad:..ues t of 4@th sad the area . north g Englewood and tent of 4th are Eo®ed A-2 Thereis mo C3© to project a emus t® zor ieg 3rf the area jest ®asst of the;:,:,,; Tahi:z8 Valley Ca sal a®d s®mtb of F®cth®r lid ,E:._. to Hi -g. This area As s erro®coded oa ..three sides by R-1 leve l opmeatta . The ed jaceatc; areas long 49th has not base developed,,:.a®rA,.- DOC. INDEX # 1: -ll rage itas the 2 _area directly ecr€ so 4Otat4117®• ,4111 Respectfully, Luxe C. CDe °h .T_ DOC. INDEX # <-1 / 1 4201 FECHTER ROAD YAKIMA WA 98908 January 7, 1996 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET YAKIMA WA 98901 • Ladies and Gentlemen: RECEIVE JAN 0 91996 � g/� to to TA A f miWM MEL SUBJECT Future .::Land use of Pearson .Orchard, ;.West ::of 40th Avenue., Decemher, 1995, Draft of Yakima =Urban :Area Comprehensive Plan Please allow the land known as the Pearson Orchard, to 7RJENZANIN zoned as R-1. The acreage is located west of 40th Avenue. The impact of changing that area is great. Among .other repercussions, a change to medium density would: 1. increase school population 2. decrease property values 3. increase traffic 4. require costly traffic lights' Sufficient R-2 areas exist in other locations, for example, the east side of 40th Avenue. Sincerely yours, A Larry ind .,Betty -:Dougla( DOC. INDEX # -JI Re cir ;41 • A or enda Yakima Urban Area • nal Planning Commission Tuesday February 27, 1996, 6:30 p.t). to 9°00 p.m. Yakima City Hall I. Call to Order II. Approve Minutes from February 7, 1996 HI. New Business: 1. Discussion related to written comments, testimony, and staff recommendations for the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan IV. Correspondence V: Adjourn DOC. INDEX North 40th Ave P. and Kern Road Vicinity Exisd fiC Zoni LEI BR Suburban Ramidantlal R-1 Sines -Family Residential R-2 Tare -Family Residential R -S Residential B-1 Prof aaalanai Business, t2-2 Load Bushes©a Histarloal ihnoineme BCC Small Cameral:moo Center LCC Love Commodamse Canter MD Central Shrsinase Distriat MIS CGS Rumen 111-1 Ueht industrial SI -2 i400vy indueleird 0 KEW 350 City of Yakima, Washington February 16, 1996 North 40th Ave and Kern Road Vicinity Fz ture w,y n Use ▪ w, ▪ MIA, =MT CSCON11.1 tow israwneasatasu MR ISM MEM= warstmonamscaleacnu AVOW Ait11.78611 DIRSIICMULOSIMM cannemitormes 0 Scale - lin = 700ft 350 700 City of Yakima, Washington February 16, 1996 North 40th Ave • and fern Road Vicinity 1994 Aerial Photo 114161." k...clomkrniPsivr IlifilitEl i. Scale - lin = 700ft 0 NEAP 350 700 City of Yakima, Washington February 16, 1996 CITY OF YAKIMA. , WASHINGTON:. JANUARY 14, 1997 SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING 1. ROLL CALL. The City Council met in session on this date at 2:00 p.m., in the Masonic Center, 510 North Naches Avenue, Yakima, Washington, Mayor Lynn Buchanan, presiding (absent after 4:20 p.m.) Council Members Clarence Barnett, Ernie Berger, John Klingele, John Puccinelli (absent after.. 4:20 p.m.), and Bernard Sims (present after 2:05 p.m.) present on roll call. Council Member Henry. Beauchamp .absent and excused. City Manager Zais, Assistant City Attorney Peterson, City Clerk Roberts, and Deputy City:Clerk Skovald._also present. 2. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE There was none given. 3. OPEN DISCUSSION FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER A. PROCLAMATIONS (IF APPLICABLE) There were no. proclamations. 4. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE RELATING TO LICENSES REQUIRED TO DRIVE TAXICABS AND VEHICLES FOR HIRE AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 5.78.190(4) OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA MUNICIPAL CODE Assistant City Attorney Peterson briefly summarized the circumstances of the appeal which the Council. considered at the January 7, 1997 Business Meeting. Ronald G. Marshall applied for a license to operate a taxi cab because he hopes to acquire a taxi . business in . the-<: near.,..future.. The Police. -Department had.. to ....deny the:. application -: because .::there -was.,: -no provision. in,. the Muni.cipal...Code to disregard.. minorviolations-on;an.applicant's motor vehicle...traffic...record. Mrs Peterson directed -attention to the proposed ord-inance.:amendment which includes a provision that.: would....:enable....the :;.Cou-nc.il-,..upon ...:recommendat:ion .by :the. Chief . of.:Pol-ice, :_ to waive the:: -f ive =year -.three -=violation criterion . in _ - specific ._ situations .. Ordinance. No. 97-7 having:: been -sead::=by title only, it was MOVED:'. BY .-BERGER SECONDED BY 'PUCCINELLI:;.::.TO-PASS . THE .ORDINANCE: The motioncarried by unanimous -.roll call vote; Beauchamp absent. It "was MOVED BY PUCCINELLI,-- .SECONDED; sBY 7RLINGELE, TO ACCEPT ° THE POLICE:;.CHIEF'S RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW.:THEAPPLICANT TO GET. HIS TAXI -'"LICENSE. The motion -,:carried:: by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp: absent. • Doc. INDEX SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING - JANUARY 14, 1997 ORDINANCE NO. 97-7, AN ORDINANCE relating to licenses required to drive taxicabs and vehicles for hire and amending Subsection 5.78.190(4) of the City of Yakima Municipal Code. 5. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH YAKIMA COUNTY TO CONSIDER YAKIMA URBAN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Yakima County Commissioners Jim Lewis, Bettie Ingham, and Charles Flower were present during this portion of the meeting, as well as Dick' Anderwald and Terry Austin, County staff members. This being the time set for the Joint Public Hearing, the City Council and the Yakima County Commissioners were..: available to receive public comment about recommended changes to the Draft Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan document. Commissioner Flower reminded the audience that the -.-Commission .is not empowered to act on any landuse or zoning -issues --:.within the City Limits of Yakima. They are present to hear public testimony about recommendations' from the Regional Planning Commission. Glenn Valenzuela, Director of Community & Economic Development, provided a brief history about the development of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) which began with a visioning document a number of years ago. In a combined effort with Yakima County staff, City planners spent considerable time preparing the plan. Mr. Valenzuela commended the Council, the Planning Commission members,' and staff for their substantial investment of time, energy, and City resources. Ideas from all segments of the community have been gathered as part of the open public participation process and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Valenzuela outlined proposed changes to the Landuse and Transportation Elements to reflect public testimony from those ,people..most dir.ectly .affected .includin.g,neighborhood .groups, the.- construction_ mindustry as:well ... as _other .::segments: _.of the community: Mr Valenzuela also reported that - future. development standards and regulations :for affordable -housing will not only be..based on Council policy, but.will also reflect ideas; from those people .:most directly..... affected by landuse decisionsAffordable housing and- a choice:of,:.building stock-- will..be=:accomplished by planned unit developmentzwith smaller lot>. sizes:.:and mixed uses, private sector partnerships for housing:°:,:;- construction, and perhaps some;,. type,,:- of 'incentive program::; Mr.:Valenzuela directed attention>to.:::.:.proposed text changes:;:. to- the. Transportation Element and :pointed= out -the staff recommendation is to approve the Transportation ;Plan, with the provisoto City staff to review and modify- several major factors,- which were either not apparent when:;=theransportation Plan-_:was.:first drafted, or to reflect citizen: -.preferences -- specifically the impact of increased train traffic coming through. --the City and the very strong citizen -objection to 2 DOC. INDEX # x SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING - JANUARY 14, 1997 widening 32nd and 16th Avenues. Mr. Valenzuela asked that the Transportation Level of Service (LOS) be revisited to better understand the issues of concern and to incorporate changes based on public testimony. Mr. Valenzuela then introduced several members of the City Planning staff and members from the Regional Planning Commission who were available to respond to questions. For clarification purposes Council Member, Barnett explained that after the last Public Hearing on the Comp Plan, it became obvious that the consultant's recommendations on street improvements (the widening of 16th and 32nd.Avenues) were not satisfactory and did not meet the citizens' desires. Also, since that time the railroad has increased the number,>of.trains coming through Yakima, and that impact must be addressed also. Council Member Barnett then read a proposed amendment to the Comp Plan providing for a revised Transportation Impact Analysis to be submitted during the annual update of the Comp Plan. Also included in the.annual Comp Plan review process will be the impact of the railroad. He explained the new paragraph was added in order to alleviate the concerns of residents against the widening of 32nd and 16th Avenues. He reported the entire issue of the transportation impact will be reviewed. Council Member Berger explained there are no plans to widen any streets; he reiterated the .staff recommendation to adopt the Transportation Plan without any recommendations to widen any streets. • Mayor Buchanan opened the public hearing and asked each speaker to provide their name and address and limit their comments to five minutes. There were a lot of.people who presented their point of view about an array of topics, expressing concern or summarizing specific circumstances, both pro and con, or identified specific changes for Council to consider. There were eight Exhibits submitted to the City Clerk. The. following'is.a brief synopsis of:.testimony-_received.during the public... hearing::. Several citizens commended the Council for already:: making positive changes to the CompPlan which will be beneficial to the.::: community. Speaking :;in.: support of . those .:.chan.ges :were::::; Betty Gaude.tte;:+. 701 North:: 6th Street; Verna .Beggs,:.. 1204 East 'Spruce Street; Bev Luby Bartz, 114 North 4th Street; :._,Connie_.:=Little, 2002 Simpson Lane;. and Maud Scott, 309 Union. Shannon.Hughes,.. 8.08 South 28th Avenue; Denny Grandstand, 901 South-32nd.:Avenue; Clara Fisher, 2801 West YakimaAve-nue; Ted Parnell,.320.2..West Viola; Dave Thompson, 620 N...32nd.:.:Avenue; Derek LaFramboise, .606 South 32nd Avenue; Robert Henderson, 314 North 32nd ;Avenue; Walt Ranta, 5 South 32nd .Avenue;•. Bill Hambelton,.615 South 32nd Avenue (Exhibit No. 3); Carolyn Jump, 1818 - 32nd. Avenue; Robert Harcum, 315 North 32nd Avenue;- Karen Hollenback, 1205 South 32nd Avenue (submitted Exhibit.. No. 6); 3 DOC. INDEX # -CI -q • • SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING - JANUARY 14, 1997 Brad Englund, .505 North 32nd Avenue; Mark Shuman, 308 North 32nd Avenue; and Debra Gould, 401 South 32nd Avenue spoke in' opposition,to widening 32nd Avenue. In addition to comments opposing improvements to 32nd Avenue, Denny Granstand urged the Council to consider installing better bike paths throughout the City, to implement a 20 -mph speed limit on 32nd Avenue and Bonnie Doone. Derek LaFramboise also expressed concern about wildlife; he feels an environmental impact statement would need to be done at Wide Hollow Creek and also requested property values be reassessed if 32nd Avenue is improved. Walt Ranta urged the Council to consider speed humps on 32nd Avenue. Bill Hambelton read a letter from Mr. and. Mrs. Hassan against widening 32nd Avenue. They also suggested public hearings be scheduled in the evening. Robert Harcum, 315 North. 32nd 'Avenue, and Judy Kendall, 809 North 32nd Avenue, reported they had not been notified personally about the public hearing. Mr: Harcum asked that. sidewalks be installed and a 20 or _.25_ mph speed zone be imposed in the commercial area' of 32nd:: Avenue. • There were also citizens who spoke in opposition to widening 16th Avenue. Citing their objections were Herschel McDonald, 4 North 16th Avenue, and John Shockley, 707 South 34th Avenue. Several citizens urged the Council to not adopt the Comp Plan at all. Delmar Pearson, 2101 St. Helens Street, and Susy Armstrong, 1813 McNair, expressed concern'about adopting the plan. She feels the growth management process should be stopped because it is unconstitutional because it takes away private property rights. J. B. Meyer urged the Council to vote no because it discourages jobs and growth and business. Lee Clark, Conestoga Boulevard, spoke against adopting the Comp Plan and asked that a better.attempt be made to notify citizens about proposed changes to the Comp Plan by notifying each person individually in the community. Jerry Sturgill, 2112 West Nob Hill Boulevard, felt.there is not a lack of affordable housing.. He felt that there would be a detrimental effect on the. planning of the.community t.y if the Comp Plan,; is... adopted- He requested a committee be formed to plan. development.;: recommendations if the plan is adopted. Affordable housing. was..... an issue many citizens.. expressed_concern about. • Higher: density designations and:.;..non:,-restrictive> development standards—and regulations were-requested,:.ta::avoid.:. -raising .. housing....costs. above the affordability. -level.... Those. speakers. identifying :.issues of concern with -the:.:°Landuse: and • Housing .. Elemen.ts:~:wer-e:::: Marty Miller, 1400 Summitview, _:Avenue, - #203, Bruce- Hughes: 808 South 28th Avenue, who also x; read ::a letter from:Br±en :Thane, Executive Director of theOfficeof Rural & Farmworker-=°.Housing (see Exhibit No. 1), Rox .Anne Lew±s, 2902 Castlevale .Suite..A, and Joe Walsh, 570,9 Walla Walla._Lane, who also providedaninformational handout to the Council..... He feels the affordable housing element has not been met:=for all 4 DOC. INDEX SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING - JANUARY 14, 1997 economic segments of the community. He also felt sufficient land needs to be available for affordable housing. Steven Fuhriman, representing the Central Washington Home. Builders Association, read a petition (Exhibit No. 4) from his Association, which is also endorsed by the Yakima Association of Realtors, to not -adopt the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. Their recommendation to not. adopt the Comp Plan is based on their opinion that adoption .at this time would be 'detrimental to the Urban Growth Area because the Plan fails..to sufficiently provide for affordable housing in the future for all economic segments of the community. Mr. Fuhriman quoted portions of State Law and the Comp Plan to support this objection that the Landuse Element and the Housing Element fail. to meet GMA requirements. He requested more medium and high density development be accommodated and shown on the Future Landuse Map. The petitioners also maintain that the..: Future Landuse Map and the Zoning Map are inconsistent. (See Page. III -6, 3rd paragraph of the left column.) These inconsistencies should be addressed now instead of later during the Amendment Process when a Comp Plan Amendment fee can be charged for modifications to the Future'Landuse Map. Since the Zoning Map is the basis. for Landuse permit decisions, the Future Landuse Map should be consistent because it directs development. Council Member Barnett pointed out that he understood the concerns of this organization; however, the consistent verbiage has already been written to address this concern. There was a brief discussion about implementation of new development regulations. Bob Mason, 612 North 2nd Street, referred to a proposed Landuse Element change on page 5, Multi -Family Section III. He urged the Council to add a Maintenance Code to keep residences painted and in good repair. Gordon Patten, 116 South llth Avenue, referred to a written proposal he submitted to the Planning Commission. He described the plan which would develop 10th Avenue.--as..a .north/south arterial. Bruce Buchanan, 90 Twin Peaks Road, Selah, disagreed with the words "encourage". as..it.. is used in the Comp ;..Plan. spe.cifically:.., referring to encouraging the individual:. and/or _business toy:: create growth. He feels there should be i5 balance between, private property .rights and management of growth because the individual develops the land and creates the economic growth of. the area. Mark Teske, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, reported that discrepancies in the FEMA 100 -year flood plan for :the area in which significant flooding recently occurred has to be. indicated on the map. 5 DOC. INDEX # it,: SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING - JANUARY 14, 1997 Lynne Kittelson supported;<.the planning process and commended.:.. the, Council and the Commissioners for working with the.-:.GMA: process. She directed -attention to the issue of historic preservation on Page 19 of the Blue Book Action Plan Changes,-. and suggested the Urban Area plan statement, P.II-15, Policy L2.3, should be more like the Yakima County plan statement. Council Member Barnett felt. this would be an importantpoint. and directed staff to include -that. Ms. Kittelson also feels. neighborhood groups should organize to work -on common problems and solutions. 6 DOC. INDEX SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING - JANUARY 14,'1997 Gordon Wonder, 509 Follow Thru_Drive, reported his property at. 10 West Yakima Avenue, at the southeast corner of 1st Avenue and Yakima Avenue, should be CBDS instead of Light Industrial as it currently is designated. Dick Anderwald, Yakima County, identified three areas for requested changes to the growth area in the Terrace Heights area. He presented threemap changes for Council consideration. (Bettie Ingham, Jim Lewis, and Bill Flower left at 4:30 p.m.) Mr. Anderwald urged staff to determine whether the language is consistent in the Comp Plan. . Jeff Lima, 1310 Willow. Street, presented a map for clarification of medium density designation for property on Willow Street. There being no one else :.wishing ..:to: comment, Mayor Pro Tem Puccinelli closed the Public Hearing. It was MOVED BY KLINGELE, SECONDED BY BARNETT, THAT THE YAKIMA URBANAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE REFERRED TO THE JOINT BOARD FOR URBAN PLANNING AND CONSIDERATION. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp and Buchanan absent. 6. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION There was no one wishing to comment. 7. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. Information Items: Items of information provided to Council were: Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda for January 13, 1997 Regular. Monthly Meeting. • 1/10/97; Memorandum -from YVCOG concerning General- Membership.,.Meeting Legislative --Discussion. 1/09/97; Press . Release - -from-theYakimaRegional._ Clean Air Authority Concerning Potential Asbestos.. Exposure. 1/8/97; Damage Claims Filed During -the Month.:of- December, 1996. .1/6/97; Letter to .Emergency. Management; concerning Statement:: of.....• Documentation for DSR-. projects_:. 1/7/97; Yakima Fire. Department Monthly Activity- Report. 11/96; • code.° Administration Monthly Division Report 1/6/97; Assignments: Pending in the Planning Division..1/14/97; and Articles from Metro/State Star Tribune_ newspaper -.-and Urban Land magazine. 12/22/96. 7 DOC. INDEX # K_ 9 SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING - JANUARY 14, 1997 8. ADJOURNMENT It was MOVED BY. BARNETT,'':'. SECONDED _BY. BERGER, TO ADJOURN`• AT: 4:37 P.M. The motion -carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp, Buchanan, and Puccinelli`absent. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: ATTEST: COUNCIL MEMBER DATE COUNCIL MEMBER DATE CITY CLERK LYNN BUCHANAN, MAYOR Minutes prepared by.Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 8 DOC. INDEX CITY OF::;YAKIMA,:.:.WASHINGTON JULY:,:=16 , 1996 ADJOURNED :MEETING The City Council met in session-:on.,rthis date at 8:00 a.m. in the City .Manager's Conference Room' at City Hall, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington for informal discussion, Mayor Lynn Buchanan presiding. Council Members present were Clarence Barnett, Henry Beauchamp, Ernie Berger, John Klingele, John Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims. Staff Members present were City Manager Zais; Assistant City.. Manager Rice; Community & Economic Development Director Valenzueia; Ray Paolella, City Attorney; Don Skone, Planning Division Manager; Joan Davenport, Supervising Associate Planner; John Elsden-,:. Senior Project Planner; and. Deputy City Clerk Skovald. Don Skone referenced an inquiry from the Northeast Yakima Neighborhood Association (NEYNA) requesting the Council consider their previous request to change the Future Land Use Designation for the residential area located north of Yakima Avenue and east of. North 1st Street from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. Although there are a wide variety of land use designations for this area, the request only applies to residential property. Don Videgar, . NEYNA President, referred to a colored map reflecting proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map and presented his neighborhood's concerns about problems related to high density and explained their preference for the low density designation for their- area. There was a considerable amount of discussion --concerning. tax.:::assessments and.loan.vvalues-of,property in th s area, as well-... as:: the exis-ting zoning. Don Skone:: explained an• oversight --in the interpretation by the staff as to whether this was a map.:change request.• He requested a chance to consider the request before -a staff recommendation is made. • There was a considerable- amount- of discussion concerning a variety of aspects of the°request-'including housing needs,:. the: Zoning Review process :to address. proposed development, and the.: need for a code enforcement emphasis within the city, particularly for issues pertaining toconverted dwellings-°:from:o- single family homes. Thee: discussion --shifted to the topic of: prideof home ownership .,and:::the::ef:fort. made by the Northeast..:; 0 Yakima Neighborhood Association :to improve the livability of their neighborhood. Also included in the discussion were the Doc. INDEX • • JULY 16, 1996 - ADJOURNED MEETING - GMA issues of the rising' cost of housing and the importance of encouraging industry_and more jobs which would upgrade the median income in this area. Comments were made about the need for more land for parks and schools to meet the needs. of the growing. population and the high cost of infrastructure needed for those improvements. After continued discussion about Mr. Videgar's request to change the future land:.use:-map,- staff was directed to bring back a recommendation at another meeting. Joan Davenport referred to the Washington Fruit request. She explained the three maps illustrating the request, including the existing zoning, an aerial photograph..::.and the Future Land.Use:. designation. It was MOVED BY PUCCINELLI., SECONDED BY BERGER, TO' ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO JASIGNATEPROPERTY BETWEEN. 2ND AND-°;.3RD..:;„AVENUES, AND "D” AND CHERRY.._STREE_TS:, APPROXIMATELY.. _2..5 ACRES,:. AS-WHOLESALE/WAREHOUSE. Therewas continued discussion about the current zoning for this property.. Staff was directed to contact the applicant to explain the differences between the Industrial and wholesale/warehouse land use designations. The question was called for a vote on the motion. _The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Referencing the three maps illustrating several existing zoning categories for the area, Joan Davenport explained Verna Beggs' request to designate Arterial Commercial for the entire area East of Fair Avenue. to the freeway, North of Nob Hill to Yakima Ave. Staff recommends, that north of Kiwanis Park to the Interchange area be designaed Arterial Commercial and Medium Density be retained south of the park to Adams Street. Properties along the north side of Pacific Avenue and east of 18th Street to the freeway are currently designated as Arterial Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Verna Beggs outlined -her request for anArterial.Designationfor property east- of Fair Avenue. She: presented the Southeast Neighborhood's .concerns for safety and.::describ.ed the dilapidated:• conditionsEQf. the neighborhood. Counc I. -members discussedthe tendency toward potential development_. in the Southeast area;.. particularly along the freeway. It was -the .general feeling among_ Council members that an Arterial Commercial. Designation would..be: beneficial to the city. There was .also discussion and direction -to . staff to develop a "Grandfather Policy" to include.ianguage;•:which allows existing land uses to be rebuilt if destroyed. It was MOVED BY BERGER SECONDED BY PUCCINELLI, TO DESIGNATE". THIS • AREA ARTERIAL 2 DOC. INDEX JULY 16, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING - GIM COMMERCIAL ON THE FUTURE LAND USE'MAP. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. There was continued discussion about the potential development of the Southeast area as well as the grandfather language staff was directed to draft.. Joan Davenport referenced the existing zoning map, the aerial photograph, and the future land use maps for the Pearson Orchard request. There was discussion about the current land uses found in this area. Council Member Barnett directed attention to the dedication of property by Mr. Pearson and the two traffic studies which he paid to have done. There was a considerable amount .of discussion about the proposed change in Fechter Road to mitigate traffic congestion on 40th Avenue as well as discussion about how the professi.onal._office designation West, of.,.40:th.Avenue..-fits into Mr. Pearson's proposed development. Council also discussed the neighborhood's concerns of potential problems. created by Professional Development and high density residential. Council Member Barnett reminded everyone to stick to issues on the agenda. It. was MOVED BY BERGER, SECONDED BY BARNETT, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. The motion carried by 6-1 voice vote; Sims voting nay. Following the vote there was discussion about planned unit development costs. There was discussion about the Post Hearing Request -#1 from Ralph L. .Holbrook concerning property located in the vicinity of East "E" and "F" and North 2nd and 3rd Streets. Since the final recommendation review is yet to be presented • during a public hearing, which -will happen when the review process is through, there was discussion about whether or not to consider any requests submitted after the close of the June 25, 1996 Public Hearing; because if this request was considered, then all future requests would have to be considered. It was MOVED BY BERGER, SECONDED. BY -BARNETT, TO NOT CONSIDER POST. HEARING F` -REQUEST # 1 SUBMITTED=AFTER�.,THE:' PUBLIC HEARING-ON...;;JUNE 25.. 19964WAS CLOSED.':: There was --discussion about the concerns -:=and confusion centered around the •GMA° process. Since the. public hearing was closed before Mr-. Holbrook submitted his request, the intent of`the motionis. that no more requests :for:the..:::Future Land Use Map-:. changes:will.be::.accepted. Only the:reque ts....approved so far will be included-to.set the Future Land Use -Map:.: Discussion concluded on:this.-issue with concerns expressed- about the. need to be able to:.:.request ° ' funding from the Centennial.: _ Water-: Fund and Public Works: Trust. -Fund,. currently on hold until.: •then;.Comprehensive Plan is._ adopted --and_ approved by the • State. The:question was called for::a vote on -:the motion'. It.was MOVED'BY`BEAUCHAMP, •SECONDED BY PUCCINELLI.,.TO TABLE THE .MOTION. -The motionfailed by a 3-4 show 410 of hands; Sims, Beauchamp, Buchanan, and.Barnett voting nay. The question was called for a vote on the --original motion. The 3 DOC. INDEX • JULY 16, 1996 - ADJOURNE i MEETING - GMA motion carried by 4-3 voice vote; Puccineili, Berger, and Beauchamp voting nay. General Discussion The Council Members general discussed a letter to the Editor from Glenn Valenzuela clarifying the Grandfather issue and development incentives. 4 s DOC. INDEX JULY 16, 1996 — ADJOURNE MEETING — GMA It was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BY PUCCINELLI, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 a.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: COUNCIL MEMBER DATE COUNCIL MEMBER DATE ATTEST: CITY CLERK LYNN BUCHANAN;-MAYOR MINUTES PREPARED BY DEPUTY CITY CLERK SKOVALD. An audio tape of this meeting is available in the City Clerk's Office. 5 DOC. INDEX #i g • • CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON JULY. 9, 1996 ADJOURNED MEETING The City Council met in session on this. date at.8:0.0:::'a.m:::in.the Board Room at the Yakima Convention Center, Yakima..:.,,_.Washington. for informal discussion, Mayor Lynn Buchanan presiding..::(present after 8:10 a.m.). Council. Members present were. ClarenceBarnett, Henry Beauchamp (absent after 9:00 a.m.), Ernie ,-Bergeri John Klingele, John Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims. Staff Members present were Acting City Manager Rice; Community &.Economic Development Director 'Valenzuela; Ray Paolella, City -Attorney; Don Skone, Planning Division Manager; Joan. Davenport, Supervising Associate Planner; John Elsden, Senior Project •Planner; Larry Peterson, Assistant City Attorney; Marketa.Oliver:Administrative Assistant to the. City Manager; and'Deputy City Clerk Skovald.. Assistant Mayor Puccinelli welcomed everyone and Don Skone introduced Greta Rieber, an Intern in the Planning Division for the summer, then the meeting began. I. Land Use Implementation Strategy Discussion Glenn Valenzuela outlined the agenda for the worksession and directed Council's attention to the -GMA Schedule for the next several months. He requested Council's direction concerning Land Use Implementation strategy'alternatives as indicated in his May 7, 1996 memorandum dealing particularly with the issue of consistency. Mr. Valenzuela also asked the Council to decide specific requests for Future Land Use designation changes defined and illustrated in a series of maps'included in the information packet for this meeting. There was . dis.cussaon about. the expectations .from. -the . pubhic that: -- have formed :.:dur.i-n.g:: ;.the :: development of the Yakima. ,Urban ,;:;.Area Comprehensive :.Plan.:;:. Because. the.=:public has beeni:involVed:• and;; has. actively. participated: in..:.::devehopment of the CompPlan;:-:._.the folder;: established.. neighborhoods::.::. expect plan policies°-_ and. map designations be:,.-:impl:emented:.to..reflect their. desireto_ :designate_:. their neighborhoodsW..;as..>.:aow:, density residential. On 'the ;::other,°.. hand, thedevelopment.::::community expects appropria.t:e. amounts -:of:.: vacant lands to::bes-:designated_:::for development. To ease zonf_us.i.on: and uncertainty. experienced by the public and officials -....:alike, emphasis should _be:placed:..on- following a logical.: and ...-aegall.y.... defensible planning:•process. The issue . of land ..usestrategy, implementation -..-relative • to the issue of consistency.-and:..::changes-. DOC. INDEX # 7 JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GMA to the Future Land Use Map were also discussed compared to zoning changes which are made through a separate legislative process for zoning regulation,` the UAZO amendment process, where current zoning applies when development occurs. The different processes required to change the Future Land Use Map and to change the Zoning Map were also clarified. Mr. Valenzuela requested the Council decide each of the recommended Future Land Use --Map changes so the final document can be put together. There -was continued discussion about:the number of meetings held community wide as well as planning commission workshops and public hearings already held with more scheduled for the future. There was continued discussion about the fact that people often confuse the Land Use Map, with the Zoning Map. Changes to the Future Land Use Map_ will still have to go through:.the. Zoning Process; changes will not be automatic, but will allow in- opportunity to develop -a zoning map in tune with the community. At this time there was discussion about Citizen Request #1. Council Member Puccinelli requested any decision be deferred on this request because of negotiations between Mr. Pearson and the neighborhood. Discussion continued about that agreement being mitigated. • Don Skone referenced details of the May 7, 1996 memorandum which outlines Land Use Implementation Strategy Alternatives. There are several methods of implementationoutlined in that memorandum. He pointed out that a process must be established to meet the public participation requirement to establish development regulations. He urged the Council to adopt the Comp Plan. He then explained the recommended strategy which includes using various -criteria to.evaluate the zoning., A new zoning map - wi1.l-_ bedeveloped ;.which will : allow...for and meet the.; intent'. of ,the public.participation-requirement-.as-well as -meet -the- consistency and implmentation.requirements ..of the Growth Management. Act:' Mr. Skone further' explained- and provided details of the:_: evaluation process :- : to ...,_apply :to study areas throughoutity::~;: which would include criteria..;-to...determine when andiif rezoning land is necessary :-to meet= the : GMA .. consistency .and implement:axion...: requirements. He described .thexhree step process that: would:beM: used- to identify the potential:.need for rezoning land.necessary- to assure that all zoned: property within the city is consisent with and implements the.:, -Future Land Use Map. Council Member - Beauchamp requested more -. --time to review the Draft Comp an°=- in , order to establish the most coherent vision for the. future to. include perceptions of the neighborhoods necessary to make:a fair. decision. There was additional discussion concerning the growth 1111 2 DOC. INDEX # k-7 • • JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GMA management process. Mayor Buchanan pointed out the duplication of effort by citizens and neighborhoods who have already gone through the process to establish their zoning requests and that is not fair. Council Member: Puccinelli pointed out that people. will have to keep fighting to keep their zoning in place and protect their vested interest.. - There was a considerable. amount of discussion concerning the shall be consistent languagecontained in policy statements and in the law and in the Draft Comp.Plan. Council Member Puccinelli suggested the wording shall be consistent be changed to is a. guideline. Discussion ontinued-:.:about this issue among Council_. members and staff concerning legislative action and the good faith effort to be consistent when utilizing a land implementation strategy after-: evaluating :neighborhoods on a ...case— by' case basis to recognize--=:the==issuesand utilize the amendment process.. It was MOVED BY BARNETT, SECONDED BY BERGER, TO CHANGE THE POLICY STATEMENT LANGUAGE IN THE, DRAFT COMP PLAN, SHALL BE CONSISTENT TO GET AROUND THE SHALL BE CONSISTENT LANGUAGE The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Council Member Barnett referenced Alternative_#5 from the May 7th Memo and pointed out that there has been conflicting recommendations with the memo dated May 14. The conflict includes whether the development of implementation regulations are required before state funds would become available because the Public, Works Trust Fund says development regulations must be approved before funds can be made available. There was a considerable amount of discussion concerning whether or not development regulations need to be written before the Draft Comprehensive Plan is- adopted. There was further discussion about including the desires of the neighborhood along with the process of changing the land use map. Council Member Beauchampreit.erated.-�hisstatement that, moretime is needed to fully study the details of -the =Draft Comp Plan. He suggested a whole day be set aside for that purpose. 'Larry. Peterson pointed:out ±here-- are: different standards between Quasi-judicial and legislative matters. He explained that -Quasi.- judicial issues originate from the property owner and go ~to the Hearing Examiner to decide. Legislative issues originate by motion from the Council :and then go to the Regional Planning., Commission. Council Member Sims felt that a survey of the people is needed to see if they understand the.Assuebefore any changes are made. It is necessary to concentrate areas that want to change. He', also felt that there is a need .to go through neighborhood by 3 DOC. INDEX JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GMA neighborhood and then decide. Council Member Sims also stated that 6 units per acre is too much for that part of town. Don Skone explained that currently it is at 7 units per acre. After discussion about the public input process, the topic of discussion shifted to institutionaldesignation on the Future Land Use Map and whether it should include schools, government facilities, city owned property, etc. It was MOVED BY PUCCINELLI, SECONDED BY KLINGELE::: TO COLOR CURRENTLY USED (EXISTING) INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNATIONS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND FOR STAFF TO BRING IT BACK WITH THOSE DESIGNATED AREAS REFLECTED ON IT. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. II. Requests for Changes in Future Land Use Designations Number of Request: Regional Planning Commission Map Change Recommendation #1 Location of Request: Vicinity of 40th Avenue. Change to: Modified mix of Low, Medium and High Density Residential, Professional Office Staff Recommendation: Approve newer proposal as indicated under Citizen requests #14. As was discussed earlier in this meeting, it was the consensus of the Council to defer consideration of the Regional Planning Commission Map Change Recommendation #1 (Delmar Pearson 40th Avenue Property). Number of Request: Regional; Planning Commission Map Change—Recommendation #2 (Gary Lukehart) Location of Request Unincorporated area south of the freeway (See --also. Citizen Request item:,#4 to . continue. the Wholesale/Warehouse.:designation .• southward to P"-7Street ) Change to: Whalesale/Wa'rehouse from Medium Density Residential Staff Recommendation:• Wholesale/Warehouse north of "R" Street -and. retain Medium Density 4 DOC. INDEX # 1/:7 • • JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GMA residential designation south of "R" Street After a brief discussion about the request, it was MOVED BY BARNETT, SECONDED BY PUCCINELLI, TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR RPC #2. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. Citizen Map Change Request #4 was subsequently not approved since the staff recommendation for RPC Recommendation #2 was approved by the Council. Number of Request: Regional Planning Commission Map Change Recommendation #3 (Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital area) • Location of Request: Yakima.: Valley Memorial Hospital. area Change -to: Medium Density north of Walnut between 28th and 30th Avenues from Professional Office Residential Staff Recommendation: Council may wish, to defer until the Neighborhood Plan has been adopted for this area. It was MOVED BY BARNETT, SECONDED BY SIMS, TO DEFER RPC #3 FOR FURTHER COUNCIL DISCUSSION. The motion carried by 3-2 voice vote; Klingele and Puccinelli voting. nay; Beauchamp absent; Barnett temporarily absent. Number of Request: Citizen Map Change Request #1 (Bill Almon, Almon Realty) Location of Request: 18 acre parcelso.u:thwest.of Nob.. Hill & 48th.Avenue Change to: ProfessionalOffice along Nob Hill Boulevard= =fromLow =:Density Residential Staff Recommendation: Professional.Office along Nob Hill Boulevard: • After Joan Davenport explained the- request and after a brief. discussion. among the Council, it was MOVED BYAKLINGELE, SECONDED,.;.. BY"PUCCINELLI, TO EXPAND THE REQUEST ALL:.,THE:::WAY TO THE EAST: The motion failed by a 2-3 voice vote; Barnett, Buchanan, and DOC. INDEX # JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GMA Sims voting nay; Beauchamp absent. It was MOVED BY SIMS, • SECONDED BY BARNETT, TO APPROVE CITIZEN REQUEST #1 AS IS. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. Number of Request: Location of Request: Citizen Map Change- Request #2 (Jeff Loudoun, Maid o -Clover) Block between South 18th Street and the freeway, and Nob Hill and Boggess Street. Change to: Arterial Commercial from a Mix of Arterial Commercial and Medium Density Residential Staff Recommendation: Arterial_ Commercial. After Joan Davenport explained the request and the Council .discussed the location of the property, it was MOVED BY. PUCCINELLI, SECONDED BY BARNETT, TO APPROVE CITIZEN REQUEST #2 AS IS. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. It was the consensus of the Council to discuss Citizen Request #3 when Citizen Request #13 is considered in sequence. Also, Citizen Map Change Request #4 was subsequently not approved since RPC Recommendation #2 was considered in sequence and accepted by the Council. Number of Request: Citizen Map Change Request #5 (Ed Trammel Site #1) Location of Request:. 607 to- 615 North:16th Avenue. Change to: High Density Residential from Low Density Residential Staff Recommendation: High..Density Residential After::y.a brief .explanation by Joan Davenport and a discussion among:_ Council,_. it was MOVED BY..BARNETT, SECONDED BY SIMS, TO APPROVE' CITIZEN REQUEST #5. The motion carried by 5-1 voice vote; Klingele.-voting nay; Beauchamp absent. Number of Request: Citizen Map Change Request #6 (Ed Trammel Site #2) 6 DOC. INDEX • • JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- Location of Request: 3 South 68th Avenue Change to: High Density Residential from Low Density Residential Staff Recommendation: High Density Residential It was MOVED BY BARNETT, SECONDED BY BERGER, TO APPROVE THE CITIZEN MAP CHANGE REQUEST #6 AND ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PARCEL ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH OF THE REQUEST SITE BECAUSE THE SURROUNDING AREA,. IS MULTI -FAMILY. After a considerable amount of discussion concerning the. location of the property. and the high density recommendation, the quesiton was called for a vote on the motion. The motion. carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. Number of Request: Citizen Map -Change Request #7 (Ed Trammel Site #3) Location of Request: 1012 West Mead Change to: High Density Residential from Low Density Residential Staff Recommendation: High.Density Residential It was MOVED BY PUCCINELLI, SECONDED BY KLINGELE, TO APPROVE CITIZEN REQUEST #7. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. Number of Request.: Citizen Map Change Reques•t- #8s. (Fred, Plath, Washington: Fruit ) Location of Request: Property between 2nd•.and 3rd • Avenues, and D" and: Cherry.;Str.eets,..; approximately 2.5 acres. Changeto: Industrial from:Mediumensity Residential Staff Recommendation: Wholesale/Warehouse After discussion .about a possible error in the map relating to the current. -:.-Industrial Zoning, Don Skone, Planning Manager described -industrial land use as it equates to heavy industrial zoning and wholesale/warehouse land use which equates. with Light 7 DOC. INDEX # K-, JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GA?A Industrial zoning. It was MOVED BY PUCCINELLI, SECONDED BY BARNETT, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO CORRECT THE MAP TO REFLECT THE CURRENT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. ZONING FOR THE WHOLESALE WAREHOUSE LAND USE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND .REQUESTED BY FRED PLATH AT WASHINGTON FRUIT. Council member Barnett withdrew his second to the motion because there was confusion about the map. After continued discussion about zoning and landuse, it was the general consensus of the Council to defer the issue for further clarification. by staff. Number of Request: Neighborhood Location of Request: Change to: Citizen Map Change:Request #9. (Verna Beggs, Southeast: Area) East of Fair Avenue.to:the freeway, north of Nob Hill Boulevard to Yakima Avenue, approximately 170 acres excluding the Fairgrounds and Kiwanis Park. Staff Recommendation: Kiwanis Residential Adams Arterial Commercial for entire area from Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, Arterial Commercial Arterial Commercial north of Park, Medium Density south of Kiwanis Park to Street. Joan Davenport referenced the request as petitioned by Verna Beggs that all of the property east of Fair Avenue and north of the Fairgrounds. be designated Arterial Commercial. Ms. Davenport explained the staff recommendationis to not.:designatethatwhale•- half.-mile as Arterial':..Comme: c al . The staff recommendation::is. that property north of • .-Kiwanis Park be -.designated -.Arterial Commercial and property south of the Parke and: north -_:.of:. -Adams Street retain the. residential_ .designation. Aftera considerable amount of discussion among the Council, it was:==MOVEDBY.z,RNE'TT'": SECONDED BY KLINGELE, . TO ':APPROVE THE .STAFF RECOMMENDATION'r- . There was continued discussion: about the request. Council member Sims. requested an aerial.. of::' the area. Don Skone mentioned :.:that Arterial commercial would .not be appropriate because-:::°it.:'isnot. on an arterial street: - It was MOVED BY SIMS .,(• SECONDED. -_BY PUCCINELLI, TO TABLEaTHE = ISSUE . The motion to table car:ried by 5-1 voice vote; Klingele Voting nay; Beauchamp absent. _ Number of Request: Citizen Map Change Request #10_ 8 DOC. INDEX . • • JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GMA JJeff Congdon, Congdon Orchards), Location of Request: Congdon Orchards property Change to: Modified mix of Medium and High Density Residential, Professional Office,. Arterial Commercial, Wholesale/Warehouse from Mix of Low, Medium and HighlDensity Residential, Profeesional. Office Staff Recommendation: Accept Plan as requested by Congdon Orchards and shown on Map #10. After discussion about the components of the proposed land use plan, it was MOVED BY. BARNETT, , SECONDED BY SIMS, TO ACCEPT, CITIZEN REQUEST #10. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. Number of Request: Citizen Map Change Request #11 (Maud Scott, Union Street Neighborhood) Location of Request: North of Pine and Spruce Streets, East of 3rd Street alley to approximately 9th Street. Change to: Low Density Residential from a Mix of Medium and High Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial Staff Recommendation: Low Density Residential There was discussion. about Citizen request #11 which includes additional Low Density. Resi-clential designation far the-,-- area,. currently zoned a mixture of -R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning. It was. MOVED BY PUCCINELLI, SECONDED" BY BERGER, TO -.APPROvE,-CITIZEN, REQUEST. #11. . A±terY, further -discussion about the request, the question was callethforavoteon the motion. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote;-Beauchamp.absent. Number of Request: Citizen Map Change RequestAl2Rae, Ellen Bower). Location of Request:-: ,1309, 1313, 1315, 1317, 3.19,-16'st- Lincoln 9 DOC. INDEX JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GMA Change to: Arterial Commercial from Low Density Residential Staff Recommendation: Low Density Residential • Joan Davenport explained•:.:the- citizen's request for Arterial Commercial along with the staff recommendation to retain. Low. Density Residential for- thee: -five parcels.. After discussion among.. the Council members, it was: MOVED . BY SIMS, SECONDED BY'KLINGELE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, CONCERNING,CITIZEN REQUEST -.#12. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. Number of Request: Citizen Map Change Request #13 (Kearns, Wondrack, Werst, Hamilton ) Location of Request: Rudkin Road/Mead Avenue area. Change to: Industrial from High Density Residential Staff Recommendation: Wholesale/Warehouse Reminding everyone that this request is related to Citizen Request #3, Joan Davenport reviewed the request of several property owners to change the land use designation for their entire area. She pointed out that the staff recommendation is to designate Wholesale/Warehouse for this area. It was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BY KLINGELE, TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR CITIZEN REQUEST. #13. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. Number of Request: Location of Request: Change to: High Professional Commercial Citizen -Map Change:: Request:#14. . (Delmar Pearson) Staff Recommendation: 40th Vicinity of 40th Avenue— Modified mix of Low, Medium :and Density Residential,, Office, Neighborhood No Commercial or Office: west: - of:...• Avenue As was indicated earlier in this meeting, it was the consensus of 10 INDEX # -1 • JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GMA the Council to defer consideration of Citizen Map Change Request #14 along with the Regional Planning Commission Map Change Recommendation #1 (Delmar Pearson 40th Avenue Property). Number of Request: Location of Request: Change to: Citizen Map Change Request #15 (Trailwagons) Northwest of freeway/new "B" Street• Ramp Arterial Commercial from Industrial. Staff Recommendation: Arterial Commercial Joan Davenport explainedthe request and the Council discussed the request. It was MOVEDBYPUCCINELLI-, SECONDED BY:SIMS-;.TO' ACCEPT THE CITIZEN REQUEST,#15. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote: Beauchamp'absent. Number of Request: Citizen Map Change Request #16 (Gordon Wonder) Location of Request: Southeast corner of Yakima Avenue and 1st Avenue Change to: Arterial Commercial from Wholesale/Warehouse. Staff Recommendation: Arterial Commercial Joan Davenport reviewed Mr. Wonder's request for his carwash:;.°on Yakima Avenue during his public . testimonyat. the June .25,. 1996,: Public Hearing. After a short discussion among the Council, it was MOVED BY KLINGELE:,.SECONDED '`BY- `PUCCINELLI, TO APPROVE "CITIZEN:: REQUEST #16. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. Number of Request: Citizen Map Change Request #17 (Baur Greenhouse) Location of Requests. 151.8_W.- Lincoln Avenue Change to: High -Density Residential or higher - designation from Low Density Residential 11 DOC. INDEX JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GMA Staff Recommendation: High Density Residential Joan Davenport described the Citizen request to change the current Low Density Residential designation to High Density Residential or higher. The staff recommendation, however, is to change to a -High Density Residential future land use designation for Baur Greenhouse. It was MOVED BY PUCCINELLI, SECONDED. BY` BERGER, TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR CITIZEN REQUEST: #17. There was a considerable amount of discussion concerning the location of the property and the question was called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. III Staff Recommended . Maty;Changes Joan Davenport referred to four staff recommendations concerning properties that have been rezoned since the Regional Planning Commission started working on the Future Land Use Map a couple of years ago. The Staff Recommendation is for Council to approve changes to the Future Land Use Map reflecting those changes to bring the map up to date. Number of Request: Staff Map Change Recommendation #1 Location of Request: Summitview Avenue east of 63rd Avenue (Hunter Property) Change to: Density Professional Office and Medium Residential for northerly lot Joan Davenport reviewed the request and after a short discussion, it was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED 'BY BUCHANAN, TO APPROVE THE STAFF MAP „CHANGE :RECOMENDATION :'#1 The motioncarried by unanimous voice::vote;Be'auchamp. absent. Number_:.of Request: Staff Map_,Change Recommendation .#2 Locationof Request: Southside of -:West Nob Hill Boulevar- d, ::west of..50th Avenue (Coleman. Property) Change.: to: High Density Residential Joan Davenport explained this parcel was recently rezoned R-3. Staff"recommends modifying the Future Land Use Map to reflect the. rezone action for this parcel. After. a short discussion, it was.. MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BY BERGER, TO APPROVE THE STAFF MAP Doc. 12 INDEX • • JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GMA CHANGE RECOMMENDATION #2. The motion carried by unanimous voice..: vote; Beauchamp absent. Number of Request: Staff Map Change Recommendation #3 Location of Request: East Mead Avenue to Iler Lane, between South 10th and South 13th Streets Change to: Wholesale/Warehouse Joan=: Davenport explained several parcels within this area were. -- recently rezoned to M-1. Staff recommends modifying.: the Future Land •.Use Map to reflect Wholesale/Warehouse for this area due to the transitional nature of this.. area, and adjacent industrial/warehouse uses. After a short discussion, it was.: MOVED:':: BY PUCCINELLI, SECONDED BY KLINGELE=:-TO-APPROVE THE STAFF MAP CHANGE RECOMMENDATION #3. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. Number of Request: Staff Map Change Recommendation #4 Location of Request:West of North 6th Avenue, between River Road and Madision Avenue (Madison Industrial Park area)) Change to: Wholesale/Warehouse Joan Davenport explained this area is scheduled to be .developed as an industrial par, and contains a mix of industrial and residential uses. Staff recommends a Future Land Use Map designation of Wholesale/Warehouse.. to reflect the predominant use; and planned ::. industrial park: ..use ,for.: the ,area. After a short - discussion, hort discussion,: it was MOVED BY"KLINGELE, SECONDED BY PUCCINELLI, TO' INCLUDE. THE ENTIRE .AREA FROM RIVER ROAD .TO-:MADISION AVENUE, FROM- 6TH : STREET. TO 16TH AVENUE , AS .;..:A WHOLESALE /WAREHOUSE FUTURE :.LAND USE ;:MAP:'DESIGNATION. . The motion carried -by 5-1 voice vote; Buchanan.; voting nay; Beauchamp -absent.: Other :.Issues Glenn Rice reported that a public hearing will be held before the,. Washington. Utilities & Trade Commission._.; concerning the e Recycling Policy on residential recyclables and Yakima Waste Systems' application for public convenience.. A spokesman is needed DOC. 13 INDEX JULY 9, 1996 -- ADJOURNED MEETING -- GNlA representing the Council to speak at this hearing. Larry Peterson also added that citizens are invited to testify before the Administrative Law Judge during public hearing.- It was MOVED BY BERGER, SECONDED BY BARNETT, TO APPOINT MAYOR BUCHANAN AND COUNCIL MEMBER KLINGELE AS THE SPOKESMEN. DURING THE HEARING. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. After a brief discussion that another study session on the Comp Plan will be on July 23, 1996 at 8:00 a.m. at the Convention Center, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: COUNCIL MEMBER DATE COUNCIL MEMBER DATE ATTEST: CITY CLERK LYNN BUCHANAN, MAYOR MINUTES PREPARED BY DEPUTY CITY CLERK SKOVALD. A video tape of this meeting is available in the City Clerk's Office. 14 DOC. INDEX # CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON.:.= JUNE 25,. 1996 EXECUTIVE SESSION The City Council met in Executive Session on this date at 1:30 p.m. at the Southeast Yakima Community Center, 1213 South 7th Street, Yakima, Washington. Council Members present were Assistant Mayor John Puccinelli, Ernie Berger, John Klingele, and Bernard Sims. 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGA-INING (FIRE LEOFF) Following: the.. conclusion_ of the Executive Se-ss.ion, the - Council met -in .open: -session -for a Special Business Meeting. CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON JUNE 25, 1996 SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING 1. ROLL CALL The City Council met in session on this date at 2:00 p.m., in the Gymnasium of the Southeast'Yakima Community Center, 1213 South 7th Street, Yakima, Washington, Assistant Mayor John-Puccinelli, presiding. Council Members Henry Beau_champ,_ Erni:e:..yBerger�- John Klingele, John. Puccinelli, and.::.- Bernard: Sims:.. present on roll call. Mayor Lynn -Buchanan. and Council Member Clarence Barnett were abs;ent_. and. -;excused,.. City Manager Zais, City-. Attorney Paolella:,.:: City-. Clerk. Roberts, and= Deputy-..... City Clerk:Skovald.also:present. 2.:. INVOCATION/'PLEDGE:.-:OF ALLEGIANCE TherInvo-cati'on:was given by Council Member Beauchamp 3.. OPENDISCUSSION.FOP. THE. GOOD OF THE ORDER DOC. INDEX JUNE 25, 1996 A . PROCLAMAT I ONS (IF.. APPLICABLE) Assistant Mayor Puccinelli read a proclamation declaring July 1, 1996 as Postal Service Reorganization Day recognizing the 25th Anniversary of the reorganization of the U. S. Postal. Service. 4 CONSENT AGENDA Assistant Mayor Puccinelli referred to the items placed on the Consent Agenda, questioning whether there were any additions or deletions from either Council members or citizens present. It was the general consensus of the Council to add. Agenda Item No. 10 to the Consent Agenda. The City Clerk then read the Consent Agenda items, including resolutions and ordinances by title. It was::. MOVED BY KLINGELE.,' SECONDED BY SIMS,-. THAT THE CONSENT:'" AGENDA, AS .READ,:: BE" -:ADOPTED. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote; Barnett and Buchanan absent.. (Subsequent paragraphs preceded by an asterisk (*) indicate items on the Consent Agenda handled under one motion without further discussion.) • *5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 21, 1996 SPECIAL JOINT 0 MEETING, JUNE 4, 1996 BUSINESS MEETING AND JUNE 11, 1996 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING The minutes of the May 21, 1996 Special Joint meeting, June 4, 1996 Business meeting, and June 11, 1996 Joint Public Hearing, were approved, having been duly certified accurate by two Council members and no one present wishing to have said minutes read publicly. • 6 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEAL FILED BY GREGORY MC CLURE HEARING .EXAMINER DECISION . ON AN APPEAL:.._ FILED:.,. BY JANICE WOOLEN, REGA.RD'ING ADMTNI.STRATIVE ADJUSTMENT"` FOR: FENCE (CONTINUED_:FROM 'JUNE =4, 1996)' This being.....the... time : set to continue the_:;,.;:pub.l:ic..hearing,. Assistant Mayor-:- Puccinel-li invited public.. -7 testimony.. Greg McClure; 102.0_ South Nob Hill Boulevard,::argued that only evidence.-.-,submitted—.prior to May 8, 1996: should be considered . City Attorney Paolella explainedhe:. legal - argument pertaining to• the Yakima Municipa,l:.._.Code. was::. relevant, as.oppos.e:dto new factual evidence. Janice Woolen, owner of the adjacent property, expressed 1110 concern about the.safety of those using thesidewalk and backing an automobile out the driveway onto Nob Hill 2 DOC. INDEX JUNE, -25, 1996 Boulevard due_ .:-to:::.:.the:._:,- fence biocking the driver's view. There was also,,. discussion about her fence which was replaced when Nob Hill was widened several years ago. Betty Gaudette, 701 North 6th Street, expressed concern about the saf-e.ty:.of:.pedestrians using the sidewalk and motorists blindly backing out onto Nob Hill Boulevard. Bev Luby Bartz, 114 North 7th Street, feels the 20 foot setback requirement should be enforced before a six foot fence can be installed. Rosemary Small, 1006 South 25th Avenue, stressed the importance of safety and feels the fence should be set back to provide a clearview angle.for visibility. Assistant Mayor Puccinelli askedif any one else wished•:::to:.. comment about the issue; there being no one, he closed•the public hearing. After continued discussion about safety considerations and the hazardous nature of the situation, it was MOVED BY KLINGELE, SECONDED BY BEAUCHAMP, TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF BOTH THE HEARING EXAMINER. AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND DENY THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Barnett and Buchanan absent. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON GMA COMPREHENSIVE .PLAN (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 11, 1996 -.please bring material previously distributed) This being the time set to -continue the public hearing, Assistant Mayor Puccinelli reported that letters have been received from Robert and Joann Nowlin, 203 North 9th Street, Yakima; Ora Lee and Art Payment of Yakima; and Cherie Pede, 206-North.9th Street, Yakima.' He then opened the public:hearing . and.::inva-ted •testimony' from. interested parties. He requested speakers to limit their comments.=to five minutesand to not.be..redundant. Lee Clark::. a w+.representa:t-ve .of:.:. the Englewood Hills ..Area, Organization.: 81.7 Nob-. Hil ..Boul.evard, directed attent:ion..to the Area -14 .::Future-°:Land::.::Use.-Wall Map pertaining • to De=lmar::- Pearson's property=recommended by the Regional Planning:s; Commissions He,:po:inte& out.::that it did not accura:teiy. reflect the --RPar's =recommendation to designate low density- residential:..fot::ahe °area. wesFt of the Carriage Hill. Mobile - Home Park and to -'retain :medium .density. for the .area north of the Carriage„..,Hill.. Mobile.. -Home Park. He requested ..the 3 DOC. INDEX JUNE 25, 1996 Future Land Use Map be changed and the request be properly1111 documented. Assistant Mayor Puccinelli interrupted the hearing to announce that the Mercy rezone Appeal has been moved to July 2, 1996. Verna Beggs, 1204 E. Spruce, requested an Arterial Commercial land use. designation for the area east of Fair Avenue and north of Nob Hill Boulevard. She reported that the area residents don't want high residential density. Bill Hays, 800 South 46th Avenue, spoke in support of the Regional Planning Commission's recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan. He feels .the -users of the path should pay for it instead of sharing the costs with the whole community. There was discussion among Council members and staff concerning the• apparent confusion surrounding the expectations of property owners submitting plans for their property. To help clarify any public misconceptions that property will be automatically rezoned, City Attorney Paolella provided a legal opinion on what this hearing is about and what the legal process leads to concerning future changes in property zoning. Members of the Planning staff explained the basic difference between the Future Land Use Map, which is a journal of requests from property owners as'adopted by the Council, and the Zoning map, which regulates property zoning. Requests for property rezones • will still. have to go through the legislative process. . The Planning staff also explained that.= public.. testimony : gat hered dur.ng.::the-.public hearing process will. be :included in the Draft •Yakima .Urban. Area Comprehensive.Plan. The Council will..consider the Plan for adoption.- If -'adopted, _it will. be.;•submitted to the :State for acceptance =: Impl:ementation:;: details of the .--plan:.:will be developed:;. later::.:.with--:conf:licting land uses addressed through the :-amendment: process and:>.:.rezone requests -through the. •legislative .process.: These was...a considerableamount: of discussion:: and comments concerning the issue of ,consistency-- and proposed land.:: -:use- designations as they relate to future zoning requests Delmar Pearson, 2101 St. Helens, provided a brief history on the use of his property. Providing colored maps of his proposal and using an overhead projector for emphasis, he 4 DOC. INDEX • JUNE 25, 1996 explained his request for a low density residential land use designation east of the Carriage Hill Mobile Home Park along the canal and then making a transition to medium density for condominiums and apartments west of 40th Avenue, with a professional office designation between Fechter Road and Englewood Avenue. Bob Young, 1018 South 33rd Avenue, representing Central Washington Homebuil.ders, submitted a petition from "Citizens for Governmental Accountability" reflecting concerns of the development. community. He spoke in support of the Regional Planning _Commission's recommended version of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. He did not believe impact fees. would be a viable source of funding, .and feels. development regulations -should be developed at a later. time. Dan Tilley, 313 North 31st Avenue, read some material concerning development regulations as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan and expressed his opinion that development regulations should be developed before the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. He pointed to a map and described moderate density and high density per acre. He provided material about projected land requirements for housing and an affordable income chart. He reported that less than 10 percent of the population within the Yakima area can afford to buy .a home andtherefore more high density, multi -family housing is needed. Council Member Sims requested a legal opinion' about Mr. Tilley's remarks on density to avoid misleading the public. City Attorney Paolella explained the law doesn't require that development regulations be considered at this time. There was a considerable amount of discussion. among Council members and staff concerning the .meaning of:..:_development regulations ,•- their formulation an-d:futureimplmentation. Staff 'also pointed out that density ranges contained in the Comp Plan. and depicted on the Future Land Use Map are merely typical numbers, not 'maxim= _.numbe:rs, ;.,:and :are_.. -meant as a general= guideline, not a 'regulation.~: Assistant City Attorney:. Peterson referenced his: previous memorandum relating to the language in the WashingtonState:. Growth Management: Act -- statute and commented--he.:believesthe:correct procedure is being followed. He -stated-if:':perfect consistency is not - achieved between the development- regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, the -°Plan scan- be amended at a later' time. 5 DOC. INDEX JUNE 25, 1996 Bill Huibregtse reiterated Delmar Pearson's request for mixed uses as shown on the overhead map provided by Mr. Pearson. Mr. Huibregtse also elaborated on the proposed relocation of Fechter Road for a safer intersection with 40th Avenue. Melvin Carlson, 907 Conestoga, agreed with Mr. Clark's testimony and feels that 'once the maps are adopted, they will be difficult to change. Alice Sells, Executive Director of the Yakima Housing Authority, 921 South 21st Avenue, feels more multi -family housing is needed and more land should be designated to meet low income housing needs. Dennis Kelly, 6 North Pear.Avenue. spoke -in favor of the Regional Planning Commission's Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. He feels changes are needed to.the Future Land Use Map. Phoebe Nelson, 4703 surrey Lane, Director of Yakima County Coalition for the Homeless, feels the Future Land Use map does not accommodate needs of low income persons. She also asked for an explanation about the difference between zoning and land use. Ms. Nelson, a resident of Carriage Hill, also spoke in favor of Delmar Pearson's land use plan. Council Member Sims stated his understanding is that the current zoning designations would remain even after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. It will not change until the property owner requests a zoning change and it is processed through the Council. Steve McKenna, 370 Blossom Way, expressed concern as a property owner about possible widening of 16th Avenue. Phil.Pleasant, 701. South-7thAvenue.,.• expressed concern that. there—is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan -about the Airport. There was discussionabout the separate process for inclusion of the Airport .. Mast.er_ Plan: that is currently under review. The County Commissioners requesteda joint meeting be scheduled,. concerning regional consistency, then excused themselves and left thee -meeting at 3:45 p.m. Bev Luby Bartz, 114 North 7th Street, feels that although more low income housing is needed, a diverse plan is 1111 6 DOC. INDEX JUNE 25, 1996 necessary to avoid overwhelming any particular area. She spoke in favor of downzoningwhich she feels would alleviate damage done in her neighborhood due to the R-3 zoning in the area. Betty Gaudette, 701 North 6th Street, requested the entire. Northeast Yakima Neighborhood area be zoned R-1 and a moratorium be in effect for at least ten years in order to recover from the effects of the R-3 zoning. She believes codes should be uniformly applied. Lou Alderman, 101 North 48th Avenue, disagreed with the Congdon land use plans and expressed 'concern • about high density. • He also expressed concern about the three block area between 9th Avenue, 10th Avenue, and Tieton Drive designated.;as medium density. • Elsie Gregorich, 1516 Browne Avenue,. feels that more attention should be made to old houses badly in need of repair which would be a good resource for families and homeless persons. Gary Jordan, 321 E. Yakima Avenue, spoke in favor of the Bicycle Committee versionof the Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan. It is important not to limit access to the downtown area. Barbara McKenna., 2701 Shelton, urged the Council•to examine' information closely because most of the rental property in the low density area is owned by rental association members. They would like to.see the problems resolved and suggested a meeting be.held to discuss these problems. Neil McClure, 208 .South 48th Avenue, urged the Council to adopt the Bicycle Committees version. of the B Gycledestrian Master Plan.: He_:.- described- his . daly.. Commute: -through school zones and•described the situation at the -..kindergarten crossing by Summitview.. There are no sidewalks .on,: ' the north side _.of._. Lincoln.,,:. Avenue and many times the: -ch'i-ldren use dirt -`'paths a He feehs ..the situatuion' is.::unsafe:. for motorists and children particularly when• crossing::::. the.:• arterial street. More sidewa-lks are needed andar:ea .high priority in the BicycleCommittee's version .• of::.;.the.Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan which.. also identifies walk.. -.to -school routes. Freya Burgstaller, 1507 Belmony Avenue, a member of the Yakima .:Valley Rental Association, spoke against downzoning. 7 DOC. INDEX JUNE 25, 1996 in established neighborhood areas. She praised landlords who work to benefit the community. Brien Thane, Executive Director of Office of Rural and Farmworker Housing, expressed concern that there is not enough adequate property available for high density multi- family development. He expressed concern- about inconsistencies in the Housing Element. He also submitted a letter dated June 25, 1996 from Alice Sells, Executive Director of the Yakima Housing Authority, concerning two vacant sites currently under option by the Yakima Housing Authority for proposed housing development. Rosemary Small, '1006 South 25th Avenue, submitted a letter from Betty Lou Miller requesting R-1 in the Northeast area. She is looking::=forward.-to. improved design standards for high density development as it relates to a May• 7, 1996 memo on Land -Use Implementing Strategy. • Maud Scott submitted a colored map indicating a low density future land use designation for the Union Street Neighborhood which amends her previous map change request for the predominantly owner -occupied Southeast Neighborhood. Dick Fryhling, with the State of Washington Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development, commented about his involvement in the GMA planning process with the City of Yakima. He complimented the on-going partnership between the City of Yakima and Yakima County concerning land use regulation. He referenced State comments on changes and revisions to the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. Denise Englehart, 1211 South 2nd. Avenue, requested the crosswalk. be -painted -:at:__ -3rd:. Avenue_.,:and Nob _Hi -11 Boulevard intersection. Larry Mathewsemphas-ized-.the . importance. of preseruang lands.. with good accessfor:.indus.trial development. Richard Zapata,.. 42-0.6 _ Fechter Road, agrees::.-:with..Mr. Clark's testimony and.:feels.the.existing.zoning is..adequate. Fred Baur, owner- of property by Milroy:. Park.. zoned R-3, believes his property will lose value if rezoned -R-1. 8 DOC. INDEX JUNE 25, 1996 Gordon Wonder, owner of property on the southeast corner of Yakima and 1st Avenues,wants this property designated as Arterial Commercial rather than Wholesale/Warehouse. There being no one else wishing to comment; Assistant Mayor Puccinelli closed the public hearing. Glenn Valenzuela, Director of Community and Economi-c Development, reviewed the time frame to continue joint study sessions in the months ahead to continue the adoption process for the Comprehensive Plan. There was continued discussion about the adoption process. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL FILED BY YAKIMA COUNTY AND AIKENS REGARDING SEPA DESIGNATION ON MERCY PROJECT (THIS HEARING WILL BE..CONTINUED: TO`JULY 2, 1996) This Hearing was continued to July 2, 1996. 9. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Luz Bazan Gutierrez, Washington Association of Minority Entrepreneurs (WAME), announced that her organization will conduct an East Yakima Neighborhood Community Assessment survey to identify needs, expectations, and attitudes of an identified distressed neighborhood. Christina Lozoya will be conducting the survey, and the project will be overseen by the University of Washington Center for the Study of At - Risk Students (C -Stars).. *10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSIT TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY YOUTH PASSES FOR THE QUANTUM OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM RESOLUTT.ON NO.:: 11,.'9677::c,- A RESOLUTION _, author izing - the Transit.Division to issue :youth bus passes- -as.•part of the • Quantum...::Opportuni.ty Program. *11. CONSIDERATION..OF::RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION.. OF.: A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH "KCM;1INC. .. FOR THE "EASTi'MEAD"::`SEWER PLANNING STUDY RESOLUTION NO t , R-96--78, A RESOLUTION authorizing ... the - execution- of� an Agreement for professional engineering services between the City of Yakima, a municipal corporation:.and.:KCM: Inc. 9 Doc. INDEX # 9 JUNE 25, 1996 *12. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH DAVIS, OPFER AND RAAB ARCHITECTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR H-VAC/ROOF REPAIRS AT PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE FACILITY RESOLUTION NO. R-.96--79, A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager and City Clerk of the City of Yakima to execute a professional services agreement with Davis, Opfer, Raab Architecture PLLC, for architectural and engineering services for the modification and renovation of the City Public Works Complex: *13. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SELAH: FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PORTIONS OF NACHES AVENUE RESOLUTION NO. R-96-80, A RESOLUTION approving the Interlocal Agreement for Rehabilitation of a portion of Naches Avenue within the City of Selah. *14. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION DECLARING TWO POLICE VEHICLES 4111 AS SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING THEIR SALE TO THE CITY OF TIETON RESOLUTION NO. R-96-81, A RESOLUTION declaring two used police cars to be surplus and authorizing their sale to the City of Tieton Police Department. *15. APPROVAL OF REPORTS FROM FINANCE DEPARTMENT: A. FIRST QUARTER 1996 TREASURY REPORT The First Quarter199.6Treasury Report -was approved, - B. MAY 1996 REVENUE.AND EXPENDITURE REPORT The May 1996 --Revenue and:-° Expenditure (Budget: Report was. approved. *16. APPROVAL OF AMENDED:_., FINAL CONTRACT PAYMENT FOR:: CITY HALL.. PLUMBING RENOVATI:ON.PROJECT : The report from= the City Engineer, dated June 25, 1996, with resPect_ to the completion of the --work on: the City Hall - Plumbing Renovation project, . performed-.. DOC. INDEX 10 JUNE 25, 1996 by C & R Plumbing and Heating, was approved, the work accepted and payment of the amended final estimates:. as: therein set forth was authorized. *17. CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION REGARDING 911 CONSOLIDATED. DISPATCH: A. ORDINANCE REVISING THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES ORDINANCE NO. 96-44, AN.: ORDINANCE relating to the administrative organization of the police department and fire department; establishing a public safety communications division.; and amending Sections 1.18.030 and 1.18.040 of the City of -Yakima Municipal Code. B. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLANT (SUPERVISOR'S POSITION) ORDINANCE NO. 96-45, AN ORDINANCE relating to City personnel; adopting a classification and compensation plan for City employees to be effective July 30, 1996; amending Subsections 2.20.100 A, 2.20.100 B, 2.20.110 A, and 2.20.110 C, all of the City of Yakima Municipal Code. *18. CONSIDERATION. OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIDEWALK CAFES AND VENDOR CARTS ORDINANCE NO. 96-46, AN ORDINANCE relating to businesses conducted on sidewalks in the City of Yakima, and allowing businesses involving .sidewalk vending carts, and amending. all sections ::.of-. _Chapt.er.::5 .:08 of the -Yakima .Municipal.. Code accordingly. *19. SECOND READING =:OF :'°ORDINANCE :'AMENDING THE 1996 BUDGET':' AND;:- APPROPRIATING-- FUNDS -`-:FOR 'PROJECTS PAID' FROM THE PBIA: FUND".'. An Ordinance -amending:..the.-1996 budget and appropriating_ funds for. projects paid. -:•from the PBIA funds, prev:iously.. having- been read ..by -title_. only, was brought beforethe Council for a second .reading... ORDINANCE NO. 96-47, .ANs;.ORD:INANCE amending the 1996 budget .: for the City ofYakima:;,: and making an appropriation- of - 11. Doc. INDEX JUNE 25, 1996 $30,000 in the Parking and..:Bus.iness Improvement Area (PBIA)- for expenditure during. 199.6 to provide for lighting and. signage improvements, and development and marketing for the PBIA. 20. OTHER BUSINESS None. Information Items: Items of information provided to Council were: News Release regarding Yakima Transit's "Neighborhood Bus" System Begins. 6/17/96; Agenda for June 27, 1996 Hearing Examiner meeting; Assignments Pending in Office of Environmental Planning ;:as .of....June, .:25, 1996; Article from June 1996 Urban Land,. "Airport -Related Industrial.. Development"; and Article from May. 1996 Urban Land, "New Thinking on Regional Shopping Centers." 21. ADJOURNMENT It was MOVED BY KLINGELE, SECONDED BY BEAUCHAMP, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 4:55 P.M. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Barnett and Buchanan absent. 4111 READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: COUNCIL MEMBER DATE COUNCIL MEMBER DATE ATTEST; CITY CLERK JOHN PUCCINELLI, MAYOR. PRO -TEM Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 12 DOC. INDEX • r CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON JUNE .11, 1996 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING The City Council met in session on this date at 7:00 p.m. at the Yakima Center, 10 North 8th Street, Yakima, Washington, Mayor Lynn Buchanan presiding. Council Members Clarence Barnett, Ernie Berger, John Klingele, John Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims were also in attendance. Council Member Henry Beauchamp was absent and excused. City Manager Zais, Assistant City Attorney Peterson, City Clerk -Roberts, and.. -Deputy City Clerk Skovald were. also present. County Commissioners present were- Bettie Ingham, Jim Lewis, and Bill Flower. Also in'attendance was 'Acting Clerk of the Board Helen Hatzenbeler. . This. being the time set for the joint public hearing with the Yakima City Council and the Board of Yakima County Commissioners, Mayor Buchanan explained the purpose.,of this hearing is to receive testimony 'from the public on the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. He invited Glenn Valenzuela, Director of Community & Economic Development, to summarize the issue. Mr. Valenzuela provided a brief overview of the growth -planning. •process used to develop the concepts and policies within the Comprehensive Plan. Even though development of the -Comp Plan was slow and has been very time consuming, •the information-, which is based on public testimony and discussion with property owners, is arranged-dn.. a ;,_logical,;.._.._easy. to :read format .. The.::_process_::wii1 continue : with modfficat::i.onof <-- the plan during the adoption process• with .additionsand --revisions and recommended: changes submitted.•for .,review.;::= The.Revised Housing Element -.was prepared in. response ::to:.. comments ...from..: -the Washington .State :Departmena .of:.. Community, Trade & ::Economic Development and • is..available for. review. DocumentaL,are.:-alsoavaiaable on Qualifying--lns.tit.utionai.:. Lands and:;:the: siting::.of.,.:Essential Public Facilities: These: documents .:have- ahso ::been: -;prepared in response -to the State's comments and:::wi11"-be sugg.est.ed- additions to the Comprehensive- Plan. Also.-- avaii•able:.-is.._.:..an• implementation strategy: document - which deals with:the-amendment process to the Comprehensive -Plan. - Using an overhead: -_projector and the Draft Future Land. Use Map, Joan Davenporti Supervising Associate .Planner, described 14 DOC. INDEX # J<- 5 JOINT GMA PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 11, 1996 requests for changes, ten specific requests received from citizens and four .sites where zoning actions have occurred since the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) held its hearing. Those include the following: ® A request from the..,, Almons to change the land use designation from Low. --Density to Professional Office for property located south of Nob Hill and west of 48th Avenue. Staff recommends. the same. ® A request from Maid O'Clover Corporation to change the land use designation to Commercial for property east of 18th Street, north of Boggess Lane and south of Nob Hill. Staff recommends the same. ® A request from John. Kearns.: to change the :land use, designation to Light Industrial for the White Dove Mobile Home Park property at 1702 Rudkin Road. However, staff is recommending the site be retained as High Density. ® A request from Gary Lukehart; representing the Trail Wagons Company, to designate property north of "P" Street as Warehouse/Wholesale. Staff is recommending the designation for everything north of "R" Street be industrial and south of "R" Street retain its Residential, Moderate Density. The RPC recommendation only went. to "R" Street and Mr. Lukehart's recommendation is go to "P" Street. 9 A request from Trammell's Rentals to designate High Density for their rental properties located at three locations, a site east of 16th Avenue just north of the PP&L Canal; a site located on Chestnut Avenuein the vicinity of 68th Avenue; and a site on the south side of Mead west of 10th Avenue. Staff recommends the. -same. 8 A request from -Mr. Plath, representing Washington Fruit, for property in the vicinity: of- 2nd. '.,and -3rd .Avenues bounded. by Cherry. and:._ "D Streets • fore.:: a ..change- to Wholesale/Warehouse designation The staff -':recommends. the same. ® A request submitted...by:. Verna Beggs and a -petiti= received from.a number: of --people supporting the, -request - for a Commercial designation_ for the entire area located north of the Fairgrounds-- -.to Nob Hill and east -of: -Fair Avenue west of the Freeway and south of Yakima Avenue. The staff recommendat>on : is for all the properties. -north of Kiwanis Park be: identified as Commercial. and properties south of-_ Kiwanis Park to Adams -Street- be -a 2 DOC. INDEX K- 5 • • • • • JOINT GMA PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 11, 1996 Moderate Density Residential and then the strip between Adams and Pacific be an Arterial Commercial. ® A request from Congdon Orchards to designate their property according to their land designation plan which. includes a mixture of Low, Moderate, and High Density Residential; Professional Office; Wholesale/Warehouse, and a Neighborhood Commercial designation. ® A zoning action on the Hunter Property on Summitview Avenue and 63rd Avenue with a staff recommendation for designated Professional Office and Medium Density residential. ® A zoning action on the Coleman. Property on .West Nob Hill Boulevard with a staff recommendation of High Density Residential. ® A zoning action on the Mead Avenue Property with a staff recommendation of Wholesale/Warehouse ® A zoning action on Madison Industrial Park vicinity property with a staff recommendation of Wholesale/Warehouse. Mayor Buchanan opened the public hearing and invited public testimony on the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. This Comp Plan; which is available for review and comment, •has been developed after numerous community -wide meetings, public workshop meetings, and public -hearings held over the past two years. The Regional Planning Commission has reviewed the document and then forwarded it to the Council. He encouraged written comments be submitted to the Planning Division. Mayor Buchanan reminded everyone -.,that:.: current applications. are -not included• in this..• hearing. -for. discussion. He announced _-.that- the next • public... hearing on theComprehensive. Plan is. scheduled for June 25, 1996. at a location to be•announced. He asked speakers to state their name,:;;: address,:;. and agency affiliation;,: if_.. applicable, • and to:. limit..:;their.comments to three•minutes He -referenced. the list of:•speea.kers..�and invited public testimony. in_that order. Bob Young:::.representing a Coalition of Citizens for Government Responsibility.:, expressed concern about. ..the inconsistent landuse.._ designat ions: Bill. Huibregtse, 3800 Summitview Avenue, representing Mr. and Mrs. DelmarPearson,-urged the Council to -consider changes to the DOC. INDEX JOINT GMA PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 11, 1996 landuse designation for the Pearson's property as described in their concept plan previously submitted to the Council. Jerry Sturgill, .211 North 65th Place, reported other entities have experienced landuse moratoriums ,created when their Growth Management Plans were declared invalid. He expressed concern about changes in the urban growth boundaries without the consensus of the public. He pointed out that other areas have a mix of commercial and multi and single family in one area in a very compatible setting. He feels the plan is inconsistent and that lower densities would not be in compliance with the GMA. Bob Mason, a Northeast Yakima.Resident, feels the lots in his area aretoo small to build apartment -buildings on. He.feels..- problems in the --neighborhood would be -created if they are built. John Kearns explained his request for M-1 zoning for his property which is in a transitional phase from commercial to industrial. Dan Tilley, 313 North 31st Avenue, representing Citizens for Responsible Government, read the petition previously submitted to the Council. Mary Harris, 705 North 2nd Street, feels it would not be discriminatory to keep R-1 zoning in the Northeast Yakima Neighborhood. John Schockler, a 16th Avenue resident, spoke against widening 16th Avenue as indicated in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and suggested mitigating the traffic problem by diverting traffic to another arterial street. Don:..Vi.degar.,.Nor.theast Yakima..Neighb.orhood.-Association, described the var-iety_ of.:. problems created: -by converting single family residencesto .multi -family dwellings. He --feels• increasing the density in .this area would adversely affect the neighborhood. Bill ,Hambleton; South 32nd Avenue;°. submitted an informational handout on. -street: improvements for ..32nd Avenue as indicated in. the:Transportation Element of the. Comprehensive Plan. Jeffrey -Congdon,. San Francisco, California,•.explained the details of. -:.his request for land use designa.t.ion changes. He also outlined --property development plans for the future. Ted Herndon, a Rudkin Road Resident, spoke against a High Density land use designation for the area across from the Wastewater Treatment Plant- He suggested it be zoned Industrial -because of - 4 DOC. INDEX • • 'JOINT GMA PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 11, 1996 the odor from the sewer plant. Tom Parker, representing the Housing Authority, spoke against downzoning because that would drive up the opportunity_ costs for multi family housing. Don Hinman, 4605 Scenic Drive and representing the Yakima Valley Rental Association, blamed code violations for problems within the neighborhoods which downzoning will not solve. He suggested more neighborhood meetings. be held to find solutions.. He is against downzoning because he feels it would lower property values. William Dunlop,- a Northeast Yakima, resident, spoke in support of low density designation for his neighborhood. John Timm, 1024 -South 2nd Avenue, suggested -a blended approach be utilized for high density residential areas to preserve:property values. .Council Member Puccinelli stated a Grandfather clause would have to be added before he would vote for downzoning property. Martha Mathews, 703 North Naches, described the crowded conditions in her neighborhood, which have negatively changed the quality of life there. Jeff Loudon, Maid O'Clover Corporation, explained his Commercial zoning'request for property located in the vicinity of Boggess Lane. Albert: Lantri:p:: -spoke against • changing the-= zoning .=:: for property when•no one knows about it. Barbara .McKenna :-spoke against single.. -family, residences being used - by three or:::four -families and 'the. code-:;violat:ions .::which can cause. • problems Jerry. Heyde:, 1905 South 37th Avenue, spoke on behalf of the West Valley Community_ Council. He felt this, is a -property rights issue. Gary Lukehart -explained his plans for future development to DOC. 5 INDEX JOINT GMA PUBLIC . HEARING JUNE 11, 1996 realign the property of the Trail Wagon Company and the request for a land use designation to CBD. Christi Nix, a Northeast Yakima resident, agrees with the low density designation for her neighborhood. Maori Purdue spoke about the crowded conditions in the schools, the need to reduce urban sprawl, and the need to improve the transportation system. Jenaro Urcerra, representing the Southeast Yakima Neighborhood, commented about planning goals for Southeast Yakima to include economic development and ethnic diversity. Sergio Benez spoke about permits, economic development and recreational opportunity development, and the need to increase yard space which is currently limited. 6 DOC. INDEX • JOINT GMA PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 11, 1996 Yolanda Perdia,1201 South 18th a lifelong Southeast Yakima resident, spoke about the importance of environmental quality, the need for a new irrigation system, and conservation of energy. She -pointed; out that the Spanish speaking element was absent from the planning effort. Brie Polonani, 608 south 4th.Street, spoke about planning goals for the GMA, public facilities at the time of development, the .lack of irrigation water, a lack of classroom space, and the need for historic preservation of districts which would promote tourism. Betty Gaudette, 701 North 6th Street,. requested.low- density within her neighborhoodbecause there are not enough schools and parks in their neighborhood to handle those who live there already. She suggested high density apartments be built in other towns that have open space. She agreed with the Grandfather Clause suggestion if the development is legal in the first place. Bob Alexander, 3413 West Chestnut and an Administrator for Yakima School District, urged the enforcement of city codes concerning multi families living in a single family residence. He also commented about the effects of density in parks. Rosemary Small, 1006 South 5th Avenue, spoke about census, demographics, and schools. She explained there are not enough elementary schools and described the overcrowded conditions 'and provided population statistics. She reviewed infrastructure needs and referred to the future density map for reference. Maud Scott, 309 Union Street, a Southeast Yakima resident, presented some background information and described specific characteristics:. of ::her;neghborhood. She .urged,=:: :the ::Council .to.: retain the R-1 zoning: :and :.not add any R-2 or R-3 for.. the, Chestnut Avenue and Union=:Street- neighborhood. Hershal McDonald' -expressed concern about the high; noise: level along 16th Avenue,, which. will only get worse in the. future:. He is opposed to addinga fifth lane on 16th Avenue and'--suggested=-a sunken causeway be..developed instead. -Neil McClure, 208 -South 45th Avenue,- Chairman of the Yakima 7 DOC. INDEX K5 JOINT GMA PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 11, 1996 Citizen Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, urged the Council to adopt the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan as recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee and reject the Regional Planning Commission's recommendations. Greg Luring, 4303 Scenic Drive, a member of the Yakima Citizen Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, urged the Council to adopt the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan as recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee. He noted the draft Comprehensive Plan lists all plans recommended for adoption by reference in Appendix D. Cec Vogt, Executive Director of the Yakima Greenway Foundation, spoke in support of adopting the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan as recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee and reject the RPC's recommendations. Bill Gibson spoke in support of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and pointed out that bicycles are traffic and should be planned for. He described some of the existing problems experienced by bicyclists, particularly at intersections. Mike Mercy, 5105 Rosevelt Drive, requested a change in the Future Land Use Map to identify land on the east side of North 16th Avenue as commercial rather than industrial. Lynne Kitte.lson, 305 North 9th Street, supported_ the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan . developed by the Citizens Advisory Committee. She pointed out that education is an important part of bicycle safety. She referred to Eugene, Oregon's bicycle paths which is an excellent example of bicycle-. pathway development. Delmar Pearson. outlined:.. -.a :..proposal to realign.. Fechter:., Road., and_L also urged commercial development of North 40th -Avenue, -=since the street is so noisy that nobody.. wants to live there.. Tim Monahan, 203 south0th.Avenue, a West Side. Developer, feels the High Density designation. should be in the range: of.'40 units per acre instead of °:the current 12. units per acre. He feels more business and high density development is needed•on the•West.Side. Larry Raths, 902 North 6th Street, spoke in support of stricter 8 DOC. INDEX • JOINT :GRIP.. PUBLIC HEARING JUNE..11, 1996 code .enforcement and R-1 low..density for the East Side because the area is extremely crowded., Bev Luby Bartz, 114 North 7th Street, spoke in support .of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the R-1 downzoning. DOC. INDEX # X1-5 JOINT `GMA° PUBLI.0 HEARING JUNE 11, 1996 Phil Hoge, 1512 Folsom.St.reet_, spoke in support Of the Citizens Advisory Bicycle/Pedestrian: Plan. He pointed out the various steps in the process to develop the Draft Comprehensive Plan which started with the :Vision 2010 process. He feels the school age distribution discussion presented by Ms. Small is significant. He feels there is a need for more moderate density land. Robert Keivel and Delmar Pearson spoke in support of the Citizens Advisory Committee's Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. Mayor Buchanan asked if anyone else wished to comment about the Draft Comprehensive Plan. There being, no one, he closed the public hearing. It was MOVED BY FLOWER, SECONDED BY BARNETT, TO: ADJOURN AT 9:30. PM TO JUNE 25, 1996 AT THE SOUTHEAST'COMMUNITY`' CENTER AT 2:00 PM. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote; Beauchamp absent. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: ATTEST: COUNCIL MEMBER DATE COUNCIL MEMBER DATE CITY CLERK LYNN BUCHANAN, MAYOR • • Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk'.s Office. - 10 DOC. INDEX # K-5 • Yakima Urban Area Re ona1 Planning Commission easiness Meeting Yakima: City HI.,: i < C Chambers March 13,1996, 6:30 PM C Members Present: Deb Patterson, Chair, Curtis King, Kara Kondo, Laura Mueleck, Frank Gutierrez. and Dennis Kelly L. Staff esent Don Skone, John Elsden, Shelley Willson and Vaughn McBride, City of Yakima; Steve Erickson, Yakima County Deb called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. The revised minutes from the Feb. 7, 1996 continued public hearing and also the Feb. 27,1996 business meeting minutes were approved as submitted. John explained the memos contained in the RPC packet for tonight's meeting. The. memo to Mayor Buchanan, the Yakima City Council and Dick Zais, City Manager, dated Feb. 29, 1996, was submitted by John Hanson, Director of Finance and Budget and Cindy Epperson, Accountant. This memo included supplemental information to e Draft Capital Facilities Plan incorporating changes suggested by the RPC, council and staff. The memo dated Feb. 23,1996 to Dick Zais, City Manager and members of the City Council was submitted by Jerry Copeland, Director of Public Works, David Bussell, Street and Traffic Operations Manager and Shelley Willson, Supervising Traffic Engineer. This memo included a supplemental report noting changes to the Transportation Plan Final Report and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Master Plan. Dennis questioned how the-Bike/Pedestrian. Plan could be added to theTransportation Plan and submitted for review by the City Council and City Managerwhenthe RPC:' had not yet fully reviewed -it -4.... Shelley Willson explained- e°Bike Plan -which the citizens put together=was incorporated into theTransportation Plan :by Bell - Walker. The Bell Waiker:study: only addressed classified --roadways; while the Bike Plan committee looked at..;the-entire : City of Yakima. Curtis made a motion to remove the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan from the Transportation Plan as the,RPChad-just :received it recently and have not had the RPC Minutes 3/13/96 PageJ opportunity to fully review it. He sugges amendment process. It" el bringing it back at a later date through the 41) The following discussion ensued; the motion was not passed. John noted that the �.; C was presented with the Bike/Ped plan on November 15,1995. Curtis stated there was an oral presentation at that time, but the actual document was not submitted until the Feb. 7, 1996 meeting. Kara asked if the Transporta!A'on ;Plan would be complete if the Bike/Ped Plan was postponed. Shelley answered that yes, it still would be complete although the Bell - Walker, study does reference the Bike/Ped Plan, as well as being addressed in the Transit portion -of the Transportation Plan. She did note however that the Bike/Ped Plan can be adopted at a later date. Don stated there is no clear cut answer. The State will review our Plan and let us know. He urged the RPC to take a couple of weeks to review the Bike Plan as it should be a part of the Comp Plan. He encouraged the RPC to not back away because of costs, as these are within streets projects. Don suggested the possibility of City Engineering doing a break down of these costs. Shelley noted the memo of Feb. 23,1996, page 2, Item C, as it states the costs and the importance of inclusion of the icycle/Pedestrian Plan in the Comp Plan for eligibility for state and federal funds. Funds are awarded by a point system. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan contains points which are given weight in grants being awarded. Deb mentioned the possibility of submitting the Bike/Ped Plan .after the Comp Plan has gone to City Council for: review This: would give the RPC more time to study it as well as the Greenway Plan ,which .was also'submitted late. John suggested scheduling one meeting, to cover these two plans Frank mentioned that the RPC should definitely consider this. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan needs to be included in the Comp Plan because of the importance .of: receiving state and federal grants. Deb made a motion to continue.to review the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and they. Greenway Master Plan for the next two weeks and discuss em at the next meeting. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. RPC Minutes 3/13/96 Doc. INDEX Page :2 • • • Frank Gutierrez left at 7:00 p.m. Steve Erickson of County Planning distributed to the RPC a memo dated March 13, 1996 regarding the comments previously submitted by the County, and a map which.... shows existing zoning within the Urban °Reserve Area (West Valley and Terrace Heights). The memo suggests xt changes to the Comp Plan regarding coordinated» Regional Planning for the Yakima _Urban . Growth Area and Future Land Use Designations. He noted the County agrees with City staff that it is not advisable to show existing zoning on the Future Land Use map '11 -3 as the interim future land use designation, in advance of neighborhood (sub area) planning. Dennis asked if the County will follow the same planning policies as the City in the. Urban area. Steve answered yes, and clarified the changes in the Land Use Element as noted in the memo. Kara commented that the language used for the Urban Growth Area and the Reserve area needs to be consistent Deb questioned if the County anticipates any schedule for land use in these areas. Steve said there is no plan as yet After the Neighborhood meetings, consultation with the RPC and the West Valley Community Council, they will meet to discuss time frames. Kara asked if the City would submit it's plan to the State first with the County's plan being submitted as an amendment, and also if other cities have already submitted their plans. Steve admitted that the County :stall:hasa lot; of workto do They will submittheir: plan as a supplement to the City's plan': gie-also noted: that a vast majority of area cities have submitted their plans to the State. Deb asked if the County has an agenda regarding submission of it's plan. Steve answered the County has a diffe nt-process .:They have set up two citizen advisory committees, and are now going4rough;elements with the County Commissioners. They hope to go to hearing in late May of this year. Deb inquired if the County would be holding neighborhood meetings in the designated,: areas in the Summer and Fall of this :year - . RPC Minutes 3/13/96• DOC. INDEX Page:3 Steve said the County anticipates a series of neighborhood meetings as a part of the review process. Goals, policies, land use and facilities will be discussed with the citizens of these areas. After some discussion it was decided the RPC would further review the County's memo and place it on the agenda for the next meeting. There was some discussion on the Comp Plan amendment process and priorities and timelines to implement Action Plan element. ° John explained the Draft Comp Plan was submitted to the State as required in December of 1995. The State is given 60 days to review it, and has not yet commented on it :The City will re -subunit the Plan to the State after it is taken to the City Council for review: Staff comment / recommendation on #5 of the comments submi accepted by the RPC. by the County was Comments submitted by: Bert and Teanette Carlson of 4303 Madera Way RPC agreed with staff recommendations as this comment relates to zoning on the Future Land Use Map in the vicinity of 40th Avenue and Kern Way. Comments submitted by: Carroll Palmer, on behalf of the Yakama Nation RPC agreed with staff recommendations Regarding comment #q, items 1 thru 6: John explained these changes will be looked at through the Urban Area Zo Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance after the Plan is adopted. Comments submitted by: Central Washington Home Builders Assoc. RPC agreed to look at these comments after they have had ample time to fully review the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. Comments°submitted.by Don Hinman; -Yakima Valley RentahAssoc. RPC" agreed with staff recommendations Regarding comment #s items 1,thru 4 Vaughn McBride stated -we are using the most current Rental Vacancy Rate for.. the 2nd quarter. of 1995.He also explained HUD's=definition of overcrowding, stating that more tham one person per -sleeping area (bedroom), is considered overcrowding. And lasthe defined, median and low income households, which are considered to be two differentthings, and so are defined in separate areas .of the Housing Element: Comments submitted by: Cec_Vogt; Yakima.:Greennwav Foundation, Greenway. Master Plan Update RPC Minutes 3/13/96 DOC, INDEX Page 4 RPC will continue to review this document and discuss it at the next scheduled meeting. Comments submitted by: Dick Anderwald, Yakima County Planning RPC agreed with sir recommendations Comments submitted by: Mr. & Mrs. Gerald A...Gaudette,:701 N. 6' i St. RPC agreed with staff recommendations Comments submitted by: Robert & JoAnn Nowlin, :203:;N._9th St RPC agreed with staff recommendations Comments submitted by: Rosemary Small, 1006 S. 25th Ave. RPC agreed with staff recommendations Comments submitted by: Scott Nicolai, on behalf of Yakama Indian Nation RPC agreed with staff recommendations regarding comments from Scott Nicolai: As Dennis Kelly had to excuse himself from the meeting he wan d to make a few comments regarding "zero rise". His concern was that "zero rise" did not make sense. Anytime you add gravel, concrete, blacktop etc. to land, you create a "rise" to some extent He agreed with staff recommendation to consider this during the implementation phase of the Plan (development regulations). Dennis Kelly left at 8:00 p.m. The RPC went on to discuss Part IL - Written comments received after the February 7, 1996 RPC Public Hearing. Co merits submitted by: Richard Larson,- WA State Dept ..of Transportation RPC agreed with staff recommendation Comments submittedtby: Bob Mason, 612 N. 2nd Street-. RPC agreed with staff recommendations Commentssubmitted by: Stephen Penland, WA State -Dept: of Fish & Wildlife RPC agreed.with staff recommendations regardintcomments 1 thru 13: It was discussed that most of these comments •have already been dealt with in other areas of the Comp Plan review, will be considered with development regulations, or will be dealt with when the City revisits the Critical Areas - Ordinance - RPC Minutes rdinance RPC"Minutes 3/13/96 DOC. INDEX # Page 5 Comments submitted by Don Videgar, NE Yakima Neighborhood Assoc. Pres. RPC agreed with staff recommendation The RPC then went on to discuss Part III - Verbal Testimony received by the RPC during the public hearings. Testimony by: Lee Clark, 817 Conestoga Blvd. Mr. Clark stated concerns related to proposed moderate density designation on the Future Land Use Map for the area on the west side of North 40th Avenue, south of Fechter .Road (property owned by the Pearson's). RPC '°°'agreed -with : staff comment regarding testimonies 1 (Lee Clark) thru 21 (all citizens who agreed with Mr. Clark's testimony) Testimony by: Don Hinman, 4605 Scenic Dr. RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Larry Shellenberger, 206 S. 69th Ave. RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Cathy. Rajala, Department of Ecology, 15 W. Yakima Ave. RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Bill Huibregtse, 3800 Summitview RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by::: Stan..,Berndt:: 215 Belaire Dr. RPC agreedwith staff comment Testimony by: Terry._ :St argill, 211 N. 55th P1 RPC agreedvwith staff comment Testio:eony by Lee CQark, 817 Conestoga Blvd.. RPC a:"greed with staff comment Testimony by:. Mel Carlson, 907 Conestoga Blvd: RPC agreed.with staff comment Testianonwby:. ,Bill ;Cowman, 921 Conestoga RPC agreed with staff comment RPC Minutes 3/13/96 DOC. INDEX Page 6 • • • Testimony by: Clarence Barnett, City Council member RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Terry Mellen, 904 Conestoga Blvd. RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Gene Hull, 8806 Occidental RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Don Hinman, 4605 Scenic Drive RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Bob Young, 1018 S. 33rd Ave. and Central WA Homebuilders. RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Lee Clark, 817 Conestoga Blvd. RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Tom Gasseling, 714 N. 44th Ave. RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Bev Luby Bartz, 701 N. 6th St RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Bill Cowman, 921 Conestoga Blvd. RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Robert Boggs, Attorney, 222 N. 3rd Street RPC agreed with staff comment TeStitnonythy:, lerry:Melleiti. 904, Conestoga 131-Vd. FtPCigreed tlyStaff-tOmment Testimony by: -Paul Naglet-McNaughton, .207S. 31st Ave. regtardingthis,frstimony: 'The RFC -discussed Mr. McNaughtons comments at length and reviewed the Memorial Land Use Map included in their packets. John defirted4PrOfessicortal Office" zoning, explaining that there -are generally one or two story buildings in this type of zoning district, and is desirable near residential areas. The height restriction in B-1 (Professionad Office) is 50 feet or approximately 3 stories. Laura mentioned that the neighborhood can come back in the future and change the zoning if they prefer lower. density. After more - DOC. INDEX Page 7 # K-4 RPC Minutes 3/13/96 discussion on this subject, the RPC agreed to change the Future Land Use Map to retain the area north of Walnut Avenue as R-2 (Two -Family Residential), while accepting the proposed B-2 (Professional Office) zoning in remaining area near Memorial Hospital. Testimony by: Bill Rathbone for the City of Union Gap, 102 W.'Ahtanum -Rd:: The RPC agreed to hold off their response to these comments until Union Gap and the City of Yakima can meet and decide where future boundaries :will be. Testimony by: Dick Anderwald, Yakima County Director of Planning RPC agreedto defer responding to these comments until the next meeting, as they will also be reviewing the memo submitted by the County this evening Testimony by: Cec Vogt of the Yakima Greenway Foundation, 103 S. 3rd St. RPC agreed to discuss the Greenway Master Plan Update at the next meeting as they have not had the time to fully review it Testimony by: Scott Nicolai of the Yakama Indian Nation - Fisheries RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Delmar Pearson, 2101 St Helen's St RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Bill Huibregtse, 3800 Summitview RPC agreed with staff comment TeMimony by:- Richard Zapata 4207_-Feehter:Rd. RPC agreed withstaff comments Testimony. by: Maud4Scott, 309.UnionSt regarding this testimony: ; The RPC reviewed the ;3 maps included in their packet dealing with the Southeast Neighborhood area. Bev Luby Bartz helped to clarify the area in which Maud Scott is concerned with (Union St between 8th and 9th Streets). Deb suggested, and it was agreed, the RPC visit this area before the next meeting in order to get a better understanding of the concerns of Ms. Scott= :. Testimony by: Rosemary Small, 1006_S..25th Ave._ _ RPC Minutes 3/13/96 DOC. INDEX # Page 8 • • • • RPC agreed with staff comment Testimony by: Phil Hoge, 1512 Folsom, Ave. regarding comment #1 & 2: RPC agreed with staff:. comment: regarding comment #3:. RPC agreed to come back to thiscomment as it is concerning the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan which they will be.:reviewing forconsideration at the next meeting. John distributed to the RPC the Utilities; Element Update for their review., • He also .went :. over the tentative agenda for the next meeting, including review of the Yakima County memo, the Future Land Use Map in neighborhoods, the Bicycle/ Pedestrian Plan: and the Greenway Master PlarLUpdate After some discussion, it was agreed to meet again on Tuesday, March 26, 1996 at 6:30 p.m., and also on Wednesday, April 10, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Deb adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. RPC Minutes 3/13/96 -. DOC. INDEX # „V< Page; 9 Yakima Urban Area Re T ones Pga gg C=mission usiness Meeting Yakima City Hall Council Chambers February 27,1996, 6:30 PM RPC Members ": se u t: Deb Patterson, Chair, Curtis King, Kara Kondo, Frank Gutierrez, and Dennis Kelly Staff Present: John Elsden, Joan Dave port, Don Skone, Bruce Benson, Dave Hussell, Vaughn McBride,. Cindy Epperson, Tim Jensen, Chris Waarvick: and:,Dueane Calvin, Chris Wilson, City of Yakima; Dick Anderwald, Steve Erickson, Yakima County Deb called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Dick Anderwald and Kara Kondo had some changes to the minutes of the continued public hearing of 2/7/96. After some discussion, it was decided to table the minutes until the end of the meeting. Deb explained purpose and goals of this worksession and asked for suggestions on how to proceed with making changes to the Comp Plan from comments received. After some discussion, it was decided to start with Part Y of the written comments and testimony received, look over each point, ask questions, and refer to staff responses and recommendations. The following are the decisions made by the RPC regarding each comment submitted: Part .al,. Comments- submitted by: Clarence Barnett;- Council :Member The RPC agreed with all staff recommendations concerning these comments. Comments submitted by: Larry & Betty > Douglas,_ 4201:FechterRoad RPC aged with' staff recommendations Comments- submitted by: r=Sarah Tokela, • 2610 Cascade Road RPC agreed -With staff recommendations. Cothments submitted by:: Catherine Rajala, Dept. of Ecology,. Yakima Office RPC agreed with staff recommendations RPC Minutes 2/27/96 DOC. INDEX Page 1 • Comments submitted by: Wm. L. Weigand, Tr., Lyon Law Offices RPC agreed with staff recommendations Comments submitted by: Don Hinman, Yakima Valley_Rental Association RPC agreed with staff recommendations , Com encs submitted by: Lee C. Clark, 817 Conestoga Blvd. RPC agreed with staff recommendations on all points, except for the following recommended changes: Regarding comment #6 Map 111-2, Existing Lund Use: RPC agreed to change the title of this map to "Generalized Land Use ", and also note that the data gathered for this map .is 1991 information. Regarding comment #8 Page 111-6, 4th paragraph: RPC agreed to make this change by referencing the appendix and adding the sentence: "A discussion of Alternative Land Use proposals is presented in Appendix A." Regarding comment #11 Pages IV -2 thru IV -5: Vaughn. McBride stated that we will be replacing the Rental Vacancy Rate for the lst quarter with the 2nd quarter of 1995 to the Comp Plan. The rate for 2nd quarter 1995 is 4.0%, and is from the Housing and Urban Development Quarterly Economic Report. As of January 1996 s report will only be available twice per year, not quarterly as in the past. Comments submitted by: Richard Zapata, 4207 Fechter Road RPC agreed with staff recommendations Comments submitted by: Ray ..Lockwood, -608. North 47th. Avenue RPC agreed with staff recommendations Comments submitted by: Cec Vogt; Yakima: Greenway Foundation After some discussion and :one ;change;to :the'Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, Deb,>.. Patterson suggested the RPC" -address= thus?porton of the Comp Plan at a later date, as they have not had the opportunity -to fully review it. Regarding page 5-3 of the Bicycle/Pedestriai Plam.under :Developer Paid Impact Fees,... Dennis Kelly suggested, the word "caveat";- as well as the rest of the paragraph which deals with be deleted. The RPC agreed to recommend this... change. (Staff has recommended ;this:under}consents submitted by Bob Young, Central Washington Home Builders).: Comments submitted by: Delmar L. Pearson, 4108 Kern Way, Yakima RPC Minutes 2/27/96 DOC. INDEX Page 2 RPC recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map regarding the west side of 40th Avenue (see Comments submitted by Lee Clark). They will consider the east side at a later date. Comments submitted by: William Rathbone, City of Union Gap RPC agreed with staff recommendations Comments submitted by: Richard Anderwald & Steve Erickson, Yakima County Planning Department 1. Coordinated planning: RPC agreed with staff recommendations 2. Plan policies applied to the urban growth area: RPC agreed with staff recommendations 3. Existing zoning be applied outside the YaldmaService: Area: Mr. Steve Erickson addressed the Commission regarding the County's comments. He stated utilizing existing zoning within Terrace Heights and the. Urban Reserve in West Valley is a good interim measure. Mr. Don Skone, City of Yakima, mentioned that the City had no problem with zoning continuing in these areas, but did not support showing existing zoning on the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map. These areas have not yet been fully planned for, and require plans for transportation, capital facilities, utilities, etc. Steve s that he felt the plan suffers a twenty year setback if we do not apply land use designations at this time. S ve mentioned the good joint planning the City and County have accomplished in the urban area during the past twenty years, and what we are doing here (by creating the Urban Reseve and cutting out Terrace Heights) is a substantial step backward. If we do not provide plan designations for the urban growth area, these areas should be removed from the urban growth area. Curtis questioned=the>compatibility of existing zoniragwith;future land use designations, and Don stated that future land use designations are general in nature, and not compatible with existing zoning, nor do they have any direct equivalents in zoning categories Steve mentionedrthat existing zoning in Terrace Heights:and West Valley be updated to be 'consistent with the alternative land use patterns shown: in .the plan. He mentioned. that the alternative maps were developed cooperatively with the City & County during 19934994, and areas were lopped off since that time Don stated the current 1981 Yakima Urban Area Planhas its: authority from the 1977 Planning. Agreement and 1976 Four Party Agreement for Wastewater Service. These agreements state that the urban area will eventually be .served and annexed by the City. DOC. RPC Minutes 2/27/96 INDEX Page 3 # K,3 • • • • • of Yakima. Terrace Heights is currently served by Terrace Heights Sewer District The City has approached property owners in Terrace Heights to provide water, and was rebuffed very thoroughly by these landowners. Yakima County has since then drilled wells to provide water in this area. Neighborhood meetings in this area dearly showed that the City of Yakima was not wanted there, and have no desire to annex to the City. We cannot continue to carry Terrace Heights in the City's Comprehensive Plan, with Plan policies that discuss the City as the best service provider, and the City serving and annexing areas shown in the plan, since the reality is Terrace Heights is not interested in nor does it need services from the City of Yakima. Dennis asked Steve if the County intended to apply the Comprehensive Plan policies to the urban reserve and Terrace Heights Area, and Steve stated that was the expectation, and that this Plan is the framework for these areas, which eventually will have neighborhood plans developed for review by the Regional Planning Commission. Kara added that she thought the City had stated that -they ;did not have the resources to plan in these outlying areas, and wanted to complete their plan. Don stated the Plan needs to reflect and deal with the fact that the realities of development and growth have changed. We agree with the County that we should have common development and zoning standards, but to show on the maps Terrace Heights and the Urban Reserve with current zoning has two basic flaws. First, it would mean desi a, ating future land use without planning (.• ansportation, utilities, etc.). Second, it leaves those areas subject to policies in the plan that patently do not apply. Don stated it could be appropriate, as is the case in other counties, to have a single growth area with multiple jurisdictional plans for these areas, as long as this is clearly stated in the Plan. Dennis mentioned he thought all growth areas were tied to a city. Then where would Terrace Heights go? Don answered- that it has been accepted that plans can exist for unincorporated urban places. Other counties -within the state are doing_separate plans for areas such as Terrace Heights. Steve sta that:the planning process takes time, is on-going, and we should move ahead :with interim designations for these areas until neighborhood plans are developed ,He stated he was concerned that the plan is turning into a jurisdictional plans :not a regional plan. - Deb tried to reiterate the County's suggestion, that the urban reserve and Terrace Heights go with the plan with current zoning, as an interim:: designation. She felt we fell short on our maps, and need to more fully address issues brought up in neighborhoods, even within City limits. RPC Minutes 2/27/96 DOC. INDEX # 3 Page 4 The RPC decided to table County Comment #3 un they can give each point of view a closer look. Dennis then suggested the RPC review the changes to the minutes of the February 7, 1996 rneeting as proposed by Dick Anderwald. The mina i -s were approved with changes. It was decided to continue the worksession to Wednesday, March 13,1996 beginning at 6:30 p.m.. Deb adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m. RPC Minutes 2/27/96 DOC. INDEX 3 Page 5 • • •\ Yakima Urban Area egional Planning Commission C. ntinued Public earing Yakima City Hall Council Chambers February 9,1996, 6:30 PM RPC Me bers Present: Deb Patterson, Chair, Curtis King, Kara. Kondo, Frank Gutierrez, Laura Muehleck and Dennis Kelly Staff Present: John Elsden, -Joan . Davenport, Dave Hussell, Vaughn McBride, ,John Williamson, City of Yakima; .Dick Anderwald, Steve Erickson, Yakima County; . Bill Rathbone, City of .Union Gap. Deb called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. The minutes of the public hearing of 1/9/96 were approved as submitted. There was discussion on establishing the next meeting date. February 27, 19% was the date agreed upon. Deb explained the hearing procedures, pointing out that this is a continued hearing to receive public testimony only. Discussion and consideration of the comments submitted would be done at a meeting to be held at a later date. She then asked for any comments from the citizens in attendance. Don Hinman of 4605 Scenic Drive, and the Yakima Valley Rental Association spoke on the written comments he submitted this evening. His main concern was on the Housing element. He pointed out several areas where the statistics were not correct, such as rental property and vacancy rates. He feels that 1990 Census information should not be put into: long,;:term documents, and more, current data _.should be referenced. He. offered,his.help in=rewriting:::this section. - There was some discussion on this portion of the Plan.. - Frank=.Gutierrez :then.;: repeated the process for=recelving;comments and the RPC responder gzto them Bob Young of 1018 S. 33rd Avenue, and Central Washington,Home °Builders mentioned his written: comments submitted this evening and those dated :::1/31/96 The Home Builders feel =that:: the:: Comp Plan is basically a very good document, although the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan should be revisited and:;revised RPC Minutes 2/7/96 DOC. INDEX Page 1 Lee Clark of 817 Conestoga Blvd. spoke on the proposed rezoning (according to the Future Land Use Map) of the orchard property off 40th Ave. and Fechter Road (the Delmar Pearson property). He mentioned page 6 of the Staff Report. He feels that it should not list the entire parcel as one. It should be shown broken down into individual areas which could be rezoned separately in the future. Tom Gasseling of 714 N. 44th Ave. also commented on the Pearson property. He is concerned about the proposed rezoning. He is not in favor of high density housing :.. in this area and feels that it, would not be compatible. He noted some inconsistencies in the Plan such as Policies and Goals - "maintaining standards and guidelines" and also the Housing goals. Kara Kondo asked Mr. Gasseling if he was aware of Mr. Pearson's written comments concerning his property, and suggested that he take a look at them. Bev Luby Bartz of 701 N. 6th St submitted her written comments, and also submitted written comments on behalf:of Betty Gaudette and Robert & JoAnn. Nowlin. They are all residents of Northeast Yakima and are pleased with the Comp Plan. They want to encourage changing the Northeast Yakima zoning from R-3 to R-1 as proposed. Bev commented that the infrastructure is now already overloaded and this area definitely needs to be rezoned back to R-1. Bill Cowman of 921 Conestoga Blvd. commented on the Parks element of the Plan, specifically mentioning land use and the Pearson property west of 40th Ave. Noting Chesterly Park, he feels there is a definite need for a neighborhood park for activities other than soccer in this area, and suggested the Pearson property as a potential location. Robert Boggs, Attorney, 222 N. 3rd Street submitted written comments prior to the hearing which mentioned the Castlevale and Powerhouse area. He noted the Yakima Wire Works at 3601 Powerhouse Road, and would like to see the Comp Plan reflect the area as . industrial designation rather than moderate residential development. Jerry Mellen of 904 Conestoga .and -Heritage Brokers addressed the aerial map and commented on the east (business) side of 40th Avenue (Pearson property). He feels :. that 40th Avenue could: not =support medium or high density: zoning: on the west F side as well as business and professional offices on the east. He would like tosee :the ay.. Future Land Use Map reflect the area on the east side of 40th Ave. as R-1, low density. Frank Gutierrez explained thedefinition of medium and high density and Mr. Mellen agreed that the figures were not as high as he had originally thought._. RPC Minutes 2/7/96 Page 2 DOC. INDEX K -0- • 0 • • • Paul Nagle -McNaughton of 207 S. 31st Ave. commented on the Memorial Hospital area. He stated that the neighborhood has spoken out against the Hospital expanding. He questioned the Future Land Use Map showing "Professional Office" zoning on several parcels in the Hospital area which are presently zoned R-3. He would like to see the map changed to reflect zoning to remain R-3 as it is now. John Elsden explained that the uses are there now in that area, therefore, the reason;:::: "Professional Office" zoning is shown on the Future Land Use Map. Bill Rathbone, spoke for the City of Union Gap, 102 W. Ahtanum Rd. The City of Union Gap is requesting the area south of. the Yakima Airport between 16th Avenue and 38th Avenue and north of Ahtanum Rd. be designated as Union Gap.. growth area. _He stated that Union Gap: has : no :where else to grow, it is basicallythe. only available area. They are also able provide service to this area. Dick Anderwald, Yakima County.. Director:_ of Planning submitted three :documents .. and gave a brief overview of eachone. They are as follows: 1) Comment letter dated 2/2/96 regarding: a. Joint adoption of Comp Plan b. Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies c Future Land Use Map d. Comp Plan update (amendment process) e. RPC evaluation, recommendations and timelines 2) Public Process Goal including Goal P 1 and Goal P 2 3) Memorandum regarding recommended text amendments to Draft Comp Plan There was some discussion on the Gleed area not being included as a City of Yakima growth area. Dick also questioned RPC procedures on the Comp Plan, and if it should be adopted before the County has completed its plan. Lee Clark inquired what would happen next regarding the Comp Plan press Deb Patterson explained the next step .in the process would be a work: session.: for the: RPC. Here they will discuss the comments submitted at the hearings and make changes. Joan Davenport mentioned that the: City.: Council has agreed to tentatively :hold ,°the combined public hearing with the Yakima County Commissioners in mid :March or April. Dick Anderwald suggested that. a Joint Board workshop with all officials present be- :. held prior to the public meeting. Citizens would then be invited to attend the public meeting and submit comments. RPC Minutes 2/7/96 Page 3 DOC. INDEX There was some discussion on this subject, and it was agreed that by the next meeting on Feb. 27th we should know more regarding meeting dates and opportunities for public comment. Cec Vogt of the Yakima Greenway Foundation, 103 S. 3rd St., presented the Greenway's 1995 Master Plan Update.- She referred to the prior RPC review of the draft Master Plan and summarized :the changes based on citizen comments. She. would like to see it incorporated into the Comp Plan by reference. Kara Kondo questioned "design standards" included in the Master Plan. Cec answered that the modifications made:: to .these standards are induded. Scott Nicolai of the Yakama Indian Nation - Fisheries, submitted substantial technical information which. he feels .should be,considered in the Plan. He gave historical perspectives on the Yakima river and several area creeks,commenting on.:. the protection and restoration:: of the remaining -habitat. for salmon and steelhead. He questioned the language used in the Habitat, Storm Water and Wetlands element of the Plan. He feels that the work "shall" instead of "should" would be the preferable language to address these issues. Scott also noted that the Plan says "Wetlands over 1 acre will be protected". Scott suggests this figure be reduced to 10,000 square feet, as smaller wetlands also need to be protected. This would also be consistent with the quality of life issues in the Plan. Scott's final comment was regarding page 2-39, Policy E 6.3. He would like to see one action added to water conservation; "Require fitting of homes with water conservation devices upon sale". Delmar Pearson of 2101 St. Helens St. previously submitted written comments on his property in the vicinity of 40th Ave., Fechter Rd. and Kern Way. He gave a brief history of the area and explained that it is not just one big piece of land; it is separated into several parcels and this should be considered in future zoning. He pointed out that the Congdon Canal separates his property from the low density area near Conestoga Blvd. , He feels that -low density housing would be incompatible. -next to -the existing mobile home park He.=suggests,medium density in this area-and-B-1-- zoning reaandB-1 zoning along 40th Avenue because of •the heavytraffic and noise level. Bil1. Huibregtse, 3800 Summitview feels.that the Comp Plan is a good one. 1t is -a 1 - reflection reflection of the requests from citizens -ancLaddresses zoning issues well. He mentioned Mr. Pearson's letter of 1/30/96, and-: agrees with his comments regarding the east side, traffic and noise on 40th Avenue.. Bill suggests office designation ;. zoning on 40th Avenue with .medium :to_low' density to the west. Richard Zepata, 4207 Fechter Rd. gave a brief -overview of his written comments: -:He -,P would like to see the Plan respect:: the: environment and also current homeowners,::;_ wishes to keep their neighborhoods:`singlefamily residential. RPC Minutes 2/7/96 PC INDEX • • • Maud Scott, 309 Union Street referenced the Future Land Use Map. She appreciates the concept of down -sizing being used in this map, as we need to protect our neighborhoods from additional growth and -the ravages of crime. She suggests the area between East Chestnut and East Walnut as a buffer with R-1 zoning. She also stressed the need for open space for children to play. We need to look to infill in the downtown business core, not the already over populated neighborhoods. She noted that the Capitol Facilities element does not address the schools and the encroachment of business in these areas. Rosemary Small, 1006 So. 25th Ave. submitted written comments and summarized the information in her letter. She is basically pleased with the Comp Plan and feels that it represents the thoughts of citizens who attended the neighborhood meetings.,,:;. Although she is concerned about housing, schools and density as shown on the Land Use Map. She spoke of overcrowding in the schools and children being bussed out of the .East side of town to attend schools on the-;Westside. This is because. the:.,.. East side schools are overcrowded with no available: land to expand, while the West::° side schools with acreage to spare are being: expanded to accommodate the growing number of students. Rosemary feels that the Comp Plan should indicate an increase in the capacity of affordable, low income housing for people to purchase on the west side of town so children can attend schools in their own neighborhoods. Phil Hoge, 1512 Folsom Ave. supports the Comp Plan and appreciates all the hard work and dedication that has gone into preparing it. He also supports Cec Vogt and agrees that the Greenway Master Plan should be integrated into the Comp Plan. Phil also noted his approval and support of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and designation of the Garfield school area as low density. This will help to preserve affordable housing. In addition, Phil listed three other items to consider: 1) Analyze available vacant land for appropriate density according to City services, etc. There is a definite need for additional medium and high density land in this community. He suggested a map which identifies sewer lines and vacant land as a tool to help assess feasible development areas. 2) The Comp Plan should mention criteria regarding lot coverage, fence height standards, etc.,- There should be somediscussion as,.to why we have these standards: 3) Regarding:the Bicycle/Pedestrian P1an4-an additional) snap could be added This map would not only show the bike routes, ::but -also :=what we are striving for, such: as additional lanes, sidewalks, etc. As -there wereno other comments from the .public <in;attendance, Deb adjourned the public; hearing at •9:03 p.m. After :some_discussion, the RPC agreed to hold :a: work session to go over all of the comments submitted and begin making : changes to the draft Comp Plan. This work session: is scheduled for Tuesday, February -.,27,':1996 -beginning at 6:30 p.m. This "discussion was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. RPC Minutes 2/7/96 Page 5 DOC. INDEX C Members Present: Staff Present: Yakima Urban Area egioraal Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes Yakima City Hall Council Chambers January 9,1996, 6:30 PM Deb Patterson, Chair, Curtis King, Kara Kondo, Frank Gutierrez and Dennis Kelly Glenn Valenzuela, John Elsden, Joan Davenport, Bruce Benson, Vaughn McBride, Don Skone, John Hanson,;;. Cindy; .. Epperson;~ Dave Hussell, Shelley Willson, Chris Waarvick; and Dueane Calvin, City of Yakima; Dick Anderwald and Elaine Taylor, Yakima County Deb .called the hearing to order. at 6:40 p.m.. The minutes of the December 6, 1995 meeting were approved as submitted. Deb welcomed everyone and gave a brief history of the Comp Plan. She also explained the hearing format and noted that the RPC had decided on February 7, 1996 for continuance the hearing if need be. She noted that written comments are to be submitted to the RPC no later than February 1, 1996. She then introduced Glenn Valenzuela, Director of Community and Economic Development for the City of Yakima. Glenn opened the hearing with a brief overview of the past 5 years including studies and reports by Staff and the RPC used in developing the Comp Plan. He also noted the great interest, participation, and input in this process by the citizens of Yakima. Joan Davenport, Supervising Associate Planner for the City of Yakima, explained the Land Use Element portion of the comp Plan. She noted the maps which were displayed and went to the Land Use Map to point out the different areas and what they represent. She explained that:. the rest of the Coinp Plan:, is built to support. the Land -Use Map . She then mentioned the hearing process for the -evening and how the comments would be taken::, Vaughn McBride, Assistant. Planner for the.. City:: of Yakima, gave. a;brieffsununary on lhe_ Housing Element, mentioning what it includes and how it was developedir:: Dave Hussell, Streets and :Traffic Operations 'Manager for the City of Yakima,:gave a r: presentation of the TransportationElementtand how it will be implemented 'over the next 20 years. He mentioned that this element also includes the Bicycleand 1 edestrian: Plan. Dave explained "Level :of.Service/and =how it was formulated and; how the °. different alternatives were developed He also displayed charts which explained -what each project in the plan will accomplish. • IIIShelley Willson, Supervising_ Traffic Engineer, spoke briefly on the .Bicycle- / Pedestrian. Plan, explaining what it indudes: and how it ties in with the Transportation-Element�. DOC. INDEX RPC Minutes 1/9/96 Pagel •r John Hanson, Director of Finance and Budget and Cindy Epperson, accountant for the City Finance Department, reviewed the Capital Facilities Element of the Comp Plan. They explained how the data was collected, developed and formatted into the document we now have before us. Chris Waarvick, Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent and Dueane Calvin, Water/Irrigation Engineer for the City of Yakima gave a brief summary of the Utilities Element of the Comp Plan, which includes 'wastewater and the city water plan. Bruce Benson, Associate Planner for the City of Yakima gave a brief summary presentation of the Parks and Recreation Element of the Comp Plan. John Elsden, Senior Project Planner for the City of Yakima spoke on the Natural Environment Element of the Comp Plan. He explained what it includes and how it was. developed. Deb then opened the hearing for.. public: testimony and againreviewed the hearingprocess and the method in which comments would be taken. Lee C. Clark of 817 Conestoga Blvd. Yakima, WA 98908, addressed the proposed land use change west of 40th Avenue, north of the mobile home to Fechter Rd. in the vicinity of Conestoga Blvd. He is very unhappy with the proposed R-2 zoning. He would like to see it remain R-1. He also noted some errors in the existing Land Use Map dated 4/16/95 and Map A-1. As a visual aid, Joan pinpointed this area with a green dot on the Land Use Map. Deb asked that anyone present and having comments of the same nature regarding this particular area of Yakima to please step to the podium and state their name, address and their agreement with Mr. Clark. The following citizens stated that they are in agreement with Mr. Clark: Pat Clark -'817-Conestoga Blvd. Mel and Mae Carlson 907 Conestoga Blvd. Richard Lane 819 Conestoga Blvd. John and Carolyn Mazie 823 Conestoga Blvd. Victor Benzel 4202 Donald Dr. RPC Minutes 1/9/96 Jack, -.Roberts 702zN: ;7th Ave. Lynn and Jean Seaward 701'`N. 47th Ave. Bob Wilkes 4601 Conestoga Blvd. Robert Newstead 814 Conestoga Blvd. Don Young 913 Conestoga Blvd. DOC. Page 2 INDEX # �C-I George Olsen 4503 Fechter Rich Hochrein 724 N. 44th Ave. Hector Felix 915 Conestoga Blvd. Bert and Jeanette Carlson 4303 Madera Way Thomas W. Gasseling 714 N. 44th Ave. Gerald and Diana Mellen 904 Conestoga Blvd. Jerry and Lavern Mercer 4205 Fechter Rd. J. Gouviea 828 Carriage Hill Dr. Charles and Cindy Lumpkin 603 N. 48th Ave. Stanley and Gerogia Illsley 712 N. 44th Ave. Jim: Tweedy of 4203 Scenic Drive commented on :the, proposed :zoning in this same area, - saying that rea,-saying..that. he agreed with Mr. Clark's, opinion. He also _mentioned his dissatisfaction with the increased traffic speed and volume -on 40thAvenue as it is now. He fears an ever increasing problem if this property were to be rezoned to R-2. Don Hinman of 4605 Scenic Dr. and President of Yakima Valley Rental Association gave his comments. He agrees with Mr. Clark on rezoning and how dangerous 40th Avenue has become. He also commented on the number of housing units projected per year (population growth), and believes it to be over optimistic. He suggested looking at the information over the last 30 years in construction verses incomes and rents. Larry Shellenberger, of 206 So. 69th Ave. and member of the West Valley Community Council questioned if there were going to be separate meetings and discussions for the County's Comp Plan, and asked for a copy of the draft Comp Plan. Dick Anderwald, Director of Planning and Special Projects for Yakima County answered Mr. Shellenberger's question. He explained that the City and County have mutual interest in the Urban Reserve but they will develop separate Comp Plans for this area. He noted -=that; -the County is working on it's plan forL.the_Urban::Reserve and over the next, year gill»begun the public 'meetings =�.. Deb: asked -if the County had: any: sort:. of schedule -developed, and if everyone would be notifiedrof::.these public meetings.,;:. Dick noted that they do have aFinailing listand.public notices: will be advertised ,This process -should probably start in the<aate falls of. 1:996.z— Cathy Rajala 996 CathyRajala of the Department of Eeology,,^15 W'Yakima:Ave. Suite 200, spoke on:- wetlands -issues. She commented that the_policiesdon't :protect lands less than one: acre yin:.µ size k -°She questioned, "what is a significant:wetland?" She feels that "No Net Loss of Wetlands" should be stated in the document, .We need to protect all of our wetlands and also help to create them within the:: City ;;;limits;_ RPC Minutes 1/9/96 Page 3 DOC. INDEX • • • Bill Huibregtse of 3800 Sum:nitview, Suite 100 asked for a confirmation that this hearing would be continued to 2/7/96 at 6:30 pm, and he was assured that it would. Stan Berndt of 215 Belaire Dr. commented on the Parks and Transportation portion of the Comp Plan. He believes that we need to improve these areas in the future to insure quality of life for all citizens. He feels that we can and will meet the costs associated with these plans. He also commended the RPC for the fine job they have done with all of the hard decisions they have had to make in putting this document together. Jerry Sturgill of 211 No. 55th Place and United Builders mentioned Lee Clark's comments on the proposed zoning in the area of 40th Avenue and Fechter Rd. He feels that 40th Avenue is not conducive to low density residential property and suggests that R-2 zoning would begood for this area. He reminded the RPC that we need available land to develop;::. into high density. West Valley is the natural growth area, and available land is clearly not abundant in other locations. Lee Clark noted there is a buffer on 40th Avenue of R-2 zoning and there is no need to move further: past. 40th. He is against leap -frog zoning and accessory housing units as this tends to degrade neighborhoods. He feels there should be a statement in the Comp Plan that current zoning takes precedence. Mel Carlson of 907 Conestoga stressed the importance of citizens being notified of rezoning, hearings, etc. They need to be aware of what is happening in their neighborhoods. Joan explained the requirements of notification and how it differs in regard to City, County or Regional Planning Commission. As for this hearing, there were two fairly large newspaper notices with maps and also a large mailing list. She noted that we will definitely notify everyone who has signed in at this hearing of the continued hearing on February 7th. Bill Cowman of 921 Conestoga Blvd. expressed his concerns regarding the impact R-2 zoning in the 40th Ave., Fechter Rd. area would have on the environment and school district. He feels these issues need to be thoroughly studied. Clarence Barnett, Yakima City Council Member high-lightedhis written comments which... were: submitted:. prior to the hearing. He has stated in his comments discrepancies in some of the wording, terminology and language usedin the Comp Plan. He has also noted:a: few .incorrect figures and inconsistencies -in >several_4areas-of the Plan. Lee Clark-asked:if any changes would be made .to the °Plan as a result of the comments received tonight, and if they would be done by the -February Ith continued hearing. Curtis King said that the RPC does have the authority :to make changes. They will review.. all -comments and; present the changes at the next hearing -to be heard and discussed by the.:: public There was some discussion .on the format of the next hearing and time lines that have to be considered. RPC Minutes 1/9/96 Page 4 DOC. INDEX Frank Gutierrez reminded everyone that the Comp Plan is required by the Growth Management Act. It must go through this process and be accepted. It is also a living document which can be updated and altered with any future changes. Dennis Kelly mentioned the Land Use and Zoning Maps and noted that the densities and zoning differ in the 40th Avenue, Conestoga and Fechter Rd. area. Joan explained that the Land Use Map refers to density while the Zoning Map refers to zoning. Zoning can be changed through reviews at a later date. Jerry Mellen of 904 Conestoga, commented that he feels that the Comp Plan should not dictate zoning laws. Notification procedures, etc. should not be changed when there are zoning reviews. Joan pointed ._out:that,land use comes first and zoning second. GMA.dictates this. We must adopt a Land Use Map, and it will ultimately affect zoning. Curtis expanded on Joan's comment saying this Planning Commission, the City and the County are dictated by the State Growth Management Act to develop this plan, and we are required by law to make these decisions. Gene Hull of 8806 Occidental, feels that we shouldn't just push this document through. The state government needs to know our feelings on this subject. She also asked if the West Valley area boundaries could be changed if all the citizens came together and brought it before the state lawmakers. Frank sympathized with Mrs. Hull's frustrations with government policies, and answered that the Urban Reserve Boundary is a service area that is agreed upon between the City and County and that it probably wouldn't be changed. Kara then brought up the subject of wetlands. She asked Cathy Rajala about the mapping of them. Cathy responded-yes,,they would like to have them mapped -:and wondered if wetlands under==oneacre-would be'identified in the .Coinp-Plan.. Frank; asked ifthe mapping of wetlands hasever been .done or was possible. John ELsden answered that the wetlands indicated are=based=on::the .National Wetlands Inventory;and :that -we >do.not have the finances or the =staffaime=to do the mapping. Cathy Rajala <mentioned :°that aerial photography of Wetlands is not accurate. She offered her services on :locating them, and went on to explain the definition of a wetland and why we need :to preserve them. As there, were .no other comments, Deb thanked everyone forattending, noted again that the hearing will be continued on Feb. 7, 1996, and adjourned the hearing at 8:47 pm. RPC Minutes 1/9/96 DOC. Page 5 INDEX • • TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER L Hearing Examiner Appeal Application L-1 Application submitted to Appeal the Hearing Examiner's Decision 11/20/08 fele ?ir(C 007i CP cy t taf4te'IQs CITY OF YAKIMA LAND USE APPLICATION RECEIVED DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 21'1D FLOOR YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902 NOV 2 Q 2008 VOICE: (509) 575-6183 FAX: (509) 575-6105 CITY OF YAKIMA 0- ms 's . j ;� t,4y^� J I h �J�'� 1 O�PVk IFED /� �.:, 1**' PLANNI dO DIU S`T'It�UCTb®1�iS J['I )�?iSE=REAlCD;°F1�SZ' ., Please tyke oa',p int your answers e1early , k .. Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this form or the application process call, come in person or refer to the accompanying instructions. This application consists of four parts. PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV — CERTIFICATION are on this page. PART II and III contain additional information specific to your proposal and MUST be attached to this page to complete the application. Remember to bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted. The Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid. Filing fees are not refundable. PART TGENER,AL.INFORMATTON 1. APPLICANT NAME Envizage Development Group 2. APPLICANT ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER STREET 200 Galloway Drive CITY Yakima STATEWA ZIP 98908 PHONE 509-966-8415 MESSAGE ( ) APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN 1110 PROPERTY CHECK X OWNER ■ OWNER REPRESETATIVE ONE • CONTRACT PURCHASER • OTHER ' 4. PROPERTY OWNER (IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT) NAME 5. PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS AND PHONE OF OTHER THAN APPLICANT) STREET - CITY STATE ZIP PHONE ( ) MESSAGE ( ) 6. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 181315-31011, 181315-34037 NUMBER FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY: 7. EXISTING ZONING OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: R-1 and R-2 8. ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Vicinity of Castlevale Road and Seattle Slew Run 9. TYPE OF APPLICATION: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) ■ Class (2) Use ■ Environmental Checklist (SEPA) ❑ Right -of -Way Vacation ■ Class (3) Use ❑ Modification to Approved Class (2) & (3) Uses ❑ Short Plat Exemption x Appeal ❑ Shoreline ❑ Non -Conforming Structure/Use ❑ Utility Easement Release ❑ Preliminary Subdivision ❑ Interpretation by Hearing Examiner ❑ Short Plat X Other Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision ❑ Rezone ❑ Variance ❑ Home Occupation ❑ Administrative Adjustment $ ' LEMENTAT,, PPg ICATTGN ' P tT 1 1 -UTPSD AT7L° C N". �Yw :....:...> . EE ATTACHED SHEETS 11. I certify th t e 1 o ation ,, i this. application and the require q,,3 phments are true and correct to the best any knowledge. -_ 1 i -2/t. / 0" PROPERTY or RS SIGNATURE # / DATE fele ?ir(C 007i CP cy t taf4te'IQs SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR: A£! EAL o Of Administrative Decision o Of Building Official Decision RECEIVE NOV 2 0 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA • PLANNING DIV. 7K Of Hearing Examiner Decision o Of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Decision CHAPTER 15.16, YAKIMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE (UAZO) 1. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION BEING APPEALED: AP PEAL (GL14 f -I EAg (A!U EXA Ul I AlE12 S DSC I S lO nl Tl4-r T 4, Zoo.e c P G!- 455 (3) A xIA GL A -S S 1 2) (f S E S F7L n/D'S . UA ZO C. Li(2) M. z© -®g) UTAzo GL(3) ND. 7-e,B AA_In UAzeD ADAA A11.T 1J2 lc, -Dom, 7Al l A L FILE NO: DATE ACTION TAKEN: 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: (Attach if Lengthy) 55,4 LA.cat& 3. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF REASON FOR APPEAL: Describe the specific error(s) or issue(s) upon which the appeal is based, including an explanation of why the decision is not consistent with the Yakima Urban Area Plan, Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, or other provisions of law. (Reference the section , paragraph and page of the provision(s) cited.) (Attach if Lengthy) "-* MEFT A Revised 8-04 DOC. INDEX 8 L-/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: That portion of the North 112 of the North 112 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 13 North, Range 18, E.W.M., lying Southerly and Easterly* of the right of way of the Yakima Valley Canal Company. AND That.portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, and the Southeast 114 of the Northwest 1/4 of the.Sonihsvest 1/4 lying Easterly of the right of way of the Yakima Valley Canal Company and Northerly of a line beginning at a point on the East line of said Southwest L¢ of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, 659.90 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof; thence North 86°40'00" West 1,115 feet, more or Iess, to the Easterly right of way line of said canal; EXCEPT that portion lying Northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Southwest 1/4; thence South 89°59'18" East along the South line thereof 658.19 feet to the Southeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 15; thence South 89°58'52" East along the South line of the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 15 a distance of 69.77 feet to the Westerly right of way of North 40th Avenue, said point being on a curve concave to the East having a radius of 1050.00 feet; thence Northerly along said right of way, consuming a central angle of 00°09'48", an are length 2.99 feet, said curve having a chord bearing of North 02°21'39" East to the point of beginning of said line; thence North 89°58'52" West 304.46 feet to the point of curvature of a cure concave to the Northeast, said curve having a radius of 225.00 feet; thence Northwesterly along said carve consuming a central angle of 64°37'09" an arc lenges of 253.76 feet; thence North 25°21'42" West 466.72 feet to the point of curvature of an curve to the left having a radius of 150.00 feet; thence Northwesterly along said curve consnming a central angle of 33°00'26" an arc length of 86.41 feet to the Yak: iia a Valley Canal Company right of way and the terminus of said line. Situated in Yalna County, State of Washington. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 181315-31011 AREA CODE: 335 PARCEL B: That portion of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 13 North, Range 18, E.W.N., described as follows: Beginning 659.9 feet South of the Northeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 114 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 13 North Range 18, E.W.M.; thence North 86°40' West, 1115 feet, more or less, to the Easterly right-of-way line of the Yakima. Valley Canal; thence Southeasterly, along said right-of-way line, to the East line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section; t_ g hence.North,.375 feet to the point of beginning; 'EXCEPT beginning 659.9 feet South of the Northeast corner of the Southwest 114 of the Northeast 114 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, Township 13 North, Range IS, E.W.I![.; thence North 86°401 West, 214.40 feet; thence South 00°00' East, 337.6 feet, mare or less, to the Northeasterly right-of-way line of the ' Y alama Valley Canal; thence Southeasterly, along said right-of-way line, to the East line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section; ' thence North, 375 feet to the point of beginning. Situated in Yakima County, State of Washington. 'ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 181315-34037 AREA CODE.335 NOV 2 0 2008 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIS. DOC. INDEX # L -I Exhibit A to Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision on: Files UAZCL(2) #20-08; UAZO CL(3) #7-08; UAZO ADM A 3 #16-08 I. Identity of Appellant The appellant is Envizage Development Group, the applicant for the project. The appellant is represented by: Alison Moss Dearborn & Moss PLLC 2183 Sunset Ave SW Seattle WA 98116 Tel.: 206-923-0816 Fax:206-923-0814 Email: amoss@dearbornmoss.com II. Applicant is a "person aggrieved." RECEIVED NOV 2 0 2008 CITY OF YAKIIMI PLANNING DIV YMC 15.16.040 provides that a "person aggrieved" may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council. The Yakima Municipal Code does not define the term "person aggrieved," but the term is well understood in land use law and includes the applicant for a project. See, e.g. RCW 36.70C.060. XIX. Errors in Hearing Exami; er's Decision and Grounds fi r Appeal. General 1. Finding VIII.(3).j, page 12. This finding, which states that compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan "is not one of the 16 Environmental Elements to be addressed by a SEPA Checklist and mitigated by a SEPA MDNS" is an erroneous , interpretation of the law. The SEPA rules identify "relationship to existing land use plans and to estimated population" as an element of the environment. WAC 197-11-444(2)(b)(i). The SEPA checklist also addresses compatibility with existing and projected land uses and plans. See, SEPA Checklist, Questions B.8.f and B.B.I. 2. Finding VIII.(5), page 12. The Hearing Examiner's reference to Cingular Wireless v. Thurston County, 131 Wn. App. 756, 129 P.3d 300 (2006) ("Cingu/e) is an erroneous interpretation of the law and a misapplication of the law to the facts. Cingu/ardoes not address the question of whether compatibility with a comprehensive plan is an issue to be considered under SEPA. Page 1 of 8 DOC. INDEX # L -I • • RECEIVE The Uses Proposed hi the R-2 Zone: Apartments at a Density of 14.6 units/acre and recreation and open space amenities. N0� 2008 CITY OF YAKIf A 3. Finding IX(3).d, page 14. This Finding misconstrues YMC 15.03.030(3) ANNINO DIV! describing the general characteristics of the R-2 district, by applying it on a site - by -site basis rather than to the R-2 district as a whole. 4. Finding IX(3).e, page 15. The Hearing Examiner found that the proposed development in the R-2 zone would not comply with Comprehensive Plan Policies H3.1 and H1.6.6, which provide: "Stabilize existing, viable neighborhoods." "Encourage compatible infill of existing neighborhoods to promote lower land development and costs of facilities." a. This Finding is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. There is no evidence that the proposal will destabilize an existing neighborhood. Unsubstantiated fears of area residents are not substantial evidence in support of a land use decision. Sunder/and Family Treatment Servs v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn. 2d 782, 795, 903 P.2d 986 (1995). Additionally, the Implementing Actions for Objective H3.1 make clear that this Objective is directed to repair and maintenance of existing housing stock. b. The Hearing Examiner's interpretation of Policy H1.6.6 renders the phrase "to promote lower land development and costs of facilities" meaningless and constitutes a misinterpretation and misapplication of the Policy. c. This Finding mischaracterizes the evidence. Neighbors opposed any apartments, not the density or design of the proposed apartments. d. This Finding misinterprets "compatibility." Many provisions of the Yakima Municipal Code provide guidance on the meaning of this term and the factors to be considered in weighing compatibility. See, e.g. YMC 15.02.020 (definition of Class (3) uses and definition of intensity); YMC 15.04.010; and YMC 15.05.020.F. e. This Finding and other Findings throughout the Hearing Examiner's Decision make clear that he based his decision on neighborhood opposition. This approach violates well established case law holding that neighborhood opposition alone may not be the basis of a. land use decision. Tugwell v. City of Ellensburg, 90 Wn. App. 1, 951 P.2d 272(1997), citing, Sunder/and Family Treatment Servs v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn. 2d 782, 797, 903 P.2d 986 (1995); Indian Trail Property Owners' Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 76 Wn. App. 430, 439, 886 P.2d 209 (1994). Page 2 of 8 DOC. INDEX # L--1 f. The Hearing Examiner is authorized to interpret the Comprehensive Plan. He must interpret it in a manner consistent with legislative intent. In this Finding, the Hearing Examiner essentially delegated to neighbors his authority to interpret the Comprehensive Plan. The Finding 'RECEIVED therefore, outside of his authority. ANO ti' 0 2008 5. Finding IX.4(d)(iii), page 18. This Finding states, in part, that: CITY OF YAKIMA 'The density and intensity of the proposed apartments preserr NNING DIV. compatibility problems with visual appearance and building size, traffic generation, noise and light. The topography of the area exaggerates these problems." a. This Finding misinterprets and misapplies YMC 15.03.030(3), which provides that a density of 13-18 units per net residential acre may be permitted if the location and site plan of the project achieve compatibility with neighboring land uses and the level of public services and the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. b. This Finding conflicts with Finding IX.4(d)(vii), page 19. c. This Finding conflicts with the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignifcance ("MDNS"), which the Hearing Examiner upheld. d. The Finding regarding visual appearance, building size, noise and light is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, is an erroneous interpretation of the law, and a misapplication of the law to the facts. e. The Finding regarding traffic generation fails to consider the Concurrency determination, conflicts with the only expert evidence in the record, is not supported by substantial evidence, and is improperly based on unsubstantiated fears. Sunderland Family Treatment Servs v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn. 2d 782, 795 (1995). f. The applicant has shown a willingness and an ability to mitigate each impact of concern to the opponents. Maranatha Mining Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 804 (1990); Kenart & Assoc. v. Skagit County, 37 Wn. App. 295, 302-303 rev. denied 101 Wn.2d 1021 (1984). Opponents simply oppose any apartments on this property. g. The Finding regarding topography is not supported by competent or expert evidence in the record and is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The record demonstrates that the topography mitigates the impacts of the proposal. h. The Finding conflicts with Finding IX.4(d)(vii), page 19, that the location of the larger swimming pool for the apartments, nearly 400 feet from the nearest existing residence, would promote compatibility with the neighborhood. Page 3 of 8 DOC. INDEX Receveo r` O vOF 2y2Bnt. 008 Cliff' �4�t 6. Finding IX.4(d)(iv), page 19. This Finding states that, since there are no �NINO bit' apartments in the immediate area, the proposed density of the apartments would stand out and that the level of activity would be in "sharp contrast" to the level of activity in the existing neighborhood of single -family homes.- a. This Finding would apply to any apartments, not just those with a density greater than 12 units/acre. It misinterpretsand misapplies YMC 15.03.030(3). b. This Finding misinterprets "compatibility" and fails to consider the site-specific and design-specific factors which make the apartments compatible with neighboring land uses. c. This Finding is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Uses in the R-1 Zone: One and Two Story Duplexes at a Density of 5.67 units/acre. 7. Finding X(3).d, page 22. This Finding misconstrues -YMC 15.03.030(2), describing the general characteristics of the R-1 district, by applying it on a site - by -site basis rather than to the R-1 district as a whole. 8. Finding X.3(e), page 22. The Hearing Examiner found, based solely on testimony of neighbors, that the proposed duplexes would not comply with Comprehensive Plan Objective L2, Policy H1.6.2, and Policy G9.3. This Objective and these Policies provide: "Establish a pattern of development that supports a sense of community." "Encourage compatible infill of existing neighborhoods to promote lower land development and costs of facilities." "Encourage infill development with new construction that is compatible with the scale and density of the surrounding housing." a. This Finding and other Findings throughout the Hearing Examiner's decision make clear that he based his decision on neighborhood opposition. This approach violates well established case law. Tugwell v. City of Ellensburg, 90 Wn. App. 1, 951 P.2d 272(1997), citing, Sunderland Family Treatment Servs v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn. 2d 782, 797, 903 P.2d 986 (1995); Indian Trail Property Owners' Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 76 Wn. App. 430, 439, 886 P.2d 209 (1994). b. In this Finding, the Hearing Examiner essentially delegated to neighbors his authority to interpret the Comprehensive Plan. The Finding is, therefore, outside of his authority. Page 4 of 8 DOC. INDEX # L -- / ilecei vet) c. This Finding misinterprets and misapplies the referencedN0V 2 Comprehensive Plan Policies. •08 IT TY OF d. This Finding misinterprets and misapplies "compatibility." re'4/Vivifi pr e. This Finding ignores applicable Comprehensive Plan Objectives and Policies, including G1, G4, G4.1, G4.2, G4.7, G9, G9.4, H1, H1.2, H2, which provide: "Strengthen the Urban Area's role as the focal point for activities in Central Washington." "Manage the location and design of new development to minimize initial and future public and private costs." "New urban development should be encouraged to locate first, within the City limits..." "New urban development should be encouraged to be contiguous to existing development to avoid the inefficient "leap -frog" pattern of growth." "Encourage development that shortens the distance between residential areas, schools, shopping and employment centers." "Encourage quality design while achieving economic growth patterns." "Encourage ... multi -family developments to locate in distinct clusters in planned growth areas." "Encourage diverse and affordable housing choices." "Facilitate small lot sizes ... condominiums, clustering and other options which increase the supply of affordable homeownership options." "Provide homeownership opportunities." 9. Finding X.4, pages 23-27. This Finding relates to the intent of the R-1 district. a. This Finding conflicts with the MDNS, which the Hearing Examiner upheld. b. This Finding interprets YMC 15.03.030(2) in a way that makes YMC 15.03.030(2)(b) meaningless. It is an erroneous interpretation of the law. c. This Finding misinterprets and misapplies YMC 15.02.020 which provides that Class 2 uses are generally permitted throughout the district. d. This Finding violates well established case law. Tugwell v. City of Ellensburg, 90 Wn. App. 1, 951 P.2d 272(1997), citing, Sunderland Family Treatment Servs v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn. 2d 782, 797, 903 P.2d 986 Page 5 of 8 DOC. INDEX # ,(_ -- • • X01/ 2 (1995); Indian Trail Property Owners' Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 76 Vy 0 200 App. 430, 439, 886 P.2d 209 (1994). iot4 P 8 41/416+ irk e. This Finding misinterprets compatibility and fails to consider the D/k site-specific and design -specific factors which make the one and two story duplexes compatible with the intent and character of the R-1 district. f. Former Hearing Examiner Lamb's decision in City of Yakima No. CL (3) #6-99 is not applicable to the facts presented in this case and does not provide precedent for interpreting compatibility of the proposed duplexes with the intent and character of the R-1 district. g. The Finding regarding the "amphitheatereffect" of the subject property is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. h. The Finding regarding "different living styles of the duplex structures" is unsupported by any evidence in the record. It is also "unreviewable." Kenart & Assoc. v. Skagit County, 37 Wn. App. 295, 302- 303 rev. denied 101 Wn.2d 1021 (1984). i. The "expectations" of some of the neighbors in 1996 is not relevant to the determination of whether the proposed Class 2 use is compatible with the intent and character of the of the R-1 district. Giving any weight to such "expectations" is outside of the Hearing Examiner's authority and constitutes a misinterpretation of the law and a misapplication of the law to the facts. j. The finding that the 28 duplexes along the canal would result in "about a 75% increase in traffic for the duplex uses with corresponding increase in activity, noise, light and glare" is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and directly conflicts with the only expert evidence in the record regarding the traffic generation of the duplexes. k. The suggested "blending" of uses by placing "mirror images" of the lots and types of structures across the canal .would not achieve compatibility. It simply moves the location at which compatibility is measured. It is an erroneous interpretation of the law and a misapplication of the law to the facts. Administrative Adjustments 10. Finding IX.4(d)(ii), page 18, and Finding IX.4(d)(vi), page 19.' These Findings state that the requested administrative lot coverage .and rear setback adjustments are requested solely to incorporate residential uses in the development that have a higher density than would otherwise be permitted. These Findings are erroneous and are not supported by any evidence in the record, much less substantial evidence. Page 6 of 8 DOC. INDEX # L -/ Consistency of Uses with YMC 16.06.020.6. RECEIVE1>!� NOV 2 0 2000 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 11. Findings XII(1)-(4), page 27. These Findings are in error for all of the reasons identified in Paragraphs 1-10 above. Conclusions 12. Conclusion (3), page 28. The portion of this Conclusion which relates to the Class 2 and 3 Uses and Administrative Adjustments is in error for all of the reasons identified in Paragraphs 1-11 above. 13. Conclusion (4), page 28. This Conclusion is in error for all of the reasons identified in Paragraphs 1-11 above. Decisions 14. Decision (2), page 29. The portion of this Decision which relates to the Class 2 and 3 Uses and Administrative Adjustments is in error for all of the reasons identified in Paragraphs 1-13 above. 15. Decision (4), page 29. This Decision constitutes an error of law. The MDNS was appealed and upheld by the Hearing Examiner. No further appeal to the City is permitted. WAC 197- 11-680(3)(iv); YMC 6.88.170. Conflict with Chapter 36.70B RCW The Decision denying the Class 2 and 3 uses based on density conflicts with Chapter 36.70B RCW, the Local Project Review Act. Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations serve as the foundation for project review. RCW 36.706.030(1). Applicable regulations are determinative of the type of land use permitted at the site, the density of residential development in urban growth areas, and availability of public facilities. RCW 36.706.030(2). During project review, the Page 7 of 8 DOC. INDEX # L_1 • • local government may not reexamine alternatives to or hear appeals on these three items. RECEIVED Page 8 of 8 • NOV 2 ® 2008 CITY OF VAKIMA PLANNING DIV DOC. INDEX # L-/ • TOSCANNA DEVELOPMENT UAZO CL(3)#7-08, UAZO CL(2)#20-08, UAZO ADM ADJ#16-08, EC#19-08, SEPA Appeal #4-08, Appeal#4-08 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER M Public Hearing DVD's EXH D1VIFN. �a � D it M-1 Audio tapes of 1996 City Council hearings are available upon request. 06/11/19% 07/16/1996 M-2 DVD: Joint Yakima City Council —Yakima County Commission Meeting 06/25/1996 M-3 DVD: Hearing Examiner Public Hearing (3 DVD's) 08/14/2008 M-4 DVD and Audio Tape: Hearing Examiner Reconvened Public Hearing 10/21/2008 VD and Au. io Tape: Hearing Examiner Recti nvene Public Hearing held on October. 21, 2008. DOC. INDEX # M 4 VD: Hearing Examiner Public Hearing held on August 14, 2008 (3 DVD's) DOC. INDEX 0 M_3 • • DV 1 : Joint Yakima City Council - Yaki F a County Commission Meeting held on June 25, 1996 DOC. INDEX M 2_ Audio cassette tapes_ for the City Council hearings of June 11, 1996 and July 25, 1996 are available upon request. DOC. INDEX #- I