HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-15 YPC PacketCOMMUNITY Y DEVE OP ENI' DEPARTMENT
Joan Davenport, AICD, Director
Planning Division
129I.Vorth Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, a, i rrarir:ng-1 n 448901
Phone (50) 575-6183 - Fax (509)575-6105
City of Yakima Planning Commission
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
City Hall Council Chambers
Monday August 17, 2015
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
YPC Members:
Chairman Dave Fonfara, Vice -Chair Scott Clark, Al Rose,
Bill Cook, Patricia Byers, Ron Anderson, Carmen Mendez
FOW":'HE
Ci Planning Staff:
Joan Davenport (Community Development Director/Planning Manager); Jeff Peters (Supervising
Planner); Valerie Smith (Senior Planner); Robbie Aaron and Trevor Martin (Assistant Planners);
Rosalinda Ibarra (Administrative Assistant); and Lisa Maxey (Department Assistant)
Agenda
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. STUDY SESSION: 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
• CPA#002-15 - Larry Hull
• CPA#006-15 - Westwood West Corporation
CPA#009-15 - Johnson Family Century 21 LLC
IV. Adjourn
Next Meeting: August 26, 2015
CITY Of . AJUMA
YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSSION
City Hall Council Chambers
SIGN -IN SHEET
STUDY SESSION DATE: Monday August 17. 2015
A. LARRY HULL (CPA#002-15) B. WESTWOOD WEST CORP (CPA#006-15)
— Vicinity of Division St & S 3rd Ave Vicinity of S 641h Ave & Tieton Dr
C. JOHNSON FAMILY CENTURY 21 LLC (CPA#009-15)
Vicinity of Summitview Ave& N 52nd Ave
Mark X on item of interest
NAME
ADDRESS
ZIP CODE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
A B
Z3
-1
bmr_ -1
r -,X
Zzeta
Yakima Planning Commission Sign -In Sheet — 08/17/2015
Date: June 11, 2015
To: City of Yakima, Planning Dept
From: Concerned Yakima Citizens
Re: CPA #006-15 Westwood West Corp
FOFI QED
J N 7f�fi
CITY Of YAKftivi,-,
We the undersigned Yakima Citizens, businesses, and property owners, strongly object to the proposed change in
land use designation from Single-family Residential (R-1) to Professional Business (B-1), Small Convenience Center
(SCC), Multi -family Residential (R-3), and Two-family Residential (R-2).
We would greatly appreciate being informed of any hearings that will place in reference to this land use request.
I
Date: June 11, 2015
To: City of Yakima, Planning Dept
From: Concerned Yakima Citizens
Re: CPA #006-15 Westwood West Corp
We the undersigned Yakima Citizens, businesses, and property owners, strongly object to the proposed change in
land use designation from Single-family Residential (R-1) to Professional Business (B-1), Small Convenience Center
(SCC), Multi -family Residential (R:3), and Two-family Residential (R-2).
We would greatly appreciate being informed of any hearings that will place in reference to this land use request.
Smith, Valerie
From: Nancy Morter <nancy.morter@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 5:06 PM JUNE 2 4 2015
To: Smith, Valerie
Subject: c a#006-15 Q-Wf F YAMV!o�
Valerie,
I spoke with you today about the Westwood proposal. Following are my comments, I was unable to figure how to submit them through
the website. Thank You, Nancy Wetch.
We cannot fault the proposer for wanting to change this property from R-1 to a multitude of mixed use designations because of the
potential land sale values.
However, we would be opposed based on the following criteria;
1. The proposed surrounding areas and uses are all R-1 from Pickens Road to well beyond S. 60th avenue and this change was not what
the surrounding neighbors signed up for as designated as the future of this area. Maps and plans were provided and have always been
identified on GIS mapping as well as part of all residences Title packages.
2. If the Property Owner or Owners of said proposal would like to buy all S. 60th Residences and Pickens Road Residences at
Commercial pricing which we'll call 200% of fair market value or purchase price the proposer could improve all frontages. South 60th to
Arlington, Arlington to South 64th, Arlington to Pickens Road. All residences would then have a street buffer and proper turning lanes
could be provided to alleviate congestion on Tieton and other arterials.
3. 1 would contend that Arlington is not contiguous and not sized or extended to be a major arterial for Commercial or Small
Convenience. If/When Arlington is extended and/or sized appropriately I could see access coming of S. 64th and not through residential
streets.
4. This Plan is to generic and needs a Traffic Analysis, Study and more finalized Plan for consideration. This plan is to open to
interpretation and has so many different proposed uses which must be to try and appease what will more than likely not be well
received by surrounding neighbors? I'm not sure if we have what's called a "planned development" any more but with all these
different proposed uses it warrants better planning and dialog.
5. 1 strongly feel the Owner or proposers of this plan could utilize a similar plan on the already designated Commercial property along Nob
Hill and along S. 64th but in a smaller scale and perhaps with better planning with the surrounding R-1 neighborhood in mind.
6. The proposer or proposers could also utilize the already designated Commercial frontages and similar sized properties planned and
not currently being utilized along Nob Hill. If/When those properties are filled with Commercial properties other Commercial properties
should be planned and considered by the City.
7. Should this proposal be considered we request that a condition be established that residences get "first right of refusal" at fair market
value for the R-1 property directly behind their existing residences along Perkins and S. 60th Ave. At least that may provide an
opportunity or buffer for the Residential Properties who did not purchase R-1 Property in an R-1 Neighborhood to now be adjacent to
Commercial Property with the potential for high volume and commercial traffic through R-1 neighborhoods. We already have concerns
about S. both Ave to Arlington and Commercial property off Nob Hill.
8. We also strongly recommend that the City vacate Mac Laren Street to eliminate through traffic. Property right-of-way should be turned
over to adjacent properties ( no through traffic potential similar to Pickens) and the proposer pay the City reimbursement land costs
and utility line capping.
Sincerely,
702 S. 60th Ave
YAKIMA RECUONAL,
June 17, 2015
N AIR
329 North First Street, Paloma IJA 98901
v Phone: (509) 834-2050 Fax: (509) 534-2060
lf'ebSl L. 7t J: N N 1t.J(I (JIIaC CCIn oN�oNti�o���r
Joan Davenport, Community Development Director
City of Yakima Planning Division
129 North Second Street. 2„d Floor
Yakima, WA 98901
RE: SEPA#06-15- Rezoning for Elves Family Investments
Dear Ms. Davenport:
Thank you for providing the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency (YRCAA) the opportunity to review
and comment on SEPA#06-15 for comprehensive plan map amendment, rezone and environmental
review of the property located at the vicinity of S. 41St Ave & Nob Hill Blvd, Yakima, WA. The
applicant plans on removing a house and built a parking on the adjacent property parcel.
Following review, YRCAA has the following comment:
1. Contractors doing demolition, excavation, clearing, construction, or landscaping work must file a
Dust Control Plan with YRCAA, prior to the start of any work; and
2. A Notification of Demolition and Renovation (NODR) application must be filed with YRCAA and
the appropriate fee should be paid;
3. Prior to demolishing and renovating any structures 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. This project is located within Yakima's Urban Growth Area; therefore, burning is prohibited at all
times.
Thank you for the opportunity to connect with the county's continued support in protecting the air
quality in Yakima County.
Best regards,
f sa l TaliKh.D.
Engineering and Planning Division Supervisor
Cc: Proponent and File
t. y
(g� "k�e�
SIII,AIIII 0111:W44III.IIII111h4 nl1'0I'i1�
1) F III:"A R N/1III IJ...F CAIII- ECULOGY
June 19, 2015
Valerie Smith
City of Yakima Community Development
128 North 2nd Street, 2`1 Floor
Yakima, WA 98901
Re: SEPA 012-15
Dear Ms. Smith:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment during the optional determination of nonsignificance
process for the change the Future Land Use Map designation for the property from Low Density
Residential to a consortium of Professional Office, Regional Commercial, Medium Density
Residential and High -Density Residential and Rezone from Single -Family Residential to
Professional Business, Small Convenience Center, Two -Family Residential & Multi -family
Residential. This is proposed by Westwood West Corporation. We have reviewed the documents
and have the following comments.
TOXICS CLEAN-UP
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 Model Toxics Control Act cleanup levels Ecology recommends that
potential buyers be notified of their occurrence.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these Toxics Clean-up comments, please
contact Valerie Bound at (509) 454-7886 or email at valer ie.boLiticl i,)ec .wa. goNi.
Sincerely,
i
Gwen Clear'
Environmental Review Coordinator
�ro
Central Regional Office
(509) 575-2012,;n
r°_OsKc V a, C 0 C r drrr rta ov
f . yv XX�y
4309
YAA VALLEY CANAL CO
1640 GARRETSON LANE
YAKIMA, WA 98908
PHONE 509-966-2300
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
TO: Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director
City of Yakima, Department of Community Development
129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901
FROM: Yakima Valley Canal Company
DATE: 6/17/2015
1TY CP YA..IMA.
CODE ,DMITJ,, OVIISION
.C,vo IAXED
PAID '
SUBJECT: Westwood West Corporation — CPA #006-15, RZ#006-15, SEPA #012-15
COMMENTS:
The subject property is within Yakima Valley Canal Company's service area. Yakima Valley
Canal Company has no objection to development of subject property, as long as it complies with
Yakima Valley Canal Company Bylaws Article XXIV.
Article XXIV
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 the proposed platting or subdivision.
kw,,��"
Robert Smoot
Manager�y
Yakima Valley Canal Co. COT
Smith, Valerie
From:
Planning PostCard
Sent:
Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:05 AM
To:
Smith, Valerie
Subject:
FW: CPA#006-15
FYI
Lisp Maxey
c1partment Assistcan.t 11
(509) 576-6669
City of Yakima Planning Division
129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901
From: Steven Branch[mailto:steven.branch@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 10:05 PM
To: Planning PostCard
Subject: CPA#006-15
Hello,
I am commenting on the proposed zoning and use changes to the Westwood West Golf Course (CPA#006-15).
Our home borders the west side of the course which was a key reason we purchased our home. As such, our
preference would be for the golf course to remain. Yet, we recognize the owners right to use their property as
they see fit within reasonable considerations. We appreciate the proposals attempt to reflect the existing
surrounding zoning and allowed use along with the attempt to reflect the adjacent single family properties
such as our own. However, without seeing a development plan, our primary concern is the relatively small
single family lots being proposed adjacent to existing single family lots. Compared to all adjacent lots, these
new proposed lots are quite shallow. We ask for single family lots at least 150' deep where adjacent to
existing single family lots. We feel this will allow a greater reflection of the surrounding homes, have less an
impact on our home values, and still allow the golf course owners to achieve their goals. Please require larger
single family lots than currently proposed.
Sincerely,
Steven Branch
509-480-9685
701 Pickens Rd.
Yakima, WA 98908
Maxe , Lisa
From: Karen & Joe Zook [gadzooks7@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 4:58 PM
To: Planning PostCard
Subject: Comment on CPA #006-15, 6-4-15, Westwood West Corp.
City of Yakima Planning Department
129 N. 2nd St..
Yakima, WA 98901
June 23, 2015
RE: Westwood West Corp proposed zoning changes, CPA #006-15
We oppose the proposed zoning changes, for several reasons, the main reason being that this will destroy the character
of the existing neighborhoods and decrease the quality of life in the area.
We currently live on Pickens Road. We would suggest that you drive down Pickens road, along with the neighborhood to
the East of the existing golf course. These are neighborhoods of single family, (mostly) owner occupied homes.
Homeowners in this area have pride in ownership. We have four local law enforcement officers, teachers, an attorney,
owners/co owners of local businesses, other professionals, young families and retirees living on Pickens Road. Bringing
commercial and multi -residential units to this area will cause a decrease in the quality of life for those of us in the
existing neighborhoods:
This will cause a large burden on the existing schools in the area, which are already crowded. We do not see
anything in the proposed zoning change to address that. Who will pay for a new school or schools for the
additional children? West Valley School District residents are already taxed at a high rate, and the last bond
request failed. People are tired of paying more and more taxes.
Traffic congestion will increase. The proposed improvement to the intersection of 64th and Tieton will help with
traffic flow, but this project will increase, not decrease the number of cars on the roads.
Noise will increase. Starting with the construction of these proposed projects, and continuing with the addition of
hundreds more people living in the area. This will be very disruptive to the existing homes and residents in the
area.
Along with increased noise, crime will increase. Simply put, more people equal more crimes. There is nothing in the
proposal addressing the need for more law enforcement in the area.
Property values of existing homes will decrease.
There is no need for additional commercial development here. There are several vacant commercial properties for
sale within a mile of here, and there is a small commercial building across Tieton from Pickens road that cannot
keep tenants. The last thing this neighborhood needs is another Pizza place, Nail salon, Cell phone store,
Mexican restaurant, Mini market etc. We have enough! There is a large commercial shopping complex on 72"d
and Tieton that has more than enough stores, and of course there is the Walmart complex on 64th and Nob Hill.
We would also like to point out an error in the Rezone Narrative about wildlife in the area. There are many more birds
here than are listed. For one, there is a pair of Red-tailed hawks that roost in the trees on the existing golf course. There
are also falcons including American Kestrel, Merlin (in fall and winter) and Prairie falcon. In addition, there are Barn,
Great Horned and Western Screech owls on the course. We are birders and have kept a list of the birds seen here since
we moved here in 2011. We have logged 77 species.
If this proposed rezone and development are approved, provisions should be made to preserve as many of the beautiful
old trees as possible. This should be incorporated into the development plans.
We knew that this property was platted for single family homes when we moved here. We understand that the golf
course will not be here forever, but we believe that this commercial and multi -unit residential proposal is unnecessary
and unreasonable. If the course is to be developed, we believe that it should be done according to the original plan, with
single family homes. Perhaps single family homes built with seniors (55 and over) in mind. We are acquainted with a
local realtor who tells us there is a demand for senior housing, as Yakima is gaining popularity as a place to retire. In
addition, seniors would not increase the burden on local schools.
This proposal does not serve this neighborhood; rather, it serves developers, builders and landlords.
Sincerely,
Joe and Karen Zook
625 Pickens Road
Yakima, WA 98908
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
Maxey, Lisa
From: Arthur Busch Dabusch@me.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 5:15 PM
To: Planning PostCard
Subject: CPA #006-15
This is a total sell out to developers, it is an inappropriate change in zoning which will
hurt my property values and destroy the character of this residential area. Just say no!
Arthur Busch
806 Pickens Rd.
Yakima, WA 98908
Sent from my iPad
I
Maxey, Lisa
From: City of Yakima Web [web@ci.yakima.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 1:17 PM
To: Planning PostCard
Subject: Comments on Land Use Application: CPA#006-15
Comments on Land Use Application Comments on Land Use Application:
CPA#006-15
Name: Annette Garcia
Address:
809 S 60th Ave
Email:
graodmaoaar is@bot ll. orr
Subject:
Comments on Land Use Application Comments on Land Use Application: CPA#006-15
Message:
Would like updates on CPA#006-15
1
Maxey, Lisa
From: Mary Vetter [findingrecipes@gmai1.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 10:06 AM
To: Planning PostCard
Subject: CPA#006-15
My husband & I are very opposed to the changes that Westwood West Corp is proposing. This
area is a family community area. We have lived on Pickens Road for 17 years. We would like to
see the area remain as R-1.
Chester & Mary Vetter
709 Pickens Road
Yakima, WA 98908
Sent from my iPad
1
Maxey, Lisa
From: City of Yakima Web [web@ci.yakima.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 9:49 PM
To: Planning PostCard
Subject: Comments on Land Use Application: CPA#006-15
Comments on Land Use Application Comments on Land Use Application:
CPA#006-15
Name: Robert and Beverly Valdez
Address:
713 Pickens Road, Yakima, WA. 98908
Email:
v I,: grrr�ail„ rrI
Subject:
Comments on Land Use Application Comments on Land Use Application: CPA#006-15
Message:
We and the other home owners on our road, Pickens Road, are very concerned about the zoning
being changed from single family to small business, convenience center and multi family zoning.
These types of structures will greatly diminish the value of our properties and bring unwanted traffic
to our backyards. This is an established neighborhood in which we have lived for 20 years and many
others have purchased and or invested money into their homes with the thought that the property in
question would continue to be a golf course or R1 zoning.
Our request is that each parcel directly behind our existing parcels be kept to single family
residential. Those new property owners then will purchase with the knowledge that new zoning is in
place for whatever the land owners deem profitable.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Robert and Beverly Valdez
Maxe Lisa
From: Planning PostCard
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 12:00 PM
To: 'gwetch@loofburrow.com'
Subject: RE: Comments on Land Use Application: CPA#006-15
Attachments: NOTICE OF APPLICATION & SEPA - Westwood West Corp - CPA.pdf
Hi Gary,
Attached is the full Notice of Application and SEPA containing the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the
Environmental (SEPA) Checklist.
Thanks!
Lisa Maxey
Department Assistant 11
(509) 576-6669
U,si? xgd�yakimaw iL,g v.
City of Yakima Planning Division
129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901
From: City of Yakima Web _ irn ma .0 ]
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 8:17 AM
To: Planning PostCard
Subject: Comments on Land Use Application: CPA#006-15
Comments on Land Use Application Comments on Land Use Application:
CPA#006-15
Name: Gary Wetch
Address:
702 S. 60th Ave
,f wet+ ar . ww Mrw
Subject:
Comments on Land Use Application Comments on Land Use Application: CPA#006-15
Message:
Please send me an electronic copy of the SEPA Application, and any other documents such as the
COMP Plan Amendment, etc.
Gary Kissling
5101 Summitview Ave.
Unit 6
Yakima, WA 98908
June 18, 2015
Valerie Smith
City of Yakima
Planning Department
129 N 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
RE: CPA#0009-15
Dear Ms. Smith,
I reside at the above address. The property address represents a unit in a Horizontal Property
Regime known as Georgian Estates. I did not receive mailing notice of the above referenced
rezone action by the City of Yakima. I object to the change of zone proposed in the application.
Summitview Avenue is routinely heavily congested by a combination of morning and evening
commuter traffic between 56th Avenue and 48th Avenue. Further congestion is routinely caused
by traffic entering and exiting both Solarity Credit Union and the daycare facility immediately
West of the credit union. Adding the limitation to visibility caused by the hill crest on
Summitview Avenue, I cannot envision how developers might mitigate the impact of additional
traffic from the proposed business tract.
I would suggest that the City review the ordinances relative to notification of land use action.
The Yakima County Assessor's depiction of the Georgian Estates condominium units is
inaccurate and misleading. Identification of the Assessor's tax lot is based on the legal
description in the Assessor's records. The description is not reflected in the drawing on the
county's GIS mapping system. All 19 unit owners in Georgian Estates are "Fee" holders within
300 feet of the proposed rezone. I believe failure to properly notify all of the owners may be
cause to set aside the entire land use action. I believe you may wish to review with the city
attorney, your department's interpretation of the ordinance.
Please consider mw.a party of interest for this rezone..
Sincerely, ��wwa�,µ �,✓`
Gary Kissling
1"I i u
w der,}
1 1 ° III:'A 1Z, .I.. N E P,,J III... 0 III E 0"D III.0 G °Y
June 19, 2015
Valerie Smith
City of Yakima Community Development
128 North 2n6 Street, 2nd Floor
Yakima, WA 98901
Re: SEPA 016-15
Dear Ms. Smith:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment during the optional determination of
nonsignificance process for the change the Future Land Use Map designation for the
property from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial, and Rezone
from Two -Family Residential to Local Business. This is proposed by Johnson Family
Century 21, LLC. We have reviewed the documents and have the following comments.
TOXICS CLEAN-UP
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 Model Toxics Control Act cleanup
levels Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these Toxics Clean-up comments,
please contact Valerie Bound at (509) 454-7886 or email at yalerre boL1nd(i?) ,c;r,1
Sincerely,
td
Gwen Clear
Environmental Review Coordinator (�
Central Regional OfficeMr
( ) CoA/ p,
cros T5 Sct-dt rtor,(i !�,c w . yc; v °. � u,
4308k.e4g��f'
6.� r
Maxey, Lisa
From: City of Yakima Web [web@ci.yakima.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 9:26 PM
To: Planning PostCard
Subject: Comments on Land Use Application: CPA#009-15
Comments on Land Use Application Comments on Land Use Application:
CPA#009-15
Name: Robert Bruce Kite
Address:
5101 Summitview Ave
Email:
bkite99�@gmaii.com
Subject:
Comments on Land Use Application Comments on Land Use Application: CPA#009-15
Message:
As a resident in Unit 15 I object to changing the Zoning designation as proposed in this application.
When I purchased this home less than one year ago, there was no indication of a major change in
land use next door. My reason to move here is related to a major health challenge that I am dealing
with. This home provided wheelchair accessibility and a peaceful setting as I watch my life slip away
due to the untreatable diagnosis of ALS or Lou Gehrig's Disease.
Please retain the R2 designation of land in this application that my last 2 or 3 years life expectancy
are not disrupted.
Sincerely
Bruce Kite, MD
June 22, 2015
To: Yakima City Planning Division
RE: Johnson Family Century 21 LLC Application No. CPA#009-15
Dear City Planners:
The Georgian Estates Condominium Association would like you to consider the following comments
relating to the zoning change that is being proposed on the property adjacent to the Association
property.
Let me begin by saying that not all of the association members received the notice of the proposed
change even though all of us are part owners in each other's property. In addition, I think that the
Association itself should have received the notice which, we did not.
Regardless, the Association itself would like to say that we are opposed to the zoning change from R-2 to
B-2 for the approximately 4.25 acres outlined on the map for the following reasons:
• We are very concerned about the potential increase in traffic that a business development
would add to an already busy, and dangerous stretch of Summitview Ave.
The proposed "buffer" zone that would remain R-2 appears to be inadequate, at best, especially
considering that an access road would need to be put in for the remaining property that would
retain the R-2 zoning.
• We are also concerned about noise, lighting, etc. that a business development would add to the
peaceful setting that we presently have.
• Most of the unit owners took the R-2 zoning into consideration when choosing to purchase their
unit. We suspect that our property values would decline if the zoning change is allowed. In
addition, we are concerned that the attractiveness of future buyers would decline also.
Please take these concerns, and those of the individual Association members into consideration in
making your final decision on this matter. We believe strongly that the zoning for this parcel should
remain R-2.
Finally, while I am writing this on behalf of the Association, please consider the contents of this letter as
my personal reasons why I believe that the zoning request should not be approved.
Respectfully,
Paul Regi tubal, President, Georgian Estates Condominium Association
5101 Summitview Ave., Unit 19, Yakima, WA 98908 JON
Bob and Anne Massong
5101 Summitview Avenue # 11 E-mail: bobmassong@charter.net
Yakima, WA 98908 Telephone: 509-965-3826
June 20, 2015
Valerie Smith
City of Yakima
Planning Department
129 N 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Dear Ms. Smith:
�6
Re: CPA #009-15, RZ #009-15, SEPA #016-15
Although we are within 300 feet of the proposed rezone, we did not receive a mailing
notice on the above referenced rezone by the City of Yakima.
We object to the rezone proposed in the application for the following reasons:
Summitview Avenue traffic between 48th Avenue and 56th Avenue is very
congested now.
o At times it can be considered hazardous in front of the existing
commercial establishments (Kinder Care, Banner Bank, Chase and the
existing convenience/gas business) with traffic crossing over the existing 2
lanes at times.
o As stated in Part III, the "property is becoming difficult to farm due ... to
an increase of traffic along Summitview Avenue, which makes it difficult
to access..." If the owner of the property now feels the property is
difficult to access, where he/she has a view of traffic going east and west,
what will happen if a commercial rezone is approved and the new egress
cannot provide the existing east and west view of traffic due to the slope
of the property?
o Currently a driver has limited visibility going west on Summitview
Avenue past 51 st due to a hill crest. The proposed egress will only add an
additional hazard - cars will cross over the existing 2 lanes to enter the
property and cars/commercial vehicles properly entering/exiting the
property could be subject to rear -end accidents due to the limited visibility
issue above.
o We do not feel the residential buffer suggested for this property is
adequate and leaves a lot to desire.
o We feel rezoning this property will not only devalue the property at
Georgian Estates but also the neighborhood surrounding it.
Re: CPA #009-15, RZ #009-15, SEPA #016-15
Although we are within 300 feet of the proposed rezone, we did not receive a mailing
notice on the above referenced rezone by the City of Yakima.
We object to the rezone proposed in the application for the following reasons:
Summitview Avenue traffic between 48th Avenue and 56th Avenue is very
congested now.
o At times it can be considered hazardous in front of the existing
commercial establishments (Kinder Care, Banner Bank, Chase and the
existing convenience/gas business) with traffic crossing over the existing 2
lanes at times.
o As stated in Part III, the "property is becoming difficult to farm due ... to
an increase of traffic along Summitview Avenue, which makes it difficult
to access..." If the owner of the property now feels the property is
difficult to access, where he/she has a view of traffic going east and west,
what will happen if a commercial rezone is approved and the new egress
cannot provide the existing east and west view of traffic due to the slope
of the property?
o Currently a driver has limited visibility going west on Summitview
Avenue past 51 st due to a hill crest. The proposed egress will only add an
additional hazard - cars will cross over the existing 2 lanes to enter the
property and cars/commercial vehicles properly entering/exiting the
property could be subject to rear -end accidents due to the limited visibility
issue above.
o We do not feel the residential buffer suggested for this property is
adequate and leaves a lot to desire.
o We feel rezoning this property will not only devalue the property at
Georgian Estates but also the neighborhood surrounding it.
Since the last relevant comprehensive plan was considered, large residential
subdivisions in the west valley area have continued to be built. However, those
subdivisions are further west and should not be considered as a change of
circumstances since the last comprehensive plan.
o It was indicated that the nearby shopping centers (Chalet Place, West Park
and Glenwood) remain at 100% capacity. Why are there empty spaces in
those shopping centers — especially Glenwood?
o There are other properties that should be considered that would be closer
to the new residential subdivisions being built which could provide better
egress to the property and avoid the hazards that this property presents.
Please consider us to be a party of interest in this rezone.
)Sit erely,
Bob and Ar
Gary Kissling
5101 Summitview Ave.
Unit 6
Yakima, WA 98908
June 18, 2015
Valerie Smith
City of Yakima
Planning Department
129 N 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
RE: CPA#0009-15
Dear Ms. Smith,
I reside at the above address. The property address represents a unit in a Horizontal Property
Regime known as Georgian Estates. I did not receive mailing notice of the above referenced
rezone action by the City of Yakima. I object to the change of zone proposed in the application.
Summitview Avenue is routinely heavily congested by a combination of morning and evening
commuter traffic between 56th Avenue and 48th Avenue. Further congestion is routinely caused
by traffic entering and exiting both Solarity Credit Union and the daycare facility immediately
West of the credit union. Adding the limitation to visibility caused by the hill crest on
Summitview Avenue, I cannot envision how developers might mitigate the impact of additional
traffic from the proposed business tract.
I would suggest that the City review the ordinances relative to notification of land use action.
The Yakima County Assessor's depiction of the Georgian Estates condominium units is
inaccurate and misleading. Identification of the Assessor's tax lot is based on the legal
description in the Assessor's records. The description is not reflected in the drawing on the
county's GIS mapping system. All 19 unit owners in Georgian Estates are "Fee" holders within
300 feet of the proposed rezone. I believe failure to properly notify all of the owners may be
cause to set aside the entire land use action. I believe you may wish to review with the city
attorney, your department's interpretation of the ordinance.
Please consider me a party of interest for this rezone.
Sincerely,
Gary Kissling
Herewith is our response to the CPA narrative submitted by Hordan Planning
Service on behalf of the Johnson Family Century 21, LLC.
The applicant alleges there is a dire need for Neighborhood Commercial in
the central/west portion of the city of Yakima. Although this may be true, we feel he
arrives at this decision with some strange assumptions and vague comparables.
First, the 2007 development referred to at 48th and Summitview is a corner
lot with easy access off 48th allowing for minimal traffic problems. Paragraph two
under Part IV. A seems strangely inapplicable. In 2007 Johnson Orchards had been
established for over forty years, with likely grandfathered access and limited traffic
problems.
Part IV. B begins on often -repeated reference to the application being, "a
small neighborhood friendly" project, providing a buffer between residential use.
Further explanation states, "does not route commercial vehicles through a
residential neighborhood."
We are repeatedly reminded in the application that the full intent is to
provide a residential buffer i.e.
Part III I., last sentence, first paragraph
Part III L., second sentence, first paragraph
Part IV B., 3.12.3
Within III. L. Hordan conjectures on what could or should develop on the
property adjacent west of subject application. Here his logic again calls for
commercial for the entire area. This leads to the conclusion he would prefer
commercial for the entire Johnson party but must offer "the buffer" appeasement.
Again, last paragraph III L. in answer to incompatibility he responds with the
magic, "buffer."
Later the application suggests the so-called buffer area shall allow for mixed
use or additional family and/or multifamily homes.
1. This suggests different access and egress for both commercial and
residential, all off Summitview, a hazardous problem.
2. While we await development of the buffer zones, what form does it take?
Is it tress, grass, weeds?
3. Isn't residential a tough sell when adjacent commercial? Who wants to
build their "dream home" within that proximity?
4. If #3 above fails, what assurance do we have that application to up zone
the buffer area to B-2 will not be a logical alternative?
In addressing traffic issues be reminded that:
1. Banner Bank, although the city blocked left turn access on eastbound
Summitview traffic, exiting the bank from 50th to Summitview is
hazardous.
2. Nineteen condo owners at Georgia Estates, 5101 Summitview, have
difficult with egress to Summitview.
3. Chase Bank; with their special exit to 56th Ave. still have customers r w
attempting to exit to Summitview with extreme difficulty.
p p p
a
Let's examine the size of this proposed rezone to put things in true perspective,
As submitted, the 4.5 acres is 640'x 32', less 140'x 140', or 203,460 SF. A
football field is 57,600 SF. So we can place over three and one half football fields on
this designated rezone. Another startling comparison reveals you could place
Kindercare (41,708 SF), Chase Bank (38,581 SF), and Banner Bank (22,311 SF) all
on the subject property almost TWICE!
Rezone = 203,460 SF
Banks + Kindercare = 102,850 SF
Subsequently, this "small neighborhood project" would create tremendous traffic
problems off summitview.
Additionally, we feel the project is incompatible with the existing private and
serene atmosphere we enjoy and could likely impact property values adversely.
We, the following object to the application for rezone at 5111 Summitview
Ave, parcel 18132113468.
U C f -f. o I" (d c M I C14 t_
57/ v/ S U M M f rV I U w AVE "'.2;7
Herewith is our response to the CPA narrative submitted by Hordan Planning
Service on behalf of the Johnson Family Century 21, LLC.
The applicant alleges there is a dire need for Neighborhood Commercial in
the central/west portion of the city of Yakima. Although this may be true, we feel he
arrives at this decision with some strange assumptions and vague comparables.
First, the 2007 development referred to at 48th and Summitview is a corner
lot with easy access off 48th allowing for minimal traffic problems. Paragraph two
under Part IV. A seems strangely inapplicable. In 2007 Johnson Orchards had been
established for over forty years, with likely grandfathered access and limited traffic
problems.
Part IV. B begins on often -repeated reference to the application being, "a
small neighborhood friendly" project, providing a buffer between residential use.
Further explanation states, "does not route commercial vehicles through a
residential neighborhood."
We are repeatedly reminded in the application that the full intent is to
provide a residential buffer i.e.
Part III I., last sentence, first paragraph
Part III L., second sentence, first paragraph
Part IV B., 3.12.3
Within III. L. Hordan conjectures on what could or should develop on the
property adjacent west of subject application. Here his logic again calls for
commercial for the entire area. This leads to the conclusion he would prefer
commercial for the entire Johnson party but must offer "the buffer" appeasement.
Again, last paragraph III L. in answer to incompatibility he responds with the
magic, "buffer."
Later the application suggests the so-called buffer area shall allow for mixed
use or additional family and/or multifamily homes.
1. This suggests different access and egress for both commercial and
residential, all off Summitview, a hazardous problem.
2. While we await development of the buffer zones, what form does it take?
Is it tress, grass, weeds?
3. Isn't residential a tough sell when adjacent commercial? Who wants to
build their "dream home" within that proximity?
4. If #3 above fails, what assurance do we have that application to up zone
the buffer area to B-2 will not be a logical alternative?
In addressing traffic issues be reminded that:
1. Banner Bank, although the city blocked left turn access on eastbound
Summitview traffic, exiting the bank from 50th to Summitview is
hazardous.
2. Nineteen condo owners at Georgia Estates, 5101 Summitview, have
difficult with egress to Summitview.
3. Chase Bank; with their special exit to 56th Ave. still have customers
attempting to exit to Summitview with extreme difficulty.
Let's examine the size of this proposed rezone to put things in true perspective.
As submitted, the 4.5 acres is 640'x 32', less 140'x 140', or 203,460 SF. A
football field is 57,600 SF. So we can place over three and one half football fields on
this designated rezone. Another startling comparison reveals you could place
Kindercare (41,708 SF), Chase Bank (38,581 SF), and Banner Bank (22,311 SF) all
on the subject property almost TWICE!
Rezone = 203,460 SF
Banks + Kindercare = 102,850 SF
Subsequently, this "small neighborhood project" would create tremendous traffic
problems off summitview.
Additionally, we feel the project is incompatible with the existing private and
serene atmosphere we enjoy and could likely impact property values adversely.
We, the following object to the application for rezone at 5111 Summitview
Ave, parcel 18132113468.
Herewith is our response to the CPA narrative submitted by Hordan Planning
Service on behalf of the Johnson Family Century 21, LLC.
The applicant alleges there is a dire need for Neighborhood Commercial in
the central/west portion of the city of Yakima. Although this may be true, we feel he
arrives at this decision with some strange assumptions and vague comparables.
First, the 2007 development referred to at 48th and Summitview is a corner
lot with easy access off 48th allowing for minimal traffic problems. Paragraph two
under Part IV. A seems strangely inapplicable. In 2007 Johnson Orchards had been
established for over forty years, with likely grandfathered access and limited traffic
problems.
Part IV. B begins on often -repeated reference to the application being, "a
small neighborhood friendly" project, providing a buffer between residential use.
Further explanation states, "does not route commercial vehicles through a
residential neighborhood."
We are repeatedly reminded in the application that the full intent is to
provide a residential buffer i.e.
Part III I., last sentence, first paragraph
Part III L., second sentence, first paragraph
Part IV B., 3.12.3
Within III. L. Hordan conjectures on what could or should develop on the
property adjacent west of subject application. Here his logic again calls for
commercial for the entire area. This leads to the conclusion he would prefer
commercial for the entire Johnson party but must offer "the buffer" appeasement.
Again, last paragraph III L. in answer to incompatibility he responds with the
magic, "buffer."
Later the application suggests the so-called buffer area shall allow for mixed
use or additional family and/or multifamily homes.
1. This suggests different access and egress for both commercial and
residential, all off Summitview, a hazardous problem.
2. While we await development of the buffer zones, what form does it take?
Is it tress, grass, weeds?
3. Isn't residential a tough sell when adjacent commercial? Who wants to
build their "dream home" within that proximity?
4. If #3 above fails, what assurance do we have that application to up zone
the buffer area to B-2 will not be a logical alternative?
In addressing traffic issues be reminded that:
1. Banner Bank, although the city blocked left turn access on eastbound
Summitview traffic, exiting the bank from 50th to Summitview is
hazardous.
2. Nineteen condo owners at Georgia Estates, 5101 Summitview, have
difficult with egress to Summitview.
3. Chase Bank; with their special exit to 56th Ave. still have customers'
attempting to exit to Summitview with extreme difficulty.
elliI r� r
Let's examine the size of this proposed rezone to put things in true perspective.
As submitted, the 4.5 acres is 640'x 32', less 140'x 140', or 203,460 SF. A
football field is 57,600 SF. So we can place over three and one half football fields on
this designated rezone. Another startling comparison reveals you could place
Kindercare (41,708 SF), Chase Bank (38,581 SF), and Banner Bank (22,311 SF) all
on the subject property almost TWICE!
Rezone = 203,460 SF
Banks + Kindercare = 102,850 SF
Subsequently, this "small neighborhood project" would create tremendous traffic
problems off summitview.
Additionally, we feel the project is incompatible with the existing private and
serene atmosphere we enjoy and could likely impact property values adversely.
We, the following object to the application for rezone at 5111 Summitview
Ave, parcel 18132113468.
� /,),Vk�
Herewith is our response to the CPA narrative submitted by Hordan Planning
Service on behalf of the Johnson Family Century 21, LLC.
The applicant alleges there is a dire need for Neighborhood Commercial in
the central/west portion of the city of Yakima. Although this may be true, we feel he
arrives at this decision with some strange assumptions and vague comparables.
First, the 2007 development referred to at 48th and Summitview is a corner
lot with easy access off 48th allowing for minimal traffic problems. Paragraph two
under Part IV. A seems strangely inapplicable. In 2007 Johnson Orchards had been
established for over forty years, with likely grandfathered access and limited traffic
problems.
Part IV. B begins on often -repeated reference to the application being, "a
small neighborhood friendly" project, providing a buffer between residential use.
Further explanation states, "does not route commercial vehicles through a
residential neighborhood."
We are repeatedly reminded in the application that the full intent is to
provide a residential buffer i.e.
Part III I., last sentence, first paragraph
Part III L., second sentence, first paragraph
Part IV B., 3.12.3
Within III. L. Hordan conjectures on what could or should develop on the
property adjacent west of subject application. Here his logic again calls for
commercial for the entire area. This leads to the conclusion he would prefer
commercial for the entire Johnson party but must offer "the buffer" appeasement.
Again, last paragraph III L. in answer to incompatibility he responds with the
magic, "buffer."
Later the application suggests the so-called buffer area shall allow for mixed
use or additional family and/or multifamily homes.
1. This suggests different access and egress for both commercial and
residential, all off Summitview, a hazardous problem.
2. While we await development of the buffer zones, what form does it take?
Is it tress, grass, weeds?
3. Isn't residential a tough sell when adjacent commercial? Who wants to
build their "dream home" within that proximity?
4. If #3 above fails, what assurance do we have that application to up zone
the buffer area to B-2 will not be a logical alternative?
In addressing traffic issues be reminded that:
1. Banner Bank, although the city blocked left turn access on eastbound
Summitview traffic, exiting the bank from 50th to Summitview is
hazardous.
2. Nineteen condo owners at Georgia Estates, 5101 Summitview, have
difficult with egress to Summitview.
3. Chase Bank; with their special exit to 56th Ave. still have customers��
a�
attempting to exit to Summitview with extreme difficulty.
�i
µ, q
yid ik ,a' n m�i�b,nli
Let's examine the size of this proposed rezone to put things in true perspective.
As submitted, the 4.5 acres is 640'x 32', less 140'x 140', or 203,460 SF. A
football field is 57,600 SF. So we can place over three and one half football fields on
this designated rezone. Another startling comparison reveals you could place
Kindercare (41,708 SF), Chase Bank (38,581 SF), and Banner Bank (22,311 SF) all
on the subject property almost TWICE!
Rezone = 203,460 SF
Banks + Kindercare = 102,850 SF
Subsequently, this "small neighborhood project" would create tremendous traffic
problems off summitview.
Additionally, we feel the project is incompatible with the existing private and
serene atmosphere we enjoy and could likely impact property values adversely.
We, the following object to the application for rezone at 5111 Summitview
Ave, parcel 18132113468.
t -k/
�-m 4A
�, lez�,1113
Herewith is our response to the CPA narrative submitted by Hordan Planning
Service on behalf of the Johnson Family Century 21, LLC.
The applicant alleges there is a dire need for Neighborhood Commercial in
the central/west portion of the city of Yakima. Although this may be true, we feel he
arrives at this decision with some strange assumptions and vague comparables.
First, the 2007 development referred to at 48th and Summitview is a corner
lot with easy access off 48th allowing for minimal traffic problems. Paragraph two
under Part IV. A seems strangely inapplicable. In 2007 Johnson Orchards had been
established for over forty years, with likely grandfathered access and limited traffic
problems.
Part IV. B begins on often -repeated reference to the application being, "a
small neighborhood friendly" project, providing a buffer between residential use.
Further explanation states, "does not route commercial vehicles through a
residential neighborhood."
We are repeatedly reminded in the application that the full intent is to
provide a residential buffer i.e.
Part III I., last sentence, first paragraph
Part III L., second sentence, first paragraph
Part IV B., 3.12.3
Within III. L. Hordan conjectures on what could or should develop on the
property adjacent west of subject application. Here his logic again calls for
commercial for the entire area. This leads to the conclusion he would prefer
commercial for the entire Johnson party but must offer "the buffer" appeasement.
Again, last paragraph III L. in answer to incompatibility he responds with the
magic, "buffer."
Later the application suggests the so-called buffer area shall allow for mixed
use or additional family and/or multifamily homes.
1. This suggests different access and egress for both commercial and
residential, all off Summitview, a hazardous problem.
2. While we await development of the buffer zones, what form does it take?
Is it tress, grass, weeds?
3. Isn't residential a tough sell when adjacent commercial? Who wants to
build their "dream home" within that proximity?
4. If #3 above fails, what assurance do we have that application to up zone
the buffer area to B-2 will not be a logical alternative?
In addressing traffic issues be reminded that:
1. Banner Bank, although the city blocked left turn access on eastbound
Summitview traffic, exiting the bank from 50th to Summitview is
hazardous.
2. Nineteen condo owners at Georgia Estates, 5101 Summitview, have
difficult with egress to Summitview.
3. Chase Bank; with their special exit to 56th Ave. still have customers
attempting to exit to Summitview with extreme difficulty.'�.,
r
Let's examine the size of this proposed rezone to put things in true perspective.
As submitted, the 4.5 acres is 640'x 32', less 140'x 140', or 203,460 SF. A
football field is 57,600 SF. So we can place over three and one half football fields on
this designated rezone. Another startling comparison reveals you could place
Kindercare (41,708 SF), Chase Bank (38,581 SF), and Banner Bank (22,311 SF) all
on the subject property almost TWICE!
Rezone = 203,460 SF
Banks + Kindercare = 102,850 SF
Subsequently, this "small neighborhood project" would create tremendous traffic
problems off summitview.
Additionally, we feel the project is incompatible with the existing private and
serene atmosphere we enjoy and could likely impact property values adversely.
We, the following object to the application for rezone at 5111 Summitview
Ave, parcel 18132113468.
P-FH(19- L MAes,q
51 01 fYMM "T I/ltrW P(vC 7
/ AJ J4 41 1 JA 1 Y,1 G g
CL61��, e - lkq �
s
a,
rf
X
Herewith is our response to the CPA narrative submitted by Hordan Planning
Service on behalf of the Johnson Family Century 21, LLC.
The applicant alleges there is a dire need for Neighborhood Commercial in
the central/west portion of the city of Yakima. Although this may be true, we feel he
arrives at this decision with some strange assumptions and vague comparables.
First, the 2007 development referred to at 48th and Summitview is a corner
lot with easy access off 48th allowing for minimal traffic problems. Paragraph two
under Part IV. A seems strangely inapplicable. In 2007 Johnson Orchards had been
established for over forty years, with likely grandfathered access and limited traffic
problems.
Part IV. B begins on often -repeated reference to the application being, "a
small neighborhood friendly' project, providing a buffer between residential use.
Further explanation states, "does not route commercial vehicles through a
residential neighborhood."
We are repeatedly reminded in the application that the full intent is to
provide a residential buffer i.e.
Part III I., last sentence, first paragraph
Part III L., second sentence, first paragraph
Part IV B., 3.12.3
Within I11. L. Hordan conjectures on what could or should develop on the
property adjacent west of subject application. Here his logic again calls for
commercial for the entire area. This leads to the conclusion he would prefer
commercial for the entire Johnson party but must offer "the buffer" appeasement.
Again, last paragraph III L. in answer to incompatibility he responds with the
magic, "buffer."
Later the application suggests the so-called buffer area shall allow for mixed
use or additional family and/or multifamily homes.
1. This suggests different access and egress for both commercial and
residential, all off Summitview, a hazardous problem.
2. While we await development of the buffer zones, what form does it take?
Is it tress, grass, weeds?
3. Isn't residential a tough sell when adjacent commercial? Who wants to
build their "dream home" within that proximity?
4. If #3 above fails, what assurance do we have that application to up zone
the buffer area to B-2 will not be a logical alternative?
In addressing traffic issues be reminded that:
1. Banner Bank, although the city blocked left turn access on eastbound
Summitview traffic, exiting the bank from 50th to Summitview is
hazardous.
2. Nineteen condo owners at Georgia Estates, 5101 Summitview, have
difficult with egress to Summitview.
3. Chase Bank; with their special exit to 56c' Ave. still have customerss,�b��4
attempting to exit to Summitview with extreme difficulty.
JO
i�ygyn�
Let's examine the size of this proposed rezone to put things in true perspective.
As submitted, the 4.5 acres is 640'x 32', less 140'x 140', or 203,460 SF. A
football field is 57,600 SF. So we can place over three and one half football fields on
this designated rezone. Another startling comparison reveals you could place
Kindercare (41,708 SF), Chase Bank (38,581 SF), and Banner Bank (22,311 SF) all
on the subject property almost TWICE!
Rezone = 203,460 SF
Banks + Kindercare = 102,850 SF
Subsequently, this "small neighborhood project" would create tremendous traffic
problems off summitview.
Additionally, we feel the project is incompatible with the existing private and
serene atmosphere we enjoy and could likely impact property values adversely.
We, the following object to the application for rezone at 5111 Summitview
Ave, parcel 18132113468.
SM S�kMm CTVt�w �VQ #- S
JON
V
r, c r
i ��
Herewith is our response to the CPA narrative submitted by Hordan Planning
Service on behalf of the Johnson Family Century 21, LLC.
The applicant alleges there is a dire need for Neighborhood Commercial in
the central/west portion of the city of Yakima. Although this may be true, we feel he
arrives at this decision with some strange assumptions and vague comparables.
First, the 2007 development referred to at 48th and Summitview is a corner,
lot with easy access off 48th allowing for minimal traffic problems. Paragraph two
under Part IV. A seems strangely inapplicable. In 2007 Johnson Orchards had been
established for over forty years, with likely grandfathered access and limited traffic
problems.
Part IV. B begins on often -repeated reference to the application being, "a
small neighborhood friendly" project, providing a buffer between residential use.
Further explanation states, "does not route commercial vehicles through a
residential neighborhood."
We are repeatedly reminded in the application that the full intent is to
provide a residential buffer i.e.
Part III I., last sentence, first paragraph
Part III L., second sentence, first paragraph
Part IV B., 3.12.3
Within III. L. Hordan conjectures on what could or should develop on the
property adjacent west of subject application. Here his logic again calls for
commercial for the entire area. This leads to the conclusion he would prefer
commercial for the entire Johnson party but must offer "the buffer" appeasement.
Again, last paragraph III L. in answer to incompatibility he responds with the
magic, "buffer."
Later the application suggests the so-called buffer area shall allow for mixed
use or additional family and/or multifamily homes.
1. This suggests different access and egress for both commercial and
residential, all off Summitview, a hazardous problem.
2. While we await development of the buffer zones, what form does it take?
Is it tress, grass, weeds?
3. Isn't residential a tough sell when adjacent commercial? Who wants to
build their "dream home" within that proximity?
4. If #3 above fails, what assurance do we have that application to up zone
the buffer area to B-2 will not be a logical alternative?
In addressing traffic issues be reminded that:
1. Banner Bank, although the city blocked left turn access on eastbound
Summitview traffic, exiting the bank from 50th to Summitview is
hazardous.
2. Nineteen condo owners at Georgia Estates, 5101 Summitview, have
difficult with egress to Summitview.
3. Chase Bank; with their special exit to 56th Ave. still have customers
attempting to exit to Summitview with extreme difficulty.'
jl.1J'q�
wr �a�°pig
Let's examine the size of this proposed rezone to put things in true perspective.
As submitted, the 4.5 acres is 640'x 32', less 140'x 140', or 203,460 SF. A
football field is 57,600 SF. So we can place over three and one half football fields on
this designated rezone. Another startling comparison reveals you could place
Kindercare (41,708 SF), Chase Bank (38,581 SF), and Banner Bank (22,311 SF) all
on the subject property almost TWICE!
Rezone = 203,460 SF
Banks + Kindercare = 102,850 SF
Subsequently, this "small neighborhood project" would create tremendous traffic
problems off summitview.
Additionally, we feel the project is incompatible with the existing private and
serene atmosphere we enjoy and could likely impact property values adversely.
We, the following object to the application for rezone at 5111 Summitview
Ave, parcel 18132113468.
01 e
l
x �p
� �ro� d %y' qq �
� ppGG
rS . .
ROBERT R. REDMAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
""'Robert Redman
5101 Summitview Ave. #18
Yakima, WA 98908-2884
June 22, 2015
Valerie Smith
City of Yakima
Planning Department
RE: CPA #009-15
Dear Ms. Smith
We reside at #18 Georgian Estates which is less than 300 feet from the orchard rezone.
One of the reasons we purchased our unit was the semi -rural setting of the development.
We fully concur with the comments of our neighbors, Mr. Kissling and Mr. Pratt, regarding the
proposed rezone.
In addition, we strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject any project that adds to "strip-
malling" Summitview Ave.
We also point out that there are sites already zoned commercial that are available to the
petitioners, such as the northeast corner of Summitview and 56th Ave., the former "Tiger Mart"
site.
Sincerely,
. r,4
Robert R. Redman
YAKI IA VALLEY CANAL CO
1640 GARRETSON LANE
YAKIMA, WA 98908
PHONE 509-966-2300
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
TO: Joan Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director
City of Yakima, Department of Community Development
129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901
FROM: Yakima Valley Canal Company
DATE: 6/17/2015
CITY OF YAKI<MA.
C01W ADMIN. DVII IO
J. tJi1 i. 7 2 01!.)
b '
ID F Y 1 1-3
SUBJECT: Johnson Family Century 21, LLC — CPA #009-15, RZ#009-15, SEPA #016-15
COMMENTS:
The subject property is within Yakima Valley Canal Company's service area. Yakima Valley
Canal Company has no objection to development of subject property, as long as it complies with
Yakima Valley Canal Company Bylaws Article XXIV.
Article XXIV
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 the proposed platting or subdivision.
Robert Smoot
Manager
Yakima Valley Canal Co. µ
dol �3/IS
Herewith is our response to the CPA narrative submitted by Hordan Planning
Service on behalf of the Johnson Family Century 21, LLC.
The applicant alleges there is a dire need for Neighborhood Commercial in
the central/west portion of the city of Yakima. Although this may be true, we feel he
arrives at this decision with some strange assumptions and vague comparables.
First, the 2007 development referred to at 48th and Summitview is a corner
lot with easy access off 48th allowing for minimal traffic problems. Paragraph two
under Part IV. A seems strangely inapplicable. In 2007 Johnson Orchards had been
established for over forty years, with likely grandfathered access and limited traffic
problems.
Part IV. B begins on often -repeated reference to the application being, "a
small neighborhood friendly" project, providing a buffer between residential use.
Further explanation states, "does not route commercial vehicles through a
residential neighborhood."
We are repeatedly reminded in the application that the full intenti rigTFIV
provide a residential buffer i.e.
Part III I., last sentence, first paragraph N n
Part III L., second sentence, first paragraph
Part IV B., 3.12.3 CATly OF
° .M,V',`6 r rr,!v
Within III. L. Hordan conjectures on what could or should develop on the
property adjacent west of subject application. Here his logic again calls for
commercial for the entire area. This leads to the conclusion he would prefer
commercial for the entire Johnson party but must offer "the buffer" appeasement.
Again, last paragraph III L. in answer to incompatibility he responds with the
magic, "buffer."
Later the application suggests the so-called buffer area shall allow for mixed
use or additional family and/or multifamily homes.
1. This suggests different access and egress for both commercial and
residential, all off Summitview, a hazardous problem.
2. While we await development of the buffer zones, what form does it take?
Is it tress, grass, weeds?
3. Isn't residential a tough sell when adjacent commercial? Who wants to
build their "dream home" within that proximity?
4. If #3 above fails, what assurance do we have that application to up zone
the buffer area to B-2 will not be a logical alternative?
In addressing traffic issues be reminded that:
1. Banner Bank, although the city blocked left turn access on eastbound
Summitview traffic, exiting the bank from 50th to Summitview is
hazardous.
2. Nineteen condo owners at Georgia Estates, 5101 Summitview, have
difficult with egress to Summitview.
3. Chase Bank; with their special exit to 56th Ave. still have customers
attempting to exit to Summitview with extreme difficulty.
Let's examine the size of this proposed rezone to put things in true perspective.
As submitted, the 4.5 acres is 640'x 32', less 140'x 140', or 203,460 SF. A
football field is 57,600 SF. So we can place over three and one half football fields on
this designated rezone. Another startling comparison reveals you could place
Kindercare (41,708 SF), Chase Bank (38,581 SF), and Banner Bank (22,311 SF) all
on the subject property almost TWICE!
Rezone = 203,460 SF
Banks + Kindercare = 102,850 SF
Subsequently, this "small neighborhood project" would create tremendous traffic
problems off summitview.
Additionally, we feel the project is incompatible with the existing private and
serene atmosphere we enjoy and could likely impact property values adversely.
We, the following object to the application for rezone at 5111 Summitview
Ave, parcel 18132113468.
r
m
UV
yg'Tg,(�'"ryp r
PLAI
Maxe , Lisa
From: Karin Avery Uandkavery@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 4:29 PM
To: Planning PostCard
Subject: CPA#009-15
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Please send me additional notices about this application. James and Karin Avery, 5302 Bitterroot Way,
Yakima, Washington. e-mail is iandkavcry(@bgrnqH.com
Thanks, James Avery
Karin Avery
`anae maii.m
Jim Avery