Loading...
05/15/2012 06 Chestnut Townhomes Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision - Hearing • , -srkw, BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. (0 For Meeting of: May 15, 2012 ITEM TITLE: Closed Record Public Hearing on Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision for Chestnut Townhomes SUBMITTED BY: Joan Davenport, Acting CED Director, 576 -6417 CONTACT Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner, 575 -6162 PERSON /TELEPHONE: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The proposed project is a 7 -lot preliminary short plat and Class (2) use to establish tri -plex units on two of the lots. The property is in the R -2 zoning district. The Subdivision Administrator's decision for approval was appealed on February 21, 2012. In addition, based on comments received during the comment period, the Class (2) portion was referred to the Hearing Examiner. A combined hearing was held on March 8, 2012. The Hearing Examiner issued his decision for approval of the Class (2) land use, subject to conditions, and denial of the Short Plat Appeal on March 22, 2012. The Hearing Examiner's decision was appealed on April 5, 2012. The process for appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision requires that notice be provided to all parties of record and allows 14 days to submit further argument or memorandum. Further argument was provided and is in the packet. This is a Closed Record Hearing, meaning no additional testimony is allowed. In accordance with YMC 15.16.050(E), the Council may: adopt, amend and adopt, reject, reverse, or amend and reverse the findings, conclusions, and decision of the examiner; or remand the matter for further consideration, or for the purpose of taking and considering new factual evidence by the examiner. Resolution Ordinance Other (specify) Contract: Mail to: Contract Term: Amount: Expiration Date: Insurance Required? No Funding Phone: Source: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council review the record and 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 for approval of the Class (2) use, subject to conditions, and denial of the Preliminary Short Plat appeal, on March 22, 2012. ATTACHMENTS: Click to download ❑ Hearing Examiners Decision - Chestnut Townhomes City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Decision March 22, 2012 In the Matter of a Short Plat Appeal and ) A Class (2) Use Application Submitted by) APP #001 -12 PSP #012 -11 Chestnut Townhomes, LLC ) CL2 #034 -11 REF #001 -12 For a 7 -Lot Short Plat with Triplexes ) On Two Lots at the Southwest Corner ) Of South 72 " & West Chestnut Avenues ) A. Introduction. The findings relative to the hearing process for this application are as follows: (1) The open record public hearing for this application was held on March 8, 2012. (2) Assistant Planner Joseph Calhoun presented his staff report recommending denial of this Short Plat Appeal APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11 and approval of this Conditional Use Permit Application CL(2) #034- 11/REF #001 -12 for two triplexes on two of the seven lots in the short plat, subject to conditions. (3) The applicant's representative, Bill Hordan of Hordan Planning Services, testified at length as to reasons why the short plat appeal should be denied and why the Class (2) triplex use should be approved. Steven Avila also testified in favor of the proposal. (4) Connie and Michael Stone testified at length with a powerpoint presentation in opposition to the short plat and triplexes. Connie Adams then testified against the Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 1 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 proposal, followed by William O'Hare who also testified at length against the proposal. (5) There were 16 e -mails or letters and a petition signed by 28 Westcrest residents and /or owners submitted in opposition to one or more aspects of the proposal, and there was one letter submitted in favor of the proposal prior to the public hearing. (6) The Hearing Examiner accepted as additional exhibits at the hearing a second letter from Martin and Jacqueline Haines in opposition to the proposal, a new site plan submitted by the applicant, eight photographs submitted by the applicant, a copy of YMC Chapter 16.06 submitted by the applicant, a full size copy of the withdrawn Chestnut Townhomes Plat submitted by the applicant, a copy of notes submitted by Connie Stone, a powerpoint presentation submitted by Michael and Connie Stone, a copy of the subdivision administrator's decision for PSP #025 -08 and PAL #002 -08 submitted by William O'Hare, a copy of notes submitted by William O'Hare, and a copy of Westcrest recorded covenants submitted by the applicant (Exhibits 1 -1 through 1 -10 respectively). (7) After nearly three hours of testimony, the open record public hearing was concluded. (8) This decision has been issued within ten business days of the public hearing of March 8, 2012. B. Summary of Decision. The Hearing Examiner denies the short plat appeal, and approves the Class (2) use application for two triplexes subject to conditions similar to those recommended by Joseph Calhoun. C. Basis for Decision. Based upon the Hearing Examiner's view of the site with no one else present on March 6, 2012; his consideration of the staff report, exhibits, testimony and other evidence presented at the open record public hearing on March 8, 2012; and his review of both the City of Yakima Subdivision Ordinance, the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan; the Hearing Examiner makes the following: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 2 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 FINDINGS I. Applicant/Property Owner. The applicant is Dale Turner and the property owner is Chestnut Townhomes, LLC., 203 North 93 Avenue, Yakima, Washington 98908. II. Location. The location of the proposal is 7200 West Chestnut along the south side of West Chestnut Avenue extending west from South 72 Avenue. The Assessor's Tax parcel number for the property is 181320- 34011. III. Short Plat Appeal and Class (2) Application. The main aspects relative to the background of this short plat appeal and Class (2) application may be summarized as follows: (1) On December 20, 2011, the City of Yakima Planning Division received an application for a seven -lot preliminary short plat and for approval of a Class (2) triplex on two of the lots. The parcel is approximately 1.5 acres in size and is currently vacant. Notice of the application was sent to the applicant and adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the property on January 12, 2012. Due to the nature of comments received during the comment period, the Type (2) review of the proposed Class (2) triplex use was referred to the Hearing Examiner for a public hearing and decision. (2) On February 8, 2012, the Administrative Official issued a decision approving the proposed seven -lot preliminary short plat. Owners of a duplex in the adjacent Westcrest development to the north, Michael and Connie Stone, appealed the short plat decision on February 21, 2012. The short plat appeal hearing was consolidated with the hearing for the Class (2) triplex use scheduled for March 8, 2012. (3) A previous seven -lot preliminary short plat was approved for this parcel on January 26, 2009, but the approval lapsed because the necessary conditions were never completed. An application for a Master Planned Development, Variance, Preliminary Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 3 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 Long Plat and Administrative Adjustment was submitted in August of 2011, but that application was ultimately withdrawn on December 21, 2011. IV. Hearing Examiner Jurisdiction. The Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction in this matter is found in the following ordinance provisions: (1) YMC § 14.15.060 provides that a preliminary short plat may be appealed under the provisions of YMC Chapter 14.50. That chapter provides in Subsections 14.50.010(A) and (F) that the decision of the administrator may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner and that the scope of the open record hearing on the appeal shall be limited to issues raised in the appeal application. (2) YMC § 1.43.080(A) provides that the Hearing Examiner shall hear and decide matters prescribed by the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, YMC Title 15. YMC § 15.14.040(C)(5) provides that the Administrative Official, after considering any comments received from other agencies, jurisdictions or adjoining property owners, has the option of referring applications for Class (2) uses to the Hearing Examiner for review, a public hearing and decision. Likewise, YMC § 15.04.020(B) provides that the Administrative Official may require that a Class (2) use undergo a Type (3) review. V. Notices. Notices of the public hearing were provided in the following manner: Mailing of hearing notice to property owners within 300 feet: February 8, 2012 Publishing of hearing notice in the Yakima Herald - Republic: February 8, 2012 Posting of hearing notice on the property: February 15, 2012 Mailing of Short Plat Appeal consolidated hearing notice: February 24, 2012 VI. Environmental Review. Short plats are categorically exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review by WAC 197- 11- 800(6)(a) which is adopted by reference in YMC § 6.88.180. Construction of less than 20 dwelling units in the Two - Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 4 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 Family Residential (R -2) zoning district is also categorically exempt from SEPA review by virtue of YMC § 6.88.070(A)(1)(a). VII. Zoning and Land Uses. The subject property is within the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zoning district and is currently vacant. Adjacent properties have the following characteristics: Direction Zoning. Land Use North Single- Family Residential (R -1) Residential (Duplex) South Local Business (B -2) Commercial West Single - Family Residential (R -1) Residential (Single- Family) East Single- Family Residential (R -1) Residential (Single- Family) VIII. Short Plat Appeal. Michael and Connie Stone set forth the following reasons for their appeal in the Reason for Appeal section of their short plat appeal application: Chestnut Townhomes' proposal generally complies with the provisions and standards established in the zoning ordinance, e.g., minimum lot size, off - street parking, structure set - backs, maximum lot coverage, etc. However, Chestnut Townhomes' proposal does not comply with, nor is it compatible with, the development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, specifically • Goal 3.3 "Preserve existing neighborhoods." • Policy 3.2.2 "Ensure that new development is compatible in scale, density, and aesthetic quality to an established neighborhood." • Goal 6.1 "Develop streets that encourage neighborhood safety and livability." In addition, Chestnut Townhomes' proposal is not consistent with several provisions of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance which governs implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically • Section 15.01.030.07 "Provide for adequate privacy, light, air, and view." Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 5 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #00.1- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 • Section 15.01.030.10 "Protect existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments." • Section 15.01.030.11 "Reduce traffic danger and congestion on roads and highways." • Section 15.01.030 "Procedures and standards based on Yakima Urban Area Plan are designed to mitigate undue adverse impacts and to protect individual neighborhoods and the community's general welfare. Both concepts are essential and declared necessary." Chestnut Townhomes' proposal meets the first, more objective, part of the law, but fails to meet the second, more subjective, part of the law. We refer the examiner to the written comments in letters and petitions by the homeowners and residents of West Crest. We believe that 1) if Chestnut Townhomes is restricted to five lots — not seven — and 2) if Chestnut Townhomes is further restricted to building duplexes similar to those in West Crest — height, style, set back, lot coverage, materials, variety, etc. — and 3) if Chestnut Townhomes is held to the same protective covenants and restrictions that affect the plat of West Crest, the proposed development would fall within the requirements of R -2 zoning and the requirements of the comprehensive plan herein specified. IX. Short Plat Approval Criteria. RCW 58.17.060, RCW 58.17.110(2) and YMC § 14.15.020(B) set forth the following criteria for approval of a short plat: "The legislative body of a city, town, or county shall adopt regulations and procedures, and appoint administrative personnel for the summary approval of short plats and short subdivisions or alteration or vacation thereof.. . Such regulations shall be adopted by ordinance and shall provide that a short plat and short subdivision may be approved only if written findings that are appropriate, as provided in RCW 58.17.110, are made by the administrative personnel..." (RCW 58.17.110(2). "Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 6 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 " Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and, the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication." (RCW 58.17.110(2)). "The proposed short subdivision appropriately provides for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys and other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. The administrator may determine that other considerations are appropriate to evaluate as criteria of approval." (YMC § 14.15.020(B)). X. Administrator's Short Plat Findings. Findings and Conclusions of the administrator relative to this short plat include the following: "YMC § 14.15.020 establishes certain criteria for approval, and requires the administrator to approve a short plat if written findings and conclusions support the following: A. The application complies with the general requirements for short subdivision approval as specified by this chapter. B. The proposed short subdivision appropriately provides for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys and other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. The administrator may determine that other considerations are appropriate to evaluate as criteria of approval. C. The short subdivision and any associated dedication will serve the public interest. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 7 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 Gaileon Park and West Valley Neighborhood Park are located within one mile of this subdivision. Summitview Elementary, West Valley Middle School and Apple Valley Elementary are located within one mile from this subdivision. The proposed subdivision complies with all general requirements for short subdivision of R -2 zoned property. Frontage improvement requirements, connections to water and sewer utilities, required easements, and adherence to development regulations appropriately provide for the necessary provisions of YMC § 14.15.020(B). This proposed short subdivision will serve the public interest by providing for additional housing units through infill development, connection to necessary utilities, and the extension of Chestnut Avenue to the west thus completing the road grid. 1. The Preliminary Short Plat complies with the general requirements for short subdivision approval, including requirements for lot size and lot width, as specified by YMC Ch. 14.15 and Ch. 15.05. 2. Appropriate provisions have been made for: public health, safety, and general welfare; open spaces; drainage ways; streets, alley, and other public ways; potable water supplies; sanitary waste disposal; parks and recreation, playgrounds; schools and school grounds. 3. This proposed short plat serves the public use and interest." XI. Criteria for Approval of Class (2) Uses. The Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions are required to set forth specific reasons and ordinance provisions demonstrating whether the application satisfies the following requirements in the descriptions of Class (2) uses in Section 15.02.020 and Subsection 15.04.020(B) of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO) and in the review procedure requirements found in Subsection 15.14.040(E) of the UAZO: (1) compliance and compatibility with the objectives, policies and development criteria of the comprehensive plan; (2) compliance and compatibility with the intent and character of the Two - Family Residential (R -2) Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 8 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 zoning district; (3) compliance with the provisions established in the zoning ordinance; and (4) compliance with the development standards established in the zoning ordinance. XII. Written Comments and Testimony. The following persons submitted written comments and testimony relative to this proposal: (1) The City Planning Division staff report favoring approval of the short plat and the Class (2) triplexes was presented at the hearing by Assistant Planner Joseph Calhoun (Exhibit A -1). (2) Testimony in favor of the approved short plat and the two proposed Class (2) triplexes was presented at the hearing by the applicant's representative, Bill Hordan of Hordan Planning Services. (3) A written comment favoring the proposal was submitted prior to the hearing by Yakima resident Mike Hiler (Exhibit G -2 received by the Planning Division on January 30, 2012). (4) Testimony favoring the proposal was presented at the hearing by Yakima resident Steven Avila. (5) A petition dated January 29, 2012, and January 30, 2012, signed by 28 residents and /or owners of the Westcrest development in opposition to the proposal was submitted prior to the hearing (Exhibit G -1 received by the Planning Division on January 30, 2012). (6) One or more written comments in opposition to the proposal were submitted by e -mail or letter prior to the hearing by Connie Panique, Tim Adams, Janice M. Weber, Sharon French, Philip Lamb on behalf of William and Shirley O'Hare, Roger Huynh, Sharlene Peters, Elnora Dougherty, Martin Haines, Jackie Haines, William O'Hare, Shirley O'Hare,' Tom Lambert, Betty Lambert, James McLane, Michael Stone, Connie Stone and Jean Chandler (Exhibits G -3 to G -18 received by the Planning Division between January 1, 2012 and February 4, 2012). (7) Testimony in opposition to the proposal was presented at the hearing by Westcrest resident Connie Adams and by Westcrest duplex owners Michael Stone, Connie Stone and William O'Hare. The record of this matter includes a copy of the Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 9 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 detailed powerpoint slides presented at the hearing by Michael and Connie Stone (Exhibit 1 -7), a typed copy of the detailed notes used by Connie Stone in testifying at the hearing (Exhibit 1 -6) and a typed copy of the detailed notes used by William O'Hare in testifying at the hearing (Exhibit 1 -9). (8) A summary of the testimony presented at the hearing would unduly lengthen this already lengthy decision and is unnecessary in view of the exhibits in the record that set forth much of the testimony in detail. Here the weight to be given to the numerous points and facts submitted in opposition to the proposal depends upon the compatibility considerations applicable to this short plat and to this Class (2) triplex use application. XIII. Applicable Compatibility Considerations. Compatibility considerations applicable to this proposal may be summarized as follows: (1) Here the request is for authorization to construct two triplexes in a seven -lot short plat which would have five duplexes on the other lots. The property is in the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zoning district between commercial uses to the south in the Local Business (B -2) zoning district and duplexes to the north in the Single - Family Residential (R -1) zoning district. Table 4 -1 in YMC Chapter 15.04 includes triplexes as "Multi- Family 8 -12 DU/NRA" which allows 12 dwelling units per net residential acre as a Class (2) use in the R -2 zoning district. YMC § 15.02.020 legislatively declares Class (2) uses to be "generally permitted throughout the district" as distinguished from Class (3) uses which are legislatively declared to be "generally incompatible with adjacent and abutting property because of their size, emissions, traffic generation, neighborhood character or for other reasons." The five proposed duplexes are not subject to this review process because of the legislative determination in YMC § 15.02.020 that they "are compatible and are permitted on any site in the district." (2) YMC § 15.02.020 also provides that the administrative official shall review Class (1) uses "for compliance with the provisions and standards" of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and Class (2) uses "in order to ensure compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objectives of the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan." Similarly, YMC § 15.14.040(E) requires that "findings shall demonstrate that. the Administrative Official's decision complies with the policies of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the zoning district, and the Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 10 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 provisions and standards herein." Likewise YMC § 15.14.040(D) allows conditions to be attached to an approval to "assure the development is consistent with the intent, the zoning district, the development standards and the other provisions." However, where a standard for approval of a generally permitted use is general rather than specific as in the case of the compatibility criterion, the burden is upon the one seeking to deny such a use to show the use is inappropriate (Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 783, 797, 903 P.2d 986 (1995)). This is the same result that flows from the fact that an ordinance declaring a use to be generally permitted in a zoning district creates by its clear wording a presumption or inference to that effect which places the burden of proving otherwise on the one claiming otherwise. (3) These ordinance provisions speak in terms of regulating compatibility with uses in the zoning district where the new use will be located rather than compatibility with uses in different adjacent zoning districts. This focus is a tacit acknowledgment in the ordinance that uses in different zoning districts which are adjacent to each other are allowed to be different. The context of the compatibility determination is necessarily different when the existing and proposed uses are in different zoning districts which allow different uses. (4) This Hearing Examiner is of the opinion that only under limited circumstances should applications be denied on the basis of incompatibility. It is important that zoning ordinances specify as clearly as possible what uses will be allowed in the various zoning districts. The zoning classification of property creates expectations in purchasers and owners, and affects property values. Criteria which are at least in part subjective such as compatibility should be applied sparingly because reliance upon them impairs the predictability and consistency of land use decisions. Of the more than 500 recommen- dations or decisions issued by this Hearing Examiner since 2003, less than a dozen of them have either recommended denial or denied applications on the basis of incompatibility. They can be summarized and compared to this situation as follows: (a) The recommendations for denial of applications on the basis of incompatibility have been rezone recommendations. The rezone requests would have allowed a zoning classification and a significant number of potential uses that would have been significantly different from the zoning classifications and uses on nearby properties. Requisite criteria for recommending approval of a rezone include the suitability of the property in question for uses permitted under the proposed zoning and the compatibility of the proposed zone change and associated Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 11 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 uses with neighboring land uses which was lacking in three situations. (Eugene R. Huit, Yakima County ZON 05 -08, October 6, 2004; Yakima Temple Building Association and Michael Kim, City of Yakima RZ #12 -07, October 25, 2007; and Casey Kitt, City of Yakima RZ 006 -09, February 11, 2010). In the latter situation, this Hearing Examiner subsequently recommended that an application for a 14 -Lot Preliminary Plat be approved for the property, and also approved Class (3) duplex uses for the plat, where the specific application did not involve a concern for the compatibility of all of the potential uses that a rezone would have allowed. (Casey and Christi Kitt, City of Yakima PLP 005 -10 and CL(3) 007 -10, October 7, 2010). (b) A number of the decisions denying an application on the basis of incompatibility have involved applications for a different type of use than the existing uses on nearby properties. They include an application for a Type II noisy heavy equipment maintenance use to be located within a single- family residential enclave (Timothy J. Duke, Yakima County CUP 02 -069, April 17, 2003); a 4 -acre 308 -unit Class (3) mini - storage facility to be constructed over a five to six year period in a single - family residential enclave (Keith Hallauer, City of Yakima CL(3) #1 -04, May 27, 2004); a Type III 120- foot -tall communication tower facility to be located within 60 feet of the view window of a new home or so as to otherwise dominate views from homes in a rural single - family residential area (ProLand, LLC /Verizon Wireless, Yakima County CUP 09 -045, February 24, 2010); and a Class (2) adult dance studio use to be located in close proximity to family - oriented and tourist - oriented businesses (Jamie Muffett, City of Yakima CL(2) #005 -10, July 6, 2010). (c) Two decisions denying an application on the basis of incompatibility have involved applications for a different type of residential use than the existing residential uses on nearby properties because they required an adjustment to the development standards of the zone and /or approval of Class (3) uses. They include an application for a Class (2) density increase in the number of duplexes allowed on the property with an upward adjustment of the maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone which was referred for Class (3) review (Dale Turner, City of Yakima CL(3) #2 -03 & ADM ADJ #3 -03) and a Class (3) application for 96 apartment units in 15 buildings, a Class (2) application for 42 duplexes and Administrative Adjustment applications to increase the maximum lot coverage and decrease a setback prescribed for the zone (Envizage Development Group, City of Yakima Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 12 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 CL(3) #7 -08, CL(2) #20 -08 and ADM ADJ #16 -08). In the latter situation, Hearing Examiner Pro Tem Patrick Spurgin subsequently recommended that an application for a 66 -Lot Master Planned Development/Preliminary Plat for 66 single - family common -wall lots at least 4,000 square feet in size be approved in the R -2 zoned portion of the property because there was no longer a concern for compatibility of Class (3) uses, Class (2) uses or adjustments of standards in the zone (Envizage Development Group, City of Yakima PD #1 -09 and PLP #1 -09). (d) This Hearing Examiner has issued recommendations to deny applications or has denied applications on the basis of incompatibility in exceptional situations involving rezones that would allow a significant number of unknown potentially incompatible uses, or involving applications for uses that are significantly different from existing uses, are Class (3) uses legislatively declared to be generally incompatible with adjacent property and /or are uses requiring an adjustment of the development standards applicable to the zone where the use would be located. To apply the compatibility criterion to land use recommen- dations or decisions without appropriate restraint would be to usurp the City Council's legislative prerogative to define the specific presumptions and develop- ment requirements to be applied to specific uses in specific zones. To apply the compatibility criterion without appropriate restraint would also create a slippery slope that would jeopardize the predictability and objectivity that is sought to be achieved in land use decision making. (e) None of the special circumstances found in previous recommendations to deny applications based on incompatibility or decisions denying applications based on incompatibility are found in this case. This is not a rezone application, a request for a type of use that is significantly different from the duplexes on the property to the north, a request for a Class (3) use that is considered generally incompatible with adjacent property, or a request for a use that would require an adjustment to the development standards of the R -2 zoning district. XIV. Hearing Examiner's Short Plat Appeal Findings. The Hearing Examiner's short plat appeal findings based upon the weight of the evidence presented at the hearing are as follows: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 13 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 (1) The short plat requirement to extend West Chestnut Avenue west to connect with the Colony West subdivision with a minimum 24- foot -wide asphalt driving surface with curb and gutter to the satisfaction of the City Engineer was criticized by public comments and testimony for several reasons. It would add traffic from adjoining areas that contain 142 homes. With the 17 duplexes in Westcrest and the 16 units in the proposed development, the number of dwelling units using West Chestnut Avenue would be 192. There are no left turn lanes on South 72 Avenue or West Chestnut Avenue. West Chestnut Avenue between South 74 and South 76 Avenues is a curvy road through a residential neighborhood with vehicles parked on the street. The street there is about 32 feet wide, but is only required to be 24 feet wide along the proposed development. An alternative would be to open 76 Avenue where the barricade presently sits by placing a bridge across the Yakima Valley Canal. Otherwise excavation for the connection will be required within 25 feet of the canal that could threaten its integrity. Nevertheless, , it has been known since 1994 that the West Chestnut Avenue connection westerly to 74 Avenue would be required in the future (Finding 7 of Hearing Examiner Philip Lamb's recommendation in Westcrest Preliminary Plat #420). That connection will help implement the City's goals relative to street connectivity and its street grid system (See e.g., Comprehensive Plan Transportation Goal 6.1.2). The testimony as to the capacity of West Chestnut Avenue was to the effect that the street will have capacity for more traffic than will result from the connection (Testimony of Bill Hordan). The connection is being recommended and required by the City Engineer (Exhibit A -1, page 6). YMC 15.05.055 mandates connection when more than 30 dwelling units are on a cul de sac. There are 34 dwelling units on Chestnut Avenue in Westcrest. There are 67 units in West Valley Country Club off of 76 Avenue and another 55 units on 74 Avenue and 76 Avenue. Connecting West Chestnut Avenue to 74 Avenue will provide two access routes for both neighborhoods, eliminating what commenter Philip Lamb indicated may be the largest existing cul de sac in Yakima (Exhibit G -6). (2) The ability to develop the short plat to the extent proposed was questioned by written comments and testimony because the property is subject to a Drainage Improvement District (DID) easement, a telephone line easement, a water easement, a sewer easement and perhaps other easements. The testimony at the hearing was to the effect that the DID easement has historically been protected from encroachment (Finding 8.9 and Condition 5 of Hearing Examiner Philip Lamb's 1994 recommendation in Westcrest Preliminary Plat #420; Finding 6 and Condition 5 of Acting Subdivision Administrator Bruce Benson's now expired 2009 short plat decision in PSP #25 -08 /PAL Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 14 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 #002 -08). It is also being protected from encroachment by this short plat (Finding re County DID Line on page 2 and Condition 5 of Acting CED Director Joan Davenport's 2012 short plat decision in PSP #012 -11 here appealed). All other access and public utility easements must be shown on the final short plat (Finding re Easements on page 2 and Condition 2 of Acting CED Director Joan Davenport's 2012 short plat decision in PSP #012 -11 here appealed). Nothing in the short plat approval allows the applicant to violate the terms of any easement on the subject property even if he must reduce the density of his development to avoid unauthorized encroachments over easements. (3) Since this short plat is in the R -2 zoning district rather than the R -1 zoning district to the north, different standards of development apply to this short plat than to the adjacent Westcrest development across West Chestnut Avenue to the north of the subject property. YMC § 15.01.030 provides that distinctions between each district are significant. Compatibility is the focus of two of the criteria for consideration of rezones. But where, as here, a rezone has already been granted, presumably upon a finding of compatibility with neighboring property, the main focus for future short plat approval shifts to whether there is compliance with the objective development standards and short plat approval standards of the zone where it is located. (4) Residential uses will be constructed on the lots in the subject short plat. Five of the seven residential structures will be the same type of residential structures that were constructed in Westcrest after Hearing Examiner Philip Lamb recommended approval of those Class (2) duplex uses in the R -1 zone in 1994 ( Westcrest Preliminary Plat #420, Exhibit H -1). The other two residential structures in the short plat will be Class (2) uses in the R -2 zone just as duplexes were Class (2) uses in the R -1 zone. Since the zones are different, the Class (2) uses in the zones are different. But all uses in the subject short plat will be residential uses legislatively declared to be permitted or generally permitted. (5) The prior recommendations and decisions of this Hearing Examiner do not provide precedent or justification for requiring the applicant's short plat to be reduced from seven to five lots and to be restricted to only duplexes similar in height, style, setbacks, lot coverage, materials, variety, etc. to those in Westcrest and to be subject to private restrictive covenants similar to those in Westcrest. Nor have appellants presented any precedent or authority that would allow the Hearing Examiner to base such a requirement upon general compatibility criteria where all of the lots meet the objective requirements for approval of short plats which were adopted to promote compatibility. To create such a precedent would erode the predictability and consistency sought to be Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 15 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 achieved in land use decision making and the authority of the City Council to adopt different development standards to be uniformly applied in the different zoning districts. (6) There was testimony to the effect that the proposed residential structures on lots in the short plat will be more compatible with Westcrest than the commercial uses and the views of the backs of large concrete commercial buildings which presently exist south of Westcrest (Testimony of Steven Avila) and that the property in the short plat was not rezoned for commercial uses with the rest of the property to the south in order to preserve a transitional R -2 buffer for the R -1 zoned property to the north (Testimony of Bill Hordan). Relative to the height of the triplexes, there was testimony and a written comment to the effect that their height would cause shadows to be cast to the north an unspecified distance and would affect some of the Westcrest residents' view of Ahtanum Ridge (Testimony of Michael Stone, Connie Stone and Connie Adams; Exhibit G -12). The applicant's position on this point was that even single -story structures would affect views and that the planned height of the triplexes is 261/2 feet rather than the allowed 35 feet (Testimony of Bill Hordan). Relative to the location of the triplexes, there was a written comment and testimony at the hearing regarding potential future traffic congestion at the 72 Avenue intersection that would be reduced if a duplex rather than a triplex were constructed on that lot (Exhibit G -6; Testimony of Joseph Calhoun, Connie Adams, Michael Stone, Connie Stone and William O'Hare). The applicant's position on that point was that he would prefer to put a triplex on that lot, but could locate a duplex there if need be. Based on the testimony, including the applicant's position as to these details, the Hearing Examiner will limit the height of the triplexes to 261/2 feet rather than 35 feet and will require the two proposed triplexes to be one lot removed from South 72 Avenue. (7) Even though compatibility is to some extent subjective and the dispute here relates to the degree or extent of the difference between the structures in the subject short plat and in Westcrest, the Hearing Examiner has not been persuaded that the relief requested by the appellants can be granted on the basis of incompatibility. The fact that the zoning districts are different could lead to a reasonable expectation that Class (2) triplexes could and might be located on some of the lots even though they are different to a certain extent from the Class (2) duplexes approved for the Westcrest development. (8) The degree or extent of the difference between the two proposed Class (2) triplexes in the subject short plat and the existing'Class (2) duplexes in Westcrest does not warrant a finding of inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan and Urban Area Zoning Ordinance provisions set forth in the short plat appeal. An acknowledgment of the fact Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 16 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 that there are similarities as well as the differences in the two types of Class (2) residential uses being compared here leads the Hearing Examiner to find that the short plat with triplexes on two of the lots is compliant and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan provisions set forth in the short plat appeal, namely, Goal 3.3 which is to preserve existing neighborhoods, Policy 3.2.2 which is to ensure that new development is compatible in scale, density, and aesthetic quality to an established neighborhood and Goal 6.1 which is to develop streets that encourage neighborhood safety and livability. (9) An acknowledgment of the fact that there are similarities as well as the differences in the two types of Class (2) residential uses being compared here also leads the Hearing Examiner to find that the short plat with triplexes on two of the lots is compliant and compatible with the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance provisions set forth in the Short Plat Appeal, namely, Subsection 15.01.030(7) which is to provide for adequate privacy, light, air and view; Subsection 15.01.030(10) which is to protect existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments; Subsection 15.01.030(11) which is to reduce traffic danger and congestion on roads and highways; and Section 15.01.030 providing that flexibility is balanced by procedures and standards based on the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan designed to guard against and mitigate undue adverse impacts and to protect individual neighborhoods and the community's general welfare and that both concepts are essential and necessary. (10) Even though the written comments, the powerpoint presentation and the testimony at the hearing in favor of the short plat appeal were extremely detailed, thorough and comprehensive, the Hearing Examiner cannot properly grant the relief requested by the appellants in their short plat appeal. The degree or extent of the difference between the proposed Class (2) triplexes and the existing Class (2) duplexes is due to differences between the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts which do not require the identical type of development. Whether Subsection 16.06.020(E)(2) of the Yakima Municipal Code requires dismissal of this short plat appeal because it is based in part upon the density of residential development in an urban growth area need not be decided due to the Hearing Examiner's denial of the short plat appeal. The Hearing Examiner would prefer to address that issue in an appropriate future situation with the benefit of argument and briefing by all the parties involved in the proceeding, including the City. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 17 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72° Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 XV. Class (2) Use Approval Findings. The Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions are required to set forth specific reasons and ordinance provisions demonstrating whether the application satisfies the following requirements in Subsections 15.04.020(B) and 15.14.040(E) of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: (1) Compliance and Compatibility with the Objectives and Development Criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential by the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map II1 -2. This designation may include single - family detached residences, duplexes and a variety of other housing types. Considering the similarities as well as the differences between the two proposed triplexes and the existing nearby duplexes under the evidence presented at the hearing, the weight of the evidence established that the two proposed triplexes would be compliant and compatible with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies for the reasons already discussed relative to the short plat appeal: (a) Goal 3.3: Preserve existing neighborhoods. (b) Policy 3.3.2: Ensure that new development is compatible in scale, style, density and aesthetic quality to an established neighborhood. (c) Goal 6.1: Develop streets that encourage neighborhood safety and livability. (2) Compliance and Compatibility with the Intent and Character of the Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zoning District. Even though the application of this criterion to the proposal is also disputed, the weight of the evidence at the hearing established that the two proposed triplexes will also be compliant and compatible with the intent and character of the Two- Family Residential (R -2) zoning district in the following ways: (a) Table 4 -1 in Chapter 15.04 of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC) lists triplexes as a Class (2) use in the R -2 zone. Class (2) uses have been legislatively determined to be generally permitted in the district. (b) YMC § 15.03.020(F) provides that the purpose of the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zoning district is to establish and preserve residential neighbor- hoods for detached single- family dwellings, duplexes and other uses that are compatible with the intent of the district; and locate residential development up to Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 18 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 " Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 twelve dwelling units per net residential acre in areas receiving a full range of public services including water and sewer service, and police and fire protection. (c) The character of the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zoning district is specified by the zoning ordinance. The district is characterized by up to 60% lot coverage, access by way of local access streets and collectors, one and two story buildings, some `clustering of units, and required front, rear and side yard setbacks. Typical use 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 YMC Chapter 15.04 as a Class (3) use (YMC § 15.03.020(C)). (d) Here the density of the proposed development is probably the main concern of those in opposition to it. When computing the allowed density for a Class (2) use on a per lot basis for 9,450 and 9,488- square -foot lots, the 0.21 -acre size is multiplied by 12 and the 2.52 -unit result is rounded up to three units per lot. However, when considering the entire area of the short plat, the calculation results in rounding up 15.06 or 15.08 to 16 dwelling units being allowed as Class (2) uses on the 54,674 square feet of total net residential area after dedication of right -of- way or the 54,746 square feet of net residential area of all lots added together. The net residential area slightly exceeds 1.25 acres so as to allow more than 15 units when the exact area is multiplied by 12. A transposition discrepancy in the length of the east boundary shown on the December 18, 2011, site plan was explained in the testimony at the hearing (Calculations of PLSA on Exhibit 1-5 and testimony of Bill Hordan). Probably the most controversial aspect of this proposal is the need to apply the sentence found in YMC § 15.05.030 to round up the number of units allowed as a Class (2) use in this proposal from 15.06 or 15.08 units to 16 units. A written comment and testimony characterized this way of determining allowable density as ridiculous (Exhibit G -11; Testimony of William O'Hare). Even so, that section states in no uncertain terms that "Any fraction of dwelling units shall be rounded up to the next whole number." It is mandatory rather than discretionary and it is clear rather than ambiguous. The line for rounding up must be drawn at some point. The legislative prerogative to provide that "any fraction" of dwelling units "shall" be rounded up to the next highest whole number is binding on the Hearing Examiner and cannot be rewritten by him in the name of interpretation. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 19 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 Clear ordinances can only be changed by the legislative body which adopted them and cannot be rewritten even by the courts (See e.g., 50 Am. Jur. 204, § 225; Cochran v. Nelson, 26 Wn.2d 82, 173 P.2d 769; State v. Houk, 32 Wn.2d 681, 203 P.2d 693; Sadona v. CleElum, 37 Wn.2d 831, 226 P.2d 889; Ransom v. South Bend, 76 Wash. 396, 136 Pac. 365; Durham v. Crist, 180 Wash. 213, 88 P.2d 1054). The effect of the rounding up requirement is consistent with YMC § 15.01.030 which provides that the zoning ordinance is designed to be flexible and that it intentionally increases the potential uses or choices available to individual property owners. (3) Compliance with the Provisions Established in the Zoning Ordinance. Applicable zoning ordinance provisions relative to the proposal include the following comments regarding requirements for the proposal as a result of the City's Development Services Team meeting held on January 25, 2012: (a) Codes: The preliminary addressing for the Chestnut Townhomes should be as follows. Please note that the individual unit numbers (i.e. Unit 1, Unit 2, etc.) will be assigned as the individual building plans are submitted and the exact orientation of the structure is known. Lot 1: 7310 Chestnut Avenue Lot 5: 7302 Chestnut Avenue Lot 2: 7308 Chestnut Avenue Lot 6: 7204 Chestnut Avenue _ Lot 3: 7306 Chestnut Avenue Lot 7: 7202 Chestnut Avenue Lot 4: 7304 Chestnut Avenue (b) Engineering: Relative to plans, the applicant is required to submit civil engineering plans for improvements per the requirements of Title 12, stamped and signed by a civil engineer. Relative to utilities, the existing storm drain line that crosses the east end of the property shall either be constructed within the city of Yakima right -of -way or centered in a 20- foot -wide utility easement. Location of said storm drain line is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Stormwater shall be treated and disposed of per the Yakima County Regional Stormwater Manual for both private property and city right -of -way. The applicant shall design, construct and provide a utility easement for a roadway catch basin to be installed at the low point within Chestnut Avenue. Relative to frontage, the applicant is required to construct barrier curb, gutter and sidewalk as well as half street Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 20 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 pavement for Chestnut Avenue along the entire frontage of this parcel, aligned with the existing curb return on the south side of the intersection of Chestnut and 72 Avenue. The locations of individual curb cuts on Chestnut Avenue are subject to approval by the City Engineer. The existing asphalt roadway surface of Chestnut is to be saw cut at the design centerline and the new roadway crowned at that saw cut. These improvements are to be extended to the Colony West Subdivision. The applicant is to provide a design that will connect Chestnut and provide a minimum of 24- foot -wide asphalt driving surface with curb and gutter. All construction shall meet the requirements of the City of Yakima standard plans and specifications and is subject to final approval by the City of Yakima Engineer. (c) 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 completed by a licensed Professional Engineer and then be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. 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 with a Professional Engineer's stamp and signature for each well shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer before final project approval shall be granted. (d) Traffic Engineering: No direct lot access to 72 Avenue is allowed. The driveway for the lot closest to 72 Avenue should be no closer than 50 feet from 72 Avenue. The shopping center driveway on 72 Avenue at the south property line of this development needs to be reduced in width to match the property line location. This will help deter vehicles from hitting the fence encroaching onto Chestnut Townhomes property. A transitional pedestrian ramp needs to be installed at the west terminus of the sidewalk that is to be built with this project. The ramp may be asphalt or concrete in construction. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 21 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 (e) Nob Hill Water: Nob Hill Water Association can provide 4,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi. The static pressure is 73 psi. Nob Hill Water Association has sufficient water rights to serve this development. There is currently a 12 -inch PVC line on Chestnut Avenue that will be accessed to serve this development. Per Yakima Valley Canal, there are two irrigation shares available to the property. These shares will need to be utilized if at all possible to provide irrigation water to the development at the expense of the developer. (4) Compliance with the Development Standards Established in the Zoning Ordinance. Development standards applicable to the proposal which are minimum criteria that will have to be met to assure land use compatibility and to promote the public health, safety and welfare include the following: (a) Building Height: YMC § 15.05.020(F) states that the maximum building height is intended to maintain building heights compatible with the character and intent of the district. Table 5 -1 provides that the maximum building height in the R -2 zoning district is 35 feet. Written comments and testimony at the public hearing lead the Hearing Examiner to promote compatibility of the proposed triplexes with the Westcrest development by limiting their maximum building height to 261/4 feet which conforms to the applicant's plans for the triplexes. (b) Location: Connie Adams who lives in the Westcrest duplex nearest South 72 Avenue testified that she sometimes has difficulty exiting her driveway onto Chestnut Avenue at that location. Constructing a triplex on the lot adjacent to South 72 Avenue creates an unnecessary potential for additional congestion at that intersection. The existence of a 10- foot -wide telephone easement does not allow the triplex lots to be spread throughout the development. As recommended by the Planning Division, it would be more appropriate for a duplex to be on the lot closest to the intersection. In view of the testimony, the recommendation and the position of the applicant on this detail, the Hearing Examiner will require the two proposed triplexes to be separated by one lot from South 72 Avenue. (c) Maximum Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage is the percentage of net land area of a site that can be covered with structures and other impervious surfaces. The intent in the R -2 zoning district is to provide areas for landscaping and recreation. The maximum lot coverage in the R -2 district is 60 %. The maximum lot coverage percentage cannot here properly be reduced to mirror the Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 22 - Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 lot coverage of the Westcrest development on the basis of incompatibility where different zoning regulations for different zoning districts are involved. The maximum lot coverage for the applicant's lots will be 60 %. (d) 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 minimum setbacks in the R -2 zone include side setbacks of 5 feet, rear setbacks of 15 feet and front setbacks of 20 feet as measured from property lines. Larger minimum setback requirements cannot here properly be imposed on the basis of incompatibility to mirror the structure setbacks in the Westcrest development where different zoning regulations for different zoning districts are involved. The proposed development shall meet all applicable setback standards for the R -2 zone. • (e) Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the R -2 zoning district for duplex units is 7,000 square -feet (YMC Ch. 15.05, Table 5 -2). The lots in this development are proposed to range from 7,132.5 to 9,488.75 square feet. Larger minimum lot size requirements cannot here properly be imposed to mirror the lot sizes in the Westcrest development where different zoning regulations for different zoning districts are involved. (f) Parking: The purpose of YMC Chapter 15.06 is to establish adequate off - street parking, reduce on- street parking, increase traffic safety, maintain smooth traffic flow, and reduce the visual impact of parking lots. Table 6 -1 requires two - family dwellings (duplexes) to provide four parking spaces and multi- family dwellings of 10 units or less (triplexes) to provide two spaces per dwelling, or six spaces. Parking spaces for residential dwellings are most commonly provided in the form of a driveway. The minimum front yard setback of 20 feet from the property line provides sufficient depth for a typical 9 -foot by 19 -foot parking space. Minimum off - street parking requirements cannot here properly be increased to discourage people from parking on public streets where the applicable R -2 zoning regulations set specific standards for the requisite number of off - street parking spaces to be consistently and uniformly applied. The site plans provided for the two triplex lots show the required six off - street parking spaces. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 23 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 XVI. Consistency of the Proposed Use with Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan as determined by the Criteria which are set forth in Section 16.06.020 of the Yakima Municipal Code. Compliance with Section 16.06.020 of the Yakima Municipal Code is determined by consideration of the following factors: (1) The types of land uses permitted at the site. The proposed short plat is a permitted use at the site. The proposed five duplexes are Class (1) permitted uses of the site which are reviewed by the administrative official for compliance with the provisions and standards of the zoning ordinance. The proposed two triplexes are Class (2) uses in the R -2 zoning district that are permitted so long as the criteria for approval of Class (2) uses are satisfied, as is the case here if the conditions set forth in this decision are satisfied. (2) The density of residential development or the level of development such as units per acre or other measures of density. The density of the proposed seven -lot short plat with five duplexes and two triplexes will comply with the 60% lot coverage limitation for the R -2 zoning district, and the short plat will be developed to a density legislatively declared to be generally permitted in the R -2 zoning district. (3) The availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities. Infrastructure and public facilities will be available and adequate for the proposed short plat with five duplexes and two triplexes. (4) The characteristics of the development. The proposed triplexes on the proposed seven -lot short plat will be consistent with the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zoning district development regulations and Comprehensive Plan considerations as discussed above. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing Findings, the Hearing Examiner reaches the following Conclusions: Chestnut Townhornes, LLC 24 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 (1) The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to deny preliminary short plat appeals and to approve Class (2) use applications by Type (3) review under the circumstances prescribed by the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance, which circumstances warrant denial of Short Plat Appeal APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11 and warrant approval of Conditional Use Permit CL(2) #034- 11/REF #001 -12 to construct two triplexes on two of the lots, subject to the conditions set forth below. (2) Public notice requirements have been satisfied. (3) The proposal is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review under WAC 197- 11- 800(6)(a) which exempts short plats and short subdivisions from SEPA review and by YMC § 6.88.070(A)(1)(a) which exempts construction of less than 20 units in the R -2 zoning district from SEPA review. (4) The prior recommendations and decisions of this Hearing Examiner do not provide precedent for requiring the applicant's short plat to be reduced from seven to five lots that could only be used for Class (1) permitted duplex uses subject to private restrictive covenants similar to those on adjacent property. Nor do they provide precedent for denying this application for two Class (2) triplexes which the City Council has legislatively declared to be generally permitted in the R -2 zoning district. (5) The appeal of the proposed short plat does not establish any valid ground for invalidating the approval of the applicant's short plat which complies with all lot size, lot width and other requirements for approval prescribed by YMC Chapter 14.15 and YMC Chapter 15.05 because it contains appropriate provisions for public health, safety and welfare; open spaces; drainage ways; streets, alleys and other public ways; potable water supplies; sanitary waste disposal; parks and recreation and playgrounds; and schools and schoolgrounds; and serves the public use and interest. (6) The two proposed Class (2) triplexes can be adequately conditioned by the conditions set forth below so as to ensure compatibility, compliance and consistency with the objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan and with the intent, character, provisions and development standards of the zoning district and of the zoning ordinance. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 25 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 (7) This decision may be appealed to the Yakima City Council within the time and in the manner required by applicable City ordinances. DECISION Preliminary Short Plat Appeal APP #001 -12 is denied and Preliminary Short Plat PSP #012 -11 is affirmed subject to obtaining any requisite administrative approval of lot line modifications required to separate the two triplex units from the intersection of South 72 Avenue and West Chestnut Avenue by one duplex lot. The Class (2) use application to construct two triplexes on two lots in accordance with the documentation submitted for CL(2) #034 -11 and REF #001 -12 is approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) The triplex units shall be separated from the intersection of South 72 Avenue and West Chestnut Avenue by one duplex lot. (2) The triplex units shall be limited to a maximum building height of 26 feet. DATED this 22n day of March, 2012. Gary M. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner Chestnut Townhornes, LLC 26 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012••11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP #002 -12 APP #001 -12, REF #001 -12 PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 City Council Closed Record Public Hearing May 15, 2012 EXHIBIT LIST Appellant: Michael and Connie Stone Applicant: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC File Number: APP #001 -12, REF #001 -12, PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Site Address: 7200 Chestnut Avenue Staff Contact: Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner Table of Contents CHAPTER AA Hearing Examiner's Decision CHAPTER BB Appeal Application CHAPTER A Staff Report CHAPTER B Site Plan CHAPTER C Maps CHAPTER D DST Review & Agency Comments CHAPTER E Applications CHAPTER F Public Notices CHAPTER G Public Comments CHAPTER H Supplemental Information CHAPTER I Documents Submitted at the Hearing CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP #002 -12 APP #001 -12, REF #001 -12 PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER AA Hearing Examiner's Decision DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX # AA -1 Hearing Examiner's Decision 03/22/2012 City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Decision March 22, 2012 In the Matter of a Short Plat Appeal and ) A Class (2) Use Application Submitted by) APP #001 -12 PSP #012 -11 Chestnut Townhomes, LLC ) CL2 #034 -11 REF #001 -12 For a 7 -Lot Short Plat with Triplexes ) On Two Lots at the Southwest Corner ) Of South 72 " & West Chestnut Avenues ) A. Introduction. The findings relative to the hearing process for this application are as follows: (1) The open record public hearing for this application was held on March 8, 2012. (2) Assistant Planner Joseph Calhoun presented his staff report recommending denial of this Short Plat Appeal APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11 and approval of this Conditional Use Permit Application CL(2) #034- 11/REF #001 -12 for two triplexes on two of the seven lots in the short plat, subject to conditions. (3) The applicant's representative, Bill Hordan of Hordan Planning Services, testified at length as to reasons why the short plat appeal should be denied and why the Class (2) triplex use should be approved. Steven Avila also testified in favor of the proposal. (4) Connie and Michael Stone testified at length with a powerpoint presentation in opposition to the short plat and triplexes. Connie Adams then testified against the Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 1 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Comer W. Chestnut and S. 72 " Avenues APP #001 -12 /PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 8 ,4 P.' EX proposal, followed by William O'Hare who also testified at length against the proposal. (5) There were 16 e -mails or letters and a petition signed by 28 Westcrest residents and /or owners submitted in opposition to one or more aspects of the proposal, and there was one letter submitted in favor of the proposal prior to the public hearing. (6) The Hearing Examiner accepted as additional exhibits at the hearing a second letter from Martin and Jacqueline Haines in opposition to the proposal, a new site plan submitted by the applicant, eight photographs submitted by the applicant, a copy of YMC Chapter 16.06 submitted by the applicant, a full size copy of the withdrawn Chestnut Townhomes Plat submitted by the applicant, a copy of notes submitted by Connie Stone, a powerpoint presentation submitted by Michael and Connie Stone, a copy of the subdivision administrator's decision for PSP #025 -08 and PAL #002 -08 submitted by William O'Hare, a copy of notes submitted by William O'Hare, and a copy of Westcrest recorded covenants submitted by the applicant (Exhibits I -1 through I -10 respectively). (7) After nearly three hours of testimony, the open record public hearing was concluded. (8) This decision has been issued within ten business days of the public hearing of March 8, 2012. B. Summary of Decision. The Hearing Examiner denies the short plat appeal, and approves the Class (2) use application for two triplexes subject to conditions similar to those recommended by Joseph Calhoun. C. Basis for Decision. Based upon the Hearing Examiner's view of the site with no one else present on March 6, 2012; his consideration of the staff report, exhibits, testimony and other evidence presented at the open record public hearing on March 8, 2012; and his review of both the City of Yakima Subdivision Ordinance, the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan; the Hearing Examiner makes the following: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 2 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001 -12 /PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 INDEX 1 } FINDINGS L Applicant/Property Owner. The applicant is Dale Turner and the property owner is Chestnut Townhomes, LLC., 203 North 93 Avenue, Yakima, Washington 98908. II. Location. The location of the proposal is 7200 West Chestnut along the south side of West Chestnut Avenue extending west from South 72 Avenue. The Assessor's Tax parcel number for the property is 181320 - 34011. III. Short Plat Appeal and Class (2) Application. The main aspects relative to the background of this short plat appeal and Class (2) application may be summarized as follows: (1) On December 20, 2011, the City of Yakima Planning Division received an application for a seven -lot preliminary short plat and for approval of a Class (2) triplex on two of the lots. The parcel is approximately 1.5 acres in size and is currently vacant. Notice of the application was sent to the applicant and adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the property on January 12, 2012. Due to the nature of comments received during the comment period, the Type (2) review of the proposed Class (2) triplex use was referred to the Hearing Examiner for a public hearing and decision. (2) On February 8, 2012, the Administrative Official issued a decision approving the proposed seven -lot preliminary short plat. Owners of a duplex in the adjacent Westcrest development to the north, Michael and Connie Stone, appealed the short plat decision on February 21, 2012. The short plat appeal hearing was consolidated with the hearing for the Class (2) triplex use scheduled for March 8, 2012. (3) A previous seven -lot preliminary short plat was approved for this parcel on January 26, 2009, but the approval lapsed because the necessary conditions were never completed. An application for a Master Planned Development, Variance, Preliminary Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 3 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12 /PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 � 1 Long Plat and Administrative Adjustment was submitted in August of 2011, but that application was ultimately withdrawn on December 21, 2011. IV. Hearing Examiner Jurisdiction. The Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction in this matter is found in the following ordinance provisions: (1) YMC § 14.15.060 provides that a preliminary short plat may be appealed under the provisions of YMC Chapter 14.50. That chapter provides in Subsections 14.50.010(A) and (F) that the decision of the administrator may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner and that the scope of the open record hearing on the appeal shall be limited to issues raised in the appeal application. (2) YMC § 1.43.080(A) provides that the Hearing Examiner shall hear and decide matters prescribed by the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, YMC Title 15. YMC § 15.14.040(C)(5) provides that the Administrative Official, after considering any comments received from other agencies, jurisdictions or adjoining property owners, has the option of referring applications for Class (2) uses to the Hearing Examiner for review, a public hearing and decision. Likewise, YMC § 15.04.020(B) provides that the Administrative Official may require that a Class (2) use undergo a Type (3) review. V. Notices. Notices of the public hearing were provided in the following manner: Mailing of hearing notice to property owners within 300 feet: February 8, 2012 Publishing of hearing notice in the Yakima Herald- Republic: February 8, 2012 Posting of hearing notice on the property: February 15, 2012 Mailing of Short Plat Appeal consolidated hearing notice: February 24, 2012 VI. Environmental Review. Short plats are categorically exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review by WAC 197- 11- 800(6)(a) which is adopted by reference in YMC § 6.88.180. Construction of less than 20 dwelling units in the Two - Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 4 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72" Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 f } Family Residential (R -2) zoning district is also categorically exempt from SEPA review by virtue of YMC § 6.88.070(A)(1)(a). VII. Zoning and Land Uses. The subject property is within the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zoning district and is currently vacant. Adjacent properties have the following characteristics: Direction Zoning Land Use North Single - Family Residential (R -1) Residential (Duplex) South Local Business (B -2) Commercial West Single - Family Residential (R -1) Residential (Single- Family) East Single- Family Residential (R -1) Residential (Single- Family) VIII. Short Plat Appeal. Michael and Connie Stone set forth the following reasons for their appeal in the Reason for Appeal section of their short plat appeal application: Chestnut Townhomes' proposal generally complies with the provisions and standards established in the zoning ordinance, e.g., minimum lot size, off - street parking, structure set - backs, maximum lot coverage, etc. However, Chestnut Townhomes' proposal does not comply with, nor is it compatible with, the development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, specifically • Goal 3.3 "Preserve existing neighborhoods." o Policy 3.2.2 "Ensure that new development is compatible in scale, density, and aesthetic quality to an established neighborhood." • Goal 6.1 "Develop streets that encourage neighborhood safety and livability." In addition, Chestnut Townhomes' proposal is not consistent with several provisions of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance which governs implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically • Section 15.01.030.07 "Provide for adequate privacy, light, air, and view." Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 5 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 _ • Mi • Section 15.01.030.10 "Protect existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments." • Section 15.01.030.11 "Reduce traffic danger and congestion on roads and highways." • Section 15.01.030 "Procedures and standards based on Yakima Urban Area Plan are designed to mitigate undue adverse impacts and to protect individual neighborhoods and the community's general welfare. Both concepts are essential and declared necessary." Chestnut Townhomes' proposal meets the first, more objective, part of the law, but fails to meet the second, more subjective, part of the law. We refer the examiner to the written comments in letters and petitions by the homeowners and residents of West Crest. We believe that 1) if Chestnut Townhomes is restricted to five lots — not seven — and 2) if Chestnut Townhomes is further restricted to building duplexes similar to those in West Crest — height, style, set back, lot coverage, materials, variety, etc. — and 3) if Chestnut Townhomes is held to the same protective covenants and restrictions that affect the plat of West Crest, the proposed development would fall within the requirements of R -2 zoning and the requirements of the comprehensive plan herein specified. IX. Short Plat Approval Criteria. RCW 58.17.060, RCW 58.17.110(2) and YMC § 14.15.020(B) set forth the following criteria for approval of a short plat: "The legislative body of a city, town, or county shall adopt regulations and procedures, and appoint administrative personnel for the summary approval of short plats and short subdivisions or alteration or vacation thereof... Such regulations shall be adopted by ordinance and shall provide that a short plat and short subdivision may be approved only if written findings that are appropriate, as provided in RCW 58.17.110, are made by the administrative personnel..." (RCW 58.17.110(2). "Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 6 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 " Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11/REF #001 -12 I` r 0;' r: ¢ 1 ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and, the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication." (RCW 58.17.110(2)). "The proposed short subdivision appropriately provides for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys and other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. The administrator may determine that other considerations are appropriate to evaluate as criteria of approval." (YMC § 14.15.020(B)). X. Administrator's Short Plat Findings. Findings and Conclusions of the administrator relative to this short plat include the following: "YMC § 14.15.020 establishes certain criteria for approval, and requires the administrator to approve a short plat if written findings and conclusions support the following: A. The application complies with the general requirements for short subdivision approval as specified by this chapter. B. The proposed short subdivision appropriately provides for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys and other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. The administrator may determine that other considerations are appropriate to evaluate as criteria of approval. C. The short subdivision and any associated dedication will serve the public interest. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 7 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 (�* ' 1 .. o INDEX i } Gaileon Park and West Valley Neighborhood Park are located within one mile of this subdivision. Summitview Elementary, West Valley Middle School and Apple Valley Elementary are located within one mile from this subdivision. The proposed subdivision complies with all general requirements for short subdivision of R -2 zoned property. Frontage improvement requirements, connections to water and sewer utilities, required easements, and adherence to development regulations appropriately provide for the necessary provisions of YMC § 14.15.020(B). This proposed short subdivision will serve the public interest by providing for additional housing units through infill development, connection to necessary utilities, and the extension of Chestnut Avenue to the west thus completing the road grid. 1. The Preliminary Short Plat complies with the general requirements for short subdivision approval, including requirements for lot size and lot width, as specified by YMC Ch. 14.15 and Ch. 15.05. 2. Appropriate provisions have been made for: public health, safety, and general welfare; open spaces; drainage ways; streets, alley, and other public ways; potable water supplies; sanitary waste disposal; parks and recreation, playgrounds; schools and school grounds. 3. This proposed short plat serves the public use and interest." XI. Criteria for Approval of Class (2) Uses. The Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions are required to set forth specific reasons and ordinance provisions demonstrating whether the application satisfies the following requirements in the descriptions of Class (2) uses in Section 15.02.020 and Subsection 15.04.020(B) of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO) and in the review procedure requirements found in Subsection 15.14.040(E) of the UAZO: (1) compliance and compatibility with the objectives, policies and development criteria of the comprehensive plan; (2) compliance and compatibility with the intent and character of the Two - Family Residential (R -2) Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 8 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 ID •; i a INDEX zoning district; (3) compliance with the provisions established in the zoning ordinance; and (4) compliance with the development standards established in the zoning ordinance. XII. Written Comments and Testimony. The following persons submitted written comments and testimony relative to this proposal: (1) The City Planning Division staff report favoring approval of the short plat and the Class (2) triplexes was presented at the hearing by Assistant Planner Joseph Calhoun (Exhibit A -1). (2) Testimony in favor of the approved short plat and the two proposed Class (2) triplexes was presented at the hearing by the applicant's representative, Bill Hordan of Hordan Planning Services. (3) A written comment favoring the proposal was submitted prior to the hearing by Yakima resident Mike Hiler (Exhibit G -2 received by the Planning Division on January 30, 2012). (4) Testimony favoring the proposal was presented at the hearing by Yakima resident Steven Avila. (5) A petition dated January 29, 2012, and January 30, 2012, signed by 28 residents and /or owners of the Westcrest development in opposition to the proposal was submitted prior to the hearing (Exhibit G -1 received by the Planning Division on January 30, 2012). (6) One or more written comments in opposition to the proposal were submitted by e -mail or letter prior to the hearing by Connie Panique, Tim Adams, Janice M. Weber, Sharon French, Philip Lamb on behalf of William and Shirley O'Hare, Roger Huynh, Sharlene Peters, Elnora Dougherty, Martin Haines, Jackie Haines, William O'Hare, Shirley O'Hare, Tom Lambert, Betty Lambert, James McLane, Michael Stone, Connie Stone and Jean Chandler (Exhibits G -3 to G -18 received by the Planning Division between January 1, 2012 and February 4, 2012). (7) Testimony in opposition to the proposal was presented at the hearing by Westcrest resident Connie Adams and by Westcrest duplex owners Michael Stone, Connie Stone and William O'Hare. The record of this matter includes a copy of the Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 9 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 ❑d Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 0 x ®EX �� -I detailed powerpoint slides presented at the hearing by Michael and Connie Stone (Exhibit 1-7), a typed copy of the detailed notes used by Connie Stone in testifying at the hearing (Exhibit 1-6) and a typed copy of the detailed notes used by William O'Hare in testifying at the hearing (Exhibit 1-9). (8) A summary of the testimony presented at the hearing would unduly lengthen this already lengthy decision and is unnecessary in view of the exhibits in the record that set forth much of the testimony in detail. Here the weight to be given to the numerous points and facts submitted in opposition to the proposal depends upon the compatibility considerations applicable to this short plat and to this Class (2) triplex use application. XIII. Applicable Compatibility Considerations. Compatibility considerations applicable to this proposal may be summarized as follows: (1) Here the request is for authorization to construct two triplexes in a seven -lot short plat which would have five duplexes on the other lots. The property is in the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zoning district between commercial uses to the south in the Local Business (B -2) zoning district and duplexes to the north in the Single - Family Residential (R -1) zoning district. Table 4 -1 in YMC Chapter 15.04 includes triplexes as "Multi- Family 8 -12 DU /NRA" which allows 12 dwelling units per net residential acre as a Class (2) use in the R -2 zoning district. YMC § 15.02.020 legislatively declares Class (2) uses to be "generally permitted throughout the district" as distinguished from Class (3) uses which are legislatively declared to be "generally incompatible with adjacent and abutting property because of their size, emissions, traffic generation, neighborhood character or for other reasons." The five proposed duplexes are not subject to this review process because of the legislative determination in YMC § 15.02.020 that they "are compatible and are permitted on any site in the district." (2) YMC § 15.02.020 also provides that the administrative official shall review Class (1) uses "for compliance with the provisions and standards" of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and Class (2) uses "in order to ensure compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objectives of the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan." Similarly, YMC § 15.14.040(E) requires that "findings shall demonstrate that the Administrative Official's decision complies with the policies of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the zoning district, and the Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 10 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 ° Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 provisions and standards herein." Likewise YMC § 15.14.040(D) allows conditions to be attached to an approval to "assure the development is consistent with the intent, the zoning district, the development standards and the other provisions." However, where a standard for approval of a generally permitted use is general rather than specific as in the case of the compatibility criterion, the burden is upon the one seeking to deny such a use to show the use is inappropriate (Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 783, 797, 903 P.2d 986 (1995)). This is the same result that flows from the fact that an ordinance declaring a use to be generally permitted in a zoning district creates by its clear wording a presumption or inference to that effect which places the burden of proving otherwise on the one claiming otherwise. (3) These ordinance provisions speak in terms of regulating compatibility with uses in the zoning district where the new use will be located rather than compatibility with uses in different adjacent zoning districts. This focus is a tacit acknowledgment in the ordinance that uses in different zoning districts which are adjacent to each other are allowed to be different. The context of the compatibility determination is necessarily different when the existing and proposed uses are in different zoning districts which allow different uses. (4) This Hearing Examiner is of the opinion that only under limited circumstances should applications be denied on the basis of incompatibility. It is important that zoning ordinances specify as clearly as possible what uses will be allowed in the various zoning districts. The zoning classification of property creates expectations in purchasers and owners, and affects property values. Criteria which are at least in part subjective such as compatibility should be applied sparingly because reliance upon them impairs the predictability and consistency of land use decisions. Of the more than 500 recommen- dations or decisions issued by this Hearing Examiner since 2003, less than a dozen of them have either recommended denial or denied applications on the basis of incompatibility. They can be summarized and compared to this situation as follows: (a) The recommendations for denial of applications on the basis of incompatibility have been rezone recommendations. The rezone requests would have allowed a zoning classification and a significant number of potential uses that would have been significantly different from the zoning classifications and uses on nearby properties. Requisite criteria for recommending approval of a rezone include the suitability of the property in question for uses permitted under the proposed zoning and the compatibility of the proposed zone change and associated Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 11 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 D®Co 11 NDEX uses with neighboring land uses which was lacking in three situations. (Eugene R. Huit, Yakima County ZON 05 -08, October 6, 2004; Yakima Temple Building Association and Michael Kim, City of Yakima RZ #12 -07, October 25, 2007; and Casey Kitt, City of Yakima RZ 006 -09, February 11, 2010). In the latter situation, this Hearing Examiner subsequently recommended that an application for a 14 -Lot Preliminary Plat be approved for the property, and also approved Class (3) duplex uses for the plat, where the specific application did not involve a concern for the compatibility of all of the potential uses that a rezone would have allowed. (Casey and Christi Kitt, City of Yakima PLP 005 -10 and CL(3) 007 -10, October 7, 2010). (b) A number of the decisions denying an application on the basis of incompatibility have involved applications for a different type of use than the existing uses on nearby properties. They include an application for a Type II noisy heavy equipment maintenance use to be located within a single - family residential enclave (Timothy J Duke, Yakima County CUP 02 -069, April 17, 2003); a 4 -acre 308 -unit Class (3) mini - storage facility to be constructed over a five to six year period in a single - family residential enclave (Keith Hallauer, City of Yakima CL(3) #1 -04, May 27, 2004); a Type III 120 - foot -tall communication tower facility to be located within 60 feet of the view window of a new home or so as to otherwise dominate views from homes in a rural single- family residential area (ProLand, LLC /Verizon Wireless, Yakima County CUP 09 -045, February 24, 2010); and a Class (2) adult dance studio use to be located in close proximity to family- oriented and tourist - oriented businesses (Jamie Muffett, City of Yakima CL(2) #005 -10, July 6, 2010). (c) Two decisions denying an application on the basis of incompatibility have involved applications for a different type of residential use than the existing residential uses on nearby properties because they required an adjustment to the development standards of the zone and /or approval of Class (3) uses. They include an application for a Class (2) density increase in the number of duplexes allowed on the property with an upward adjustment of the maximum lot coverage allowed in the zone which was referred for Class (3) review (Dale Turner, City of Yakima CL(3) #2 -03 & ADM ADJ #3 -03) and a Class (3) application for 96 apartment units in 15 buildings, a Class (2) application for 42 duplexes and Administrative Adjustment applications to increase the maximum lot coverage and decrease a setback prescribed for the zone (Envizage Development Group, City of Yakima Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 12 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72° Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 ai 11wli)E. AA - CL(3) #7 -08, CL(2) #20 -08 and ADM ADJ #16 -08). In the latter situation, Hearing Examiner Pro Tem Patrick Spurgin subsequently recommended that an application for a 66 -Lot Master Planned Development/Preliminary Plat for 66 single - family common -wall lots at least 4,000 square feet in size be approved in the R -2 zoned portion of the property because there was no longer a concern for compatibility of Class (3) uses, Class (2) uses or adjustments of standards in the zone (Envizage Development Group, City of Yakima PD #1 -09 and PLP #1 -09). (d) This Hearing Examiner has issued recommendations to deny applications or has denied applications on the basis of incompatibility in exceptional situations involving rezones that would allow a significant number of unknown potentially incompatible uses, or involving applications for uses that are significantly different from existing uses, are Class (3) uses legislatively declared to be generally incompatible with adjacent property and /or are uses requiring an adjustment of the development standards applicable to the zone where the use would be located. To apply the compatibility criterion to land use recommen- dations or decisions without appropriate restraint would be to usurp the City Council's legislative prerogative to define the specific presumptions and develop- ment requirements to be applied to specific uses in specific zones. To apply the compatibility criterion without appropriate restraint would also create a slippery slope that would jeopardize the predictability and objectivity that is sought to be achieved in land use decision making. (e) None of the special circumstances found in previous recommendations to deny applications based on incompatibility or decisions denying applications based on incompatibility are found in this case. This is not a rezone application, a request for a type of use that is significantly different from the duplexes on the property to the north, a request for a Class (3) use that is considered generally incompatible with adjacent property, or a request for a use that would require an adjustment to the development standards of the R -2 zoning district. XIV. Hearing Examiner's Short Plat Appeal Findings. The Hearing Examiner's short plat appeal findings based upon the weight of the evidence presented at the hearing are as follows: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 13 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 I (1) The short plat requirement to extend West Chestnut Avenue west to connect with the Colony West subdivision with a minimum 24- foot -wide asphalt driving surface with curb and gutter to the satisfaction of the City Engineer was criticized by public comments and testimony for several reasons. It would add traffic from adjoining areas that contain 142 homes. With the 17 duplexes in Westcrest and the 16 units in the proposed development, the number of dwelling units using West Chestnut Avenue would be 192. There are no left turn lanes on South 72 Avenue or West Chestnut Avenue. West Chestnut Avenue between South 74 and South 76 Avenues is a curvy road through a residential neighborhood with vehicles parked on the street. The street there is about 32 feet wide, but is only required to be 24 feet wide along the proposed development. An alternative would be to open 76 Avenue where the barricade presently sits by placing a bridge across the Yakima Valley Canal. Otherwise excavation for the connection will be required within 25 feet of the canal that could threaten its integrity. Nevertheless, it has been known since 1994 that the West Chestnut Avenue connection westerly to 74 Avenue would be required in the future (Finding 7 of Hearing Examiner Philip Lamb's recommendation in Westcrest Preliminary Plat #420). That connection will help implement the City's goals relative to street connectivity and its street grid system (See e.g., Comprehensive Plan Transportation Goal 6.1.2). The testimony as to the capacity of West Chestnut Avenue was to the effect that the street will have capacity for more traffic than will result from the connection (Testimony of Bill Hordan). The connection is being recommended and required by the City Engineer (Exhibit A -1, page 6). YMC 15.05.055 mandates connection when more than 30 dwelling units are on a cul de sac. There are 34 dwelling units on Chestnut Avenue in Westcrest. There are 67 units in West Valley Country Club off of 76 Avenue and another 55 units on 74 Avenue and 76 Avenue. Connecting West Chestnut Avenue to 74 Avenue will provide two access routes for both neighborhoods, eliminating what commenter Philip Lamb indicated may be the largest existing cul de sac in Yakima (Exhibit G -6). (2) The ability to develop the short plat to the extent proposed was questioned by written comments and testimony because the property is subject to a Drainage Improvement District (DID) easement, a telephone line easement, a water easement, a sewer easement and perhaps other easements. The testimony at the hearing was to the effect that the DID easement has historically been protected from encroachment (Finding 8.9 and Condition 5 of Hearing Examiner Philip Lamb's 1994 recommendation in Westcrest Preliminary Plat #420; Finding 6 and Condition 5 of Acting Subdivision Administrator Bruce Benson's now expired 2009 short plat decision in PSP #25 -08 /PAL Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 14 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 621,__AA - 9 � #002 -08). It is also being protected from encroachment by this short plat (Finding re County DID Line on page 2 and Condition 5 of Acting CED Director Joan Davenport's 2012 short plat decision in PSP #012 -11 here appealed). All other access and public utility easements must be shown on the final short plat (Finding re Easements on page 2 and Condition 2 of Acting CED Director Joan Davenport's 2012 short plat decision in PSP #012 -11 here appealed). Nothing in the short plat approval allows the applicant to violate the terms of any easement on the subject property even if he must reduce the density of his development to avoid unauthorized encroachments over easements. (3) Since this short plat is in the R -2 zoning district rather than the R -1 zoning district to the north, different standards of development apply to this short plat than to the adjacent Westcrest development across West Chestnut Avenue to the north of the subject property. YMC § 15.01.030 provides that distinctions between each district are significant. Compatibility is the focus of two of the criteria for consideration of rezones. But where, as here, a rezone has already been granted, presumably upon a finding of compatibility with neighboring property, the main focus for future short plat approval shifts to whether there is compliance with the objective development standards and short plat approval standards of the zone where it is located. (4) Residential uses will be constructed on the lots in the subject short plat. Five of the seven residential structures will be the same type of residential structures that were constructed in Westcrest after Hearing Examiner Philip Lamb recommended approval of those Class (2) duplex uses in the R -1 zone in 1994 (Westcrest Preliminary Plat #420, Exhibit H -1). The other two residential structures in the short plat will be Class (2) uses in the R -2 zone just as duplexes were Class (2) uses in the R -1 zone. Since the zones are different, the Class (2) uses in the zones are different. But all uses in the subject short plat will be residential uses legislatively declared to be permitted or generally permitted. (5) The prior recommendations and decisions of this Hearing Examiner do not provide precedent or justification for requiring the applicant's short plat to be reduced from seven to five lots and to be restricted to only duplexes similar in height, style, setbacks, lot coverage, materials, variety, etc. to those in Westcrest and to be subject to private restrictive covenants similar to those in Westcrest. Nor have appellants presented any precedent or authority that would allow the Hearing Examiner to base such a requirement upon general compatibility criteria where all of the lots meet the objective requirements for approval of short plats which were adopted to promote compatibility. To create such a precedent would erode the predictability and consistency sought to be Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 15 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 ilftee j achieved in land use decision making and the authority of the City Council to adopt different development standards to be uniformly applied in the different zoning districts. (6) There was testimony to the effect that the proposed residential structures on lots in the short plat will be more compatible with Westcrest than the commercial uses and the views of the backs of large concrete commercial buildings which presently exist south of Westcrest (Testimony of Steven Avila) and that the property in the short plat was not rezoned for commercial uses with the rest of the property to the south in order to preserve a transitional R -2 buffer for the R -1 zoned property to the north (Testimony of Bill Hordan). Relative to the height of the triplexes, there was testimony and a written comment to the effect that their height would cause shadows to be cast to the north an unspecified distance and would affect some of the Westcrest residents' view of Ahtanum Ridge (Testimony of Michael Stone, Connie Stone and Connie Adams; Exhibit G -12). The applicant's position on this point was that even single -story structures would affect views and that the planned height of the triplexes is 261/2 feet rather than the allowed 35 feet (Testimony of Bill Hordan). Relative to the location of the triplexes, there was a written comment and testimony at the hearing regarding potential future traffic congestion at the 72 Avenue intersection that would be reduced if a duplex rather than a triplex were constructed on that lot (Exhibit G -6; Testimony of Joseph Calhoun, Connie Adams, Michael Stone, Connie Stone and William O'Hare). The applicant's position on that point was that he would prefer to put a triplex on that lot, but could locate a duplex there if need be. Based on the testimony, including the applicant's position as to these details, the Hearing Examiner will limit the height of the triplexes to 26'/2 feet rather than 35 feet and will require the two proposed triplexes to be one lot removed from South 72 Avenue. (7) Even though compatibility is to some extent subjective and the dispute here relates to the degree or extent of the difference between the structures in the subject short plat and in Westcrest, the Hearing Examiner has not been persuaded that the relief requested by the appellants can be granted on the basis of incompatibility. The fact that the zoning districts are different could lead to a reasonable expectation that Class (2) triplexes could and might be located on some of the lots even though they are different to a certain extent from the Class (2) duplexes approved for the Westcrest development. (8) The degree or extent of the difference between the two proposed Class (2) triplexes in the subject short plat and the existing Class (2) duplexes in Westcrest does not warrant a finding of inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan and Urban Area Zoning Ordinance provisions set forth in the short plat appeal. An acknowledgment of the fact Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 16 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 LID r s) h that there are similarities as well as the differences in the two types of Class (2) residential uses being compared here leads the Hearing Examiner to find that the short plat with triplexes on two of the lots is compliant and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan provisions set forth in the short plat appeal, namely, Goal 3.3 which is to preserve existing neighborhoods, Policy 3.2.2 which is to ensure that new development is compatible in scale, density, and aesthetic quality to an established neighborhood and Goal 6.1 which is to develop streets that encourage neighborhood safety and livability. (9) An acknowledgment of the fact that there are similarities as well as the differences in the two types of Class (2) residential uses being compared here also leads the Hearing Examiner to find that the short plat with triplexes on two of the lots is compliant and compatible with the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance provisions set forth in the Short Plat Appeal, namely, Subsection 15.01.030(7) which is to provide for adequate privacy, light, air and view; Subsection 15.01.030(10) which is to protect existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments; Subsection 15.01.030(11) which is to reduce traffic danger and congestion on roads and highways; and Section 15.01.030 providing that flexibility is balanced by procedures and standards based on the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan designed to guard against and mitigate undue adverse impacts and to protect individual neighborhoods and the community's general welfare and that both concepts are essential and necessary. (10) Even though the written comments, the powerpoint presentation and the testimony at the hearing in favor of the short plat appeal were extremely detailed, thorough and comprehensive, the Hearing Examiner cannot properly grant the relief requested by the appellants in their short plat appeal. The degree or extent of the difference between the proposed Class (2) triplexes and the existing Class (2) duplexes is due to differences between the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts which do not require the identical type of development. Whether Subsection 16.06.020(E)(2) of the Yakima Municipal Code requires dismissal of this short plat appeal because it is based in part upon the density of residential development in an urban growth area need not be decided due to the Hearing Examiner's denial of the short plat appeal. The Hearing Examiner would prefer to address that issue in an appropriate future situation with the benefit of argument and briefing by all the parties involved in the proceeding, including the City. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 17 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 * r, e 8� 0 ; XV. Class (2) Use Approval Findings. The Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions are required to set forth specific reasons and ordinance provisions demonstrating whether the application satisfies the following requirements in Subsections 15.04.020(B) and 15.14.040(E) of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: (1) Compliance and Compatibility with the Objectives and Development Criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential by the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map I1I -2. This designation may include single - family detached residences, duplexes and a variety of other housing types. Considering the similarities as well as the differences between the two proposed triplexes and the existing nearby duplexes under the evidence presented at the hearing, the weight of the evidence established that the two proposed triplexes would be compliant and compatible with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies for the reasons already discussed relative to the short plat appeal: (a) Goal 3.3: Preserve existing neighborhoods. (b) Policy 3.3.2: Ensure that new development is compatible in scale, style, density and aesthetic quality to an established neighborhood. (c) Goal 6.1: Develop streets that encourage neighborhood safety and livability. (2) Compliance and Compatibility with the Intent and Character of the Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zoning District. Even though the application of this criterion to the proposal is also disputed, the weight of the evidence at the hearing established that the two proposed triplexes will also be compliant and compatible with the intent and character of the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zoning district in the following ways: (a) Table 4 -1 in Chapter 15.04 of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC) lists triplexes as a Class (2) use in the R -2 zone. Class (2) uses have been legislatively determined to be generally permitted in the district. (b) YMC § 15.03.020(F) provides that the purpose of the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zoning district is to establish and preserve residential neighbor- hoods for detached single - family dwellings, duplexes and other uses that are compatible with the intent of the district; and locate residential development up to Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 18 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001- 12 /PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 1 OC. !INDEX 't } twelve dwelling units per net residential acre in areas receiving a full range of public services including water and sewer service, and police and fire protection. (c) The character of the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zoning district is specified by the zoning ordinance. The district is characterized by up to 60% lot coverage, access by way of local access streets and collectors, one and two story buildings, some clustering of units, and required 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 YMC Chapter 15.04 as a Class (3) use (YMC § 15.03.020(C)). (d) Here the density of the proposed development is probably the main concern of those in opposition to it. When computing the allowed density for a Class (2) use on a per lot basis for 9,450 and 9,488- square -foot lots, the 0.21 -acre size is multiplied by 12 and the 2.52 -unit result is rounded up to three units per lot. However, when considering the entire area of the short plat, the calculation results in rounding up 15.06 or 15.08 to 16 dwelling units being allowed as Class (2) uses on the 54,674 square feet of total net residential area after dedication of right -of- way or the 54,746 square feet of net residential area of all lots added together. The net residential area slightly exceeds 1.25 acres so as to allow more than 15 units when the exact area is multiplied by 12. A transposition discrepancy in the length of the east boundary shown on the December 18, 2011, site plan was explained in the testimony at the hearing (Calculations of PLSA on Exhibit 1 -5 and testimony of Bill Hordan). Probably the most controversial aspect of this proposal is the need to apply the sentence found in YMC § 15.05.030 to round up the number of units allowed as a Class (2) use in this proposal from 15.06 or 15.08 units to 16 units. A written comment and testimony characterized this way of determining allowable density as ridiculous (Exhibit G -11; Testimony of William O'Hare). Even so, that section states in no uncertain terms that "Any fraction of dwelling units shall be rounded up to the next whole number." It is mandatory rather than discretionary and it is clear rather than ambiguous. The line for rounding up must be drawn at some point. The legislative prerogative to provide that "any fraction" of dwelling units "shall" be rounded up to the next highest whole number is binding on the Hearing Examiner and cannot be rewritten by him in the name of interpretation. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 19 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 " Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 at Co Of r ` r• Clear ordinances can only be changed by the legislative body which adopted them and cannot be rewritten even by the courts (See e.g., 50 Am. Jur. 204, § 225; Cochran v. Nelson, 26 Wn.2d 82, 173 P.2d 769; State v. Houk, 32 Wn.2d 681, 203 P.2d 693; Sadona v. CleElum, 37 Wn.2d 831, 226 P.2d 889; Ransom v. South Bend, 76 Wash. 396, 136 Pac. 365; Durham v. Crist, 180 Wash. 213, 88 P.2d 1054). The effect of the rounding up requirement is consistent with YMC § 15.01.030 which provides that the zoning ordinance is designed to be flexible and that it intentionally increases the potential uses or choices available to individual property owners. (3) Compliance with the Provisions Established in the Zoning Ordinance. Applicable zoning ordinance provisions relative to the proposal include the following comments regarding requirements for the proposal as a result of the City's Development Services Team meeting held on January 25, 2012: (a) Codes: The preliminary addressing for the Chestnut Townhomes should be as follows. Please note that the individual unit numbers (i.e. Unit 1, Unit 2, etc.) will be assigned as the individual building plans are submitted and the exact orientation of the structure is known. Lot 1: 7310 Chestnut Avenue Lot 5: 7302 Chestnut Avenue Lot 2: 7308 Chestnut Avenue Lot 6: 7204 Chestnut Avenue Lot 3: 7306 Chestnut Avenue Lot 7: 7202 Chestnut Avenue Lot 4: 7304 Chestnut Avenue (b) Engineering: Relative to plans, the applicant is required to submit civil engineering plans for improvements per the requirements of Title 12, stamped and signed by a civil engineer. Relative to utilities, the existing storm drain line that crosses the east end of the property shall either be constructed within the city of Yakima right -of -way or centered in a 20- foot -wide utility easement. Location of said storm drain line is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Stormwater shall be treated and disposed of per the Yakima County Regional Stormwater Manual for both private property and city right -of -way. The applicant shall design, construct and provide a utility easement for a roadway catch basin to be installed at the low point within Chestnut Avenue. Relative to frontage, the applicant is required to construct barrier curb, gutter and sidewalk as well as half street Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 20 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72" Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 1 pavement for Chestnut Avenue along the entire frontage of this parcel, aligned with the existing curb return on the south side of the intersection of Chestnut and 72 Avenue. The locations of individual curb cuts on Chestnut Avenue are subject to approval by the City Engineer. The existing asphalt roadway surface of Chestnut is to be saw cut at the design centerline and the new roadway crowned at that saw cut. These improvements are to be extended to the Colony West Subdivision. The applicant is to provide a design that will connect Chestnut and provide a minimum of 24- foot -wide asphalt driving surface with curb and gutter. All construction shall meet the requirements of the City of Yakima standard plans and specifications and is subject to final approval by the City of Yakima Engineer. (c) 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 completed by a licensed Professional Engineer and then be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. 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 with a Professional Engineer's stamp and signature for each well shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer before final project approval shall be granted. (d) Traffic Engineering: No direct lot access to 72 Avenue is allowed. The driveway for the lot closest to 72 Avenue should be no closer than 50 feet from 72n Avenue. The shopping center driveway on 72" Avenue at the south property line of this development needs to be reduced in width to match the property line location. This will help deter vehicles from hitting the fence encroaching onto Chestnut Townhomes property. A transitional pedestrian ramp needs to be installed at the west terminus of the sidewalk that is to be built with this project. The ramp may be asphalt or concrete in construction. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 21 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 DOC. ON E t � (e) Nob Hill Water: Nob Hill Water Association can provide 4,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi. The static pressure is 73 psi. Nob Hill Water Association has sufficient water rights to serve this development. There is currently a 12 -inch PVC line on Chestnut Avenue that will be accessed to serve this development. Per Yakima Valley Canal, there are two irrigation shares available to the property. These shares will need to be utilized if at all possible to provide irrigation water to the development at the expense of the developer. (4) Compliance with the Development Standards Established in the Zoning Ordinance. Development standards applicable to the proposal which are minimum criteria that will have to be met to assure land use compatibility and to promote the public health, safety and welfare include the following: (a) Building Height: YMC § 15.05.020(F) states that the maximum building height is intended to maintain building heights compatible with the character and intent of the district. Table 5 -1 provides that the maximum building height in the R -2 zoning district is 35 feet. Written comments and testimony at the public hearing lead the Hearing Examiner to promote compatibility of the proposed triplexes with the Westcrest development by limiting their maximum building height to 26'/2 feet which conforms to the applicant's plans for the triplexes. (b) Location: Connie Adams who lives in the Westcrest duplex nearest South 72 Avenue testified that she sometimes has difficulty exiting her driveway onto Chestnut Avenue at that location. Constructing a triplex on the lot adjacent to South 72 Avenue creates an unnecessary potential for additional congestion at that intersection. The existence of a 10- foot -wide telephone easement does not allow the triplex lots to be spread throughout the development. As recommended by the Planning Division, it would be more appropriate for a duplex to be on the lot closest to the intersection. In view of the testimony, the recommendation and the position of the applicant on this detail, the Hearing Examiner will require the two proposed triplexes to be separated by one lot from South 72 Avenue. (c) Maximum Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage is the percentage of net land area of a site that can be covered with structures and other impervious surfaces. The intent in the R -2 zoning district is to provide areas for landscaping and recreation. The maximum lot coverage in the R -2 district is 60 %. The maximum lot coverage percentage cannot here properly be reduced to mirror the Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 22 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 0 0 iv DE-1X 4 I lot coverage of the Westcrest development on the basis of incompatibility where different zoning regulations for different zoning districts are involved. The maximum lot coverage for the applicant's lots will be 60 %. (d) 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 minimum setbacks in the R -2 zone include side setbacks of 5 feet, rear setbacks of 15 feet and front setbacks of 20 feet as measured from property lines. Larger minimum setback requirements cannot here properly be imposed on the basis of incompatibility to mirror the structure setbacks in the Westcrest development where different zoning regulations for different zoning districts are involved. The proposed development shall meet all applicable setback standards for the R -2 zone. (e) Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the R -2 zoning district for duplex units is 7,000 square -feet (YMC Ch. 15.05, Table 5 -2). The lots in this development are proposed to range from 7,132.5 to 9,488.75 square feet. Larger minimum lot size requirements cannot here properly be imposed to mirror the lot sizes in the Westcrest development where different zoning regulations for different zoning districts are involved. (f) Parking: The purpose of YMC Chapter 15.06 is to establish adequate off - street parking, reduce on- street parking, increase traffic safety, maintain smooth traffic flow, and reduce the visual impact of parking lots. Table 6 -1 requires two - family dwellings (duplexes) to provide four parking spaces and multi - family dwellings of 10 units or less (triplexes) to provide two spaces per dwelling, or six spaces. Parking spaces for residential dwellings are most commonly provided in the form of a driveway. The minimum front yard setback of 20 feet from the property line provides sufficient depth for a typical 9 -foot by 19 -foot parking space. Minimum off - street parking requirements cannot here properly be increased to discourage people from parking on public streets where the applicable R -2 zoning regulations set specific standards for the requisite number of off - street parking spaces to be consistently and uniformly applied. The site plans provided for the two triplex lots show the required six off - street parking spaces. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 23 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 1300. 1 XVI. Consistency of the Proposed Use with Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan as determined by the Criteria which are set forth in Section 16.06.020 of the Yakima Municipal Code. Compliance with Section 16.06.020 of the Yakima Municipal Code is determined by consideration of the following factors: (1) The types of land uses permitted at the site. The proposed short plat is a permitted use at the site. The proposed five duplexes are Class (1) permitted uses of the site which are reviewed by the administrative official for compliance with the provisions and standards of the zoning ordinance. The proposed two triplexes are Class (2) uses in the R -2 zoning district that are permitted so long as the criteria for approval of Class (2) uses are satisfied, as is the case here if the conditions set forth in this decision are satisfied. (2) The density of residential development or the level of development such as units per acre or other measures of density. The density of the proposed seven -lot short plat with five duplexes and two triplexes will comply with the 60% lot coverage limitation for the R -2 zoning district, and the short plat will be developed to a density legislatively declared to be generally permitted in the R -2 zoning district. (3) The availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities. Infrastructure and public facilities will be available and adequate for the proposed short plat with five duplexes and two triplexes. (4) The characteristics of the development. The proposed triplexes on the proposed seven -lot short plat will be consistent with the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zoning district development regulations and Comprehensive Plan considerations as discussed above. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing Findings, the Hearing Examiner reaches the following Conclusions: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 24 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S 72 °d Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 jst; e INDEX (1) The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to deny preliminary short plat appeals and to approve Class (2) use applications by Type (3) review under the circumstances prescribed by the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance, which circumstances warrant denial of Short Plat Appeal APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11 and warrant approval of Conditional Use Permit CL(2) #034- 11/REF #001 -12 to construct two triplexes on two of the lots, subject to the conditions set forth below. (2) Public notice requirements have been satisfied. (3) The proposal is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review under WAC 197- 11- 800(6)(a) which exempts short plats and short subdivisions from SEPA review and by YMC § 6.88.070(A)(1)(a) which exempts construction of less than 20 units in the R -2 zoning district from SEPA review. (4) The prior recommendations and decisions of this Hearing Examiner do not provide precedent for requiring the applicant's short plat to be reduced from seven to five lots that could only be used for Class (1) permitted duplex uses subject to private restrictive covenants similar to those on adjacent property. Nor do they provide precedent for denying this application for two Class (2) triplexes which the City Council has legislatively declared to be generally permitted in the R -2 zoning district. (5) The appeal of the proposed short plat does not establish any valid ground for invalidating the approval of the applicant's short plat which complies with all lot size, lot width and other requirements for approval prescribed by YMC Chapter 14.15 and YMC Chapter 15.05 because it contains appropriate provisions for public health, safety and welfare; open spaces; drainage ways; streets, alleys and other public ways; potable water supplies; sanitary waste disposal; parks and recreation and playgrounds; and schools and schoolgrounds; and serves the public use and interest. (6) The two proposed Class (2) triplexes can be adequately conditioned by the conditions set forth below so as to ensure compatibility, compliance and consistency with the objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan and with the intent, character, provisions and development standards of the zoning district and of the zoning ordinance. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 25 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72 ° Avenues APP #001- 12/PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 /REF #001 -12 z, EX (7) This decision may be appealed to the Yakima City Council within the time and in the manner required by applicable City ordinances. DECISION Preliminary Short Plat Appeal APP #001 -12 is denied and Preliminary Short Plat PSP #012 -11 is affirmed subject to obtaining any requisite administrative approval of lot line modifications required to separate the two triplex units from the intersection of South 72 Avenue and West Chestnut Avenue by one duplex lot. The Class (2) use application to construct two triplexes on two lots in accordance with the documentation submitted for CL(2) #034 -11 and REF #001 -12 is approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) The triplex units shall be separated from the intersection of South 72 Avenue and West Chestnut Avenue by one duplex lot. (2) The triplex units shall be limited to a maximum building height of 26 feet. DATED this 22 day of March, 2012. Gary M. C flier, Hearing Examiner Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 26 Short Plat Appeal; Class (2) Use Application SW Corner W. Chestnut and S. 72n Avenues APP #001 -12 /PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034- 11/REF #001 -12 ON" i X 7 CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP#002-12 APP#001-12, REF#001-12 PSP#012-11, CL2#034-11 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER BB Appeal Application cAmFNT *NREN. # tW•74r :„ * BB-1 Appeal Application submitted by Michael & Connie Stone 04/05/2012 • - 1 1 CITY OF YAKIMA CODE AMAIN f?I\ /ISION ti , LAND USE APPLICATION APR 5 2012 r + ' -,' FAXED ❑ " ,, :i CITY OF YAKIMA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEV 1T 14, . `. u _. , ' ❑PAID FYI ❑ •y$,.t. . ,, 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2ND FLOOR, YAKIMA, WA 98902 - ° VOICE: (509) 575 -6183 FAX: (509) 575 -6105 INSTRUCTIONS — PLEASE READ FIRST Please j.e or •rint our answers clearl . Answer all questions completely If you have any questions about this form or the application process, please ask a Planner. 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. 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. PART I — GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant's Name, Address, Name Michael and Connie Stone And Phone Number Street 380 Kail Road City Tieton ST WA Zip 98947 Phone (509) 673-2792 2. Applicant's Property Interest Check One X Owner ❑ Agent ❑ Purchaser ❑ Other 3 Property Owner's Name, Name Address, And Phone Number (If Other Than Applicant) Street City ST Zip Phone ( ) 4 Subject Property's Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 181320 -34011 5. Description of Property. (if lengthy, please attach it on a separate document). North 105 feet of the north half, of the northeast quarter, of the southeast quarter, of the southwest quarter, section 10, township 13 north, range 18 east, W.M. 6. Property's Existing Zoning: ❑ SR ❑ R -1 X R -2 ❑ R -3 ❑ B -1 ❑ B -2 ❑ HB ❑ SCC ❑ LCC ❑ CBD ❑ GC ❑ AS ❑ RD ❑ M -1 ❑ M -2 7. Property Address: 7200 Chestnut Avenue 8. Type Of Application: (Check All That Apply) ❑ Administrative Adjustment ❑ Environmental Checklist (SEPA) ❑ Easement Release ❑ Type (2) Review ❑ Right -of -Way Vacation ❑ Rezone ❑ Type (3) Review ❑ Transportation Concurrency ❑ Shoreline ❑ Short Plat ❑ Non - Conforming Structure/Use ❑ Critical Areas ❑ Long Plat ❑ Type 3 Modification ❑ Variance ❑ Admin. Modification ❑ Interpretation by Hearing Examiner ❑ Amended Plat X Appeal ❑ Temporary Use Permit ❑ Binding Site Plan ❑ Home Occupation ❑ Comp Plan Amendment ❑ Planned Development ❑ Short Plat Exemption: ❑ Other: PART II — SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, PART III — REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, & PART IV — NARRATIVE 9. SEE ATTACHED SHEETS PART V — CERTIFICATION 10. I certify that the information on this application and the required attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. s /ice OL TY OWNERS SIGNATURE DATE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY Revised 02 -11 Notes: FILE # RPC Q - ‘-‘ DATE FEE PAID — RECEIVED BY Amount Receipt No. Hearing Date CM Cam— %)- Q; .vLKX\ ,� WI -1 OD() c e- -11. - ot9cZ 003 a ITY OF YAKIMA Supplemental Application for: CODE is,niTnl n n /mION APPEAL APR 5 2012 Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Chapter 15.16 ❑ REC'VD i; ❑PAID c-YI CI ❑ Of Administrative Official's Decision X Of Hearing Examiner's Decision [ Of Subdivision Administrator's Decision ❑ Of SEPA Determination ❑ Other Appeal of File Number: APP #001 -12; PSP #012 -1 1; CL2 #034 -11 Date Action Taken: March 22, 2012 REF #001 -12 1. Description of Action Being Appealed: Approval of the Preliminary Short Plat to subdivide one existing lot into seven lots, and establish tri- plexes on two of the Lots, submitted by Hordan Planning Services, on behalf of Chestnut Townhomes LLC, January 12, 2012. 2. Reason for Appeal: Describe the specific error(s) or issues(s) upon which the appeal is based, including an explanation of why the decision is not consistent with the Yakima Urban Area Plan, The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, or other provisions of law. (Reference the section, paragraph, and page of the provision(s) cited.) (Attach if lengthy) 1. Approval of two triplexes creates high density housing on a parcel designated for medium density housing. 2. Laws that guard against undue adverse impact and protect existing neighborhoods from new developments have been ignored. 3. This is the first challenge to a recent (2011) change in development standards that increases density in R2 zones. 4. Opening Chestnut Avenue without also opening 76 Avenue creates safety issues that have not been adequately addressed. Revised 02-11 ao ORM X14 —1 Dep Economic Development O�oeof Code Aumin� 13n Receipt Number Is 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 vi 44 ApP#002-12 18132034011 Appeal to City Council $340.08 $340.00 $0.00 CHESTNUT AVE Total Paid: $340.00 Tendered Amt: $340.00 Change Due: $0.00 CHECK 6325 $ 340.00 Total: $340.00 xp� . � A?‘ —=~~" U��0�D�Y� oum~~x=� CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP #002 -12 APP #001 -12, REF #001 -12 PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER A Staff Report DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX # A -1 Staff Report 03/08/2012 City of Yakima, Washington Planning Division Staff Report Hearing Examiner Public Hearing March 8, 2012 Appeal of a Prehminary Short Plat and ( REF #001 -12; CL2 #034 -11 Referred Type 2 Review to establish tri-plex ( APP #001 -12; PSP #012 -11 units on two of the proposed lots. ( Staff Contact: ( Joseph Calhoun ( Assistant Planner REQUEST The proposed development is a 7 -lot Preliminary Short Plat and a Type (2) Review to establish tri-plex units on 2 of the lots. The remaining 5 -lots are proposed to be duplexes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and the application be approved, subject to conditions. FINDINGS APPLICANT: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC LOCATION: SW Corner of Chestnut and South 72 Avenues PARCEL NO: 181320 -34011 HEARING EXAMINER JURISDICTION Pursuant to RCW Ch. 58.17, YMC § 1.43.080, YMC § 15.14.040(C)(5) and YMC § 14.50.010; the Hearing Examiner is authorized to make a decision for approval or disapproval, with written findings of fact and conclusions to support the decision, for a Type (2) Review referred to the Hearing Examiner and the appeal of the Administrative Official's decision on a Preliminary Short Plat. BACKGROUND The City of Yakima, Planning Division, received Preliminary Short Plat and Type (2) Review applications on December 20, 2011. A Notice of Application was sent to the applicant and adjacent property owners within 300 feet on January 12, 2012. Due to the nature of comments received dunng the comment period, the Type (2) Review to establish tn-plex units on 2 lots was referred to the Hearing Examiner for a public hearing and decision. The Administrative Official issued a decision for approval of the proposed 7 -lot Preliminary Short Plat on February 8, 2012, which was appealed on February 21, 2012 by Michael and Connie Stone (adjacent property owners). The property is approximately 1.5 acres in size and is currently vacant. A previous 7 -lot Preliminary Short Plat was approved on January 26, 2009. The necessary conditions were never completed and the approval lapsed. An application for a Master Planned Development, Variance, Preliminary Long Plat and Administrative Adjustment was submitted in August, 2011, and ultimately withdrawn on December 21, 2011. PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT APPEAL The Preliminary Short Plat Appeal provides the following reasons for appeal: Chestnut Townhomes' proposal generally complies with the provisions and standards established in the zoning ordinance, e.g., minimum lot size, off - street parking, structure set - backs, maximum lot coverage, etc. However, Chestnut Townhomes' proposal does not comply with, nor is it compatible with, the development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, specifically • Goal 3.3 "Preserve existing neighborhoods." DOC. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 1 [INIDEX REF #001 -12, CL2 #032 -11, PSP #012 -11, APP #001 -12 �1 • Policy 3.2.2 "Ensure that new development is compatible in scale, density, and aesthetic quality to an established neighborhood." • Goal 6.1 "Develop streets that encourage neighborhood safety and livability." In addition, Chestnut Townhomes' proposal is not consistent with several provisions of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance which governs implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically • Section 15.01.030.07 "Provide for adequate privacy, light, air and view." • Section 15.01.030.10 "Provide existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments." • Section 15.01.030.11 "Reduce traffic danger and congestion on roads and highways." • Section 15.01.030 "Procedures and standards based on Yakima Urban Area Plan are designed to mitigate undue adverse impacts and to protect individual neighborhoods and the community's general welfare. Both concepts are essential and declared necessary." Chestnut Townhomes' proposal meets the first, more objective, part of the law, but fails to meet the second, more subjective, part of the law. We refer to the written comments in letters and petitions by the homeowners and residents of West Crest. We believe that 1) if Chestnut Townhomes is restricted to five lots — not seven — and 2) if Chestnut Townhomes is further restricted to building duplexes similar to those in West Crest — height, style, set back, lot coverage, materials, variety, etc. — and 3) if Chestnut Townhomes is held to the same protective covenants and restrictions that affect the plat of West Crest, the proposed development would fall within the requirements of R -2 zoning and the requirements of the comprehensive plan herein specified. [end of appeal language] Staff Response: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 58.17.060 provides for the approval of Short Plat and Short Subdivisions. RCW 58.17.060 states, in part, that: "The legislative body of a city, town, or county shall adopt regulations and procedures, and appoint administrative personnel for the summary approval of short plats and short subdivisions or alteration or vacation thereof... Such regulations shall be adopted by ordinance and shall provide that a short plat and short subdivision may be approved only if written findings that are appropriate, as provided in RCW 58.17.110, are made by the administrative personnel..." The written findings required in RCW 58.17.110(2) include: a. Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and, b. The public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. The statute continues with — If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication niake such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. The Subdivision Administrator's Final Findings and Decision, dated February 8, 2012, included the following Findings: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC ® ®C 2 REF #001 -12, CL2 #032 -I 1, PSP #012 -11, APP #001 -12 !INDEX YMC § 14.15.020 establishes certain criteria for approval, and requires the administrator to approve a short plat if written findings and conclusions support the following: A. The application complies with the general requirements for short subdivision approval as specified by this chapter. B. The proposed short subdivision appropriately provides for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys and other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. The administrator may determine that other considerations are appropnate to evaluate as criteria of approval. C. The short subdivision and any associated dedication will serve the public interest. Galleon Park and West Valley Neighborhood Park are located within one mile of this subdivision. Summitview Elementary, West Valley Middle School and Apple Valley Elementary are located within one mile from this subdivision. The proposed subdivision complies with all general requirements for short subdivision of R -2 zoned property. Frontage improvement requirements, connections to water and sewer utilities, required easements, and adherence to development regulations appropriately provide for the necessary provisions of YMC § 14.15.020(B). This proposed short subdivision will serve the public interest by providing for additional housing units through infill development, connection to necessary utilities, and the extension of Chestnut Avenue to the west thus completing the road grid. In summation, appropriate provisions as required by state law and local ordinance have been met for the proposed preliminary short plat. As such, the preliminary short plat should be approved. ZONING AND LAND USE The subject property is zoned Two - Family Residential (R -2). The purpose of the R -2 zoning district is to establish and preserve residential neighborhoods for detached single - family dwellings, duplexes and other uses compatible with the intent of the distnct; and, locate residential development up to twelve dwelling units per net residential acre in areas receiving a full range of public services including water and sewer service, and police and fire protection. The district is characterized by up to sixty percent lot coverage, access via local access streets and collectors, one and two story buildings, some clustering of units, and required front, rear and side yard setbacks. Typical uses in this district are single - fancily dwellings and duplexes. (YMC § 15.03.020(C)). Adjacent properties contain the following characteristics: Direction Zoning Land Use North R -1 Residential (Duplex) South B -2 Commercial West R -1 Residential (Single- Family) East R -1 Residential (Single - Family) ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS Permitted Land Uses and Compatibility: YMC Ch. 15.04 establishes levels of review for certain uses in each zoning distnct. This chapter consists of a Land Use Table which establishes a level of review for each use in every zoning district.. This proposal includes two residential land uses in the R -2 zoning distnct. Duplexes in the R -2 zoning district are Class (1) Permitted uses. Trc- plexes are considered `Multi - Family 8 -12 DU/NRA' and are Class (2) Permitted use in the R -2 zoning distnct (YMC § 15.04 030, Table 4 -1) Class (1) and (2) uses are defined as follows - DOO Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 3 p ,D1- ! ti REF #001 -12, CL2 #032 -I 1. PSP #012 -1 I APP #001 -12 Class (1) Use: Those uses set forth and defined in the text and tables of YMC Ch. 15.04 and are considered compatible and are permitted on any site in the district. The administrative official shall review Class (1) uses for compliance with the provisions and standards of this Title (YMC § 15.02.020). Class (2) Use: Those uses set for and defined in the text and tables of YMC Ch. 15.04 and are generally permitted throughout the district. However, site plan review by the administrative official is required in order to ensure compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the objective of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (YMC § 15.02.020). Compatibility: Means the characteristics of different uses or developments that permit them to be located near each other in harmony with or without special mitigation measures (YMC § 15.02.020). The purpose a Type (2) Review is to examine the compatibility of a proposed use with the existing uses, and concerns about compatibility prompted the referral of this Type (2) Review to Hearing Examiner. As documented above, a Class (1) use is considered to be compatible and is permitted on any site in the district. The proposed Class (1) duplexes, therefore, are not required to be reviewed for compatibility with the neighborhood since, by definition, a Class (1) use is already considered compatible. The Compatibility between the proposed Class (2) tri- plexes and existing uses is further discussed as follows: The issue of compatibility between the existing developments of duplexes to the north and single - family to the west and proposed tri -plex development is largely an issue of density. The proposed tri- plex lots, as shown, meet all Site Design and Improvement Standards as established in YMC Ch. 15.05. In addition, the Parking Standards of YMC Ch. 15.06 are met. Density: The density, as calculated by the applicant, is twelve dwelling units per net residential acre. This calculation is denved by multiplying the acreage, less the area dedicated for streets, by 12. After dedication, there will be approximately 1.25 acres left. The applicant indicates that the amount of units allowed at twelve units per acre would be 16. The provision in YMC § 15.05.030(B) dealing with density states "Any fraction of dwelling units shall be rounded up to the next highest whole number." The applicant claims that the calculation, when run out equals 15.02, which can be rounded up to 16. There were a significant number of comment letters which brought up the issue of density. One letter in particular challenged the calculation used by the applicant, stating that twelve units per acre multiplied by 1.25 equals 15 units allowed. The typical density of the R -2 zoning district up to twelve units per acre assumes Class (1) land uses. The proposed tri -plex units would require Type (2) review regardless of the overall subdivision density. The topic of density and how to appropriately calculate it was addressed at length in the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation of the adjacent plat of Westcrest dated January 12, 1994 (Examiner No. 093- 4 -43). The Hearing Examiner states, in part, "Table 5 -2 seems to be the one place in the ordinance which provides the most guidance. It establishes minimum lot sizes for ...duplexes .., but it establishes a density limit for multi -family dwellings and planned residential development. The thinking seems to be that when dealing with individual lots, rely on the lot size to establish density, after subtracting the area utilized for streets and sidewalks. With respect to multi- family dwellings and planned residential developments...the lot size approach does not work. Then you calculate density as set forth in subsection (B) of YCC 15A.05.030, and go to Table 4 -1 for the applicable level of review and Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 4 ®jCo REF #001 -12, CL2 #032 -11, PSP #012 -11, APP #001 -12 IN®L. standard of compatibility" (page 9). The county code quoted in the recommendation is similar to the City language, and the same principals can be applied to this project. The two lots proposed for trr -plex construction are 9,450 and 9,488.75 square feet, which each calculate to about 0.21 acres. When multiplied by 12 to establish the number multi- family dwellings per lot, the number of 2.52 is derived, which rounds up to 3 units per lot. Table 4 -1 establishes multi - family units of 8 -12 units per acre as being a Class (2) use in the R -2 zoning district. Building Height: Building height was also a significant concern to adjacent property owners. YMC § 15.05.020(F) states the "Maximum building height is intended to maintain building heights compatible with the character and intent of the district." The maximum building height in the R -2 zoning district is 35 -feet (Table 5 -1). In an effort to promote compatibility of the proposed tri -plex units with the adjacent duplexes to the north, the maximum building height should be reduced to 25 -feet. Location: The two lots proposed for tn- plexes are not compatible at their current proposed locations. Clustering the higher density uses of tri- plexes at the intersection of Chestnut and 72 ° will likely result in traffic problems. As recommended by the City Traffic Engineer, it would be more appropriate for a duplex to be the closest to the intersection of 72n and Chestnut. The existence of a 10 -foot telephone easement does not allow the tri-plex lots to be spread throughout the development. As a result, the two tri-plex lots shall be one lot separated from the intersection. Site Design and Improvement Standards: YMC Ch. 15.05 is designed to establish certain basic development requirements. These are the minimum requirements to assure land use compatibility and promote the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project meets development requirements as follows: Maximum Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage is the percentage of net land area of a site that can be covered with structures and other impervious surfaces. The intent in the R- 2..zoning district is to provide areas for landscaping and recreation. The maximum lot coverage in the R -2 district is 60 %. The applicant indicates that 60% lot coverage will be the maximum for the lots. 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 minimum setbacks in the R -2 zone include: 5 -foot side, 15- -foot rear, and 20 -foot front (as measured from property Imes). The proposed development shall meet all applicable setback standards for the R -2 zone. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height in the R -2 zoning distract is 35 -feet (YMC Ch. 15.05, Table 5 -1). No building shall be allowed which exceeds 35 -feet in height. Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot size in the R -2 zoning district for duplex units is 7,000 square - feet (YMC Ch. 15.05, Table 5 -2). The lots in this development are proposed to range from 7,132.5 to 9,488.75 square -feet. Parking: The purpose of YMC Ch. 15.06 is to establish adequate off - street parking, reduce on- street parking, increase traffic safety, maintain smooth traffic flow, and reduce the visual impact of parking lots. In accordance with Table 6 -1, Two - family dwellings (Duplexes) are required to provide 4 parking spaces, and Multi- family dwellings of 10 units or less (Tri- plexes) are required to provide 2 spaces per dwelling, or 6 spaces Parking spaces for residential dwellings are most commonly provided in the form DOC. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 5 i lit REF #001 -12, CL2 #032 -11, PSP #012 -11, APP #001 -12 t�. of a driveway. The minimum front yard setback of 20 -feet from property line provides sufficient depth for a typical 9X19 -foot parking space. The provided site plans for two tri -plex lots show the required 6- spaces. YAKIMA URBAN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan (YUACP) designates the future land use for this area as Medium Density Residential, which 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 11.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development is compatible with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Goal 3.2: Build sustainable new neighborhoods. Goal 3.3: Preserve existing neighborhoods. Policy 3.3.2: Ensure that new development is compatible in scale, style, density, and aesthetic quality to an established neighborhood. Goal 5.1: Encourage diverse and affordable housing choices. Policy 5.1.2: Support an inventory of potential sites for affordable housing development and redevelopment. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM (DST) A DST meeting was held for this project on January 25, 2012. The following comments were received from public agencies and private companies with an interest in the development herein being reviewed. Codes: The preliminary addressing for the Chestnut Townhomes should be as follows. Please note that the individual unit numbers (i.e. Unit 1, Unit 2, etc.) will be assigned as the individual building plans are submitted and the exact orientation of the structure is known. Lot 1: 7310 Chestnut Ave Lot 5: 7302 Chestnut Ave _ Lot 2: 7308Chestnut Ave Lot 6: 7204 Chestnut Ave Lot 3: 7306 Chestnut Ave Lot 7: 7202 Chestnut Ave Lot 4: 7304 Chestnut Ave Engineering: Plans: The applicant is required to submit civil engineering plans for improvements per the requirements of Title 12, stamped and signed by a civil engineer. Utilities: The existing storm drain line that crosses the east end of the property shall either be constructed within the city of Yakima right -of -way or centered in a 20 -foot utility easement. Location of said storm drain line is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Stormwater shall be treated and disposed of per the Yakima County Regional Stormwater Manual for both private property and city right -of -way. The applicant shall design, construct and provide a utility easement for a roadway catch basin to be installed at the low point within Chestnut Avenue. Frontage: The applicant is required to construct barrier curb, gutter and sidewalk as well as half street pavement for Chestnut Avenue along the entire frontage of this parcel, aligned with the existing curb return on the south side of the intersection of Chestnut and 72n Avenue. The locations of individual curb cuts on Chestnut Avenue are subject to approval by the City Engineer. The existing asphalt roadway surface of Chestnut is to be saw cut at the design centerline and the new roadway crowned at that saw cut. These improvements are to be extended to the Colony West Subdivision. The applicant is to provide a design that will connect Chestnut and provide a minimum of 24 -foot wide asphalt driving surface with curb & gutter. All construction shall meet the requirements of the City of Yakima standard plans and specifications and is subject to final approval by the City of Yakima Engineer. ® ®C. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 6 REF #001 -12, CL2 #032 -11, PSP #012 -11, APP #001 -I2 Nob Hill Water: NHW can provide 4,000 gallons per minute at 20psi. The static pressure is 73psi. Nob Hill Water Association has sufficient water rights to serve this development. There is currently a 12 -inch PVC line on Chestnut Avenue that will be accessed to serve this development. Per Yakima Valley Canal, there are two irrigation shares available to the property, these shares will need to be utilized if at all possible to provide irrigation water to the development at the expense of the developer. 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 completed by a licensed Professional Engineer and then be reviewed and approved by the City of Yakima Surface Water Engineer prior to construction. 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 hijection 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 forrn with a Professional Engineer's stamp and signature for each well shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer before final project approval shall be granted. Traffic Engineering: No direct lot access to 72 Avenue is allowed. The driveway for the lot closest to 72 " Avenue should be no closer than 50 feet from 72 " Avenue. The shopping center driveway on 72 Avenue at the south property line of this development needs to be reduced in width match the property line location. This will help deter vehicles from hitting the fence encroaching onto Chestnut Townhomes property. A transitional pedestrian ramp needs to be installed at the west terminus of the sidewalk that is to be built with this project. The ramp may be asphalt or concrete in construction. SEPA Environmental Review: Short Plats are categorically exempt from the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (WA.0 197- 11- 800(6)(a)). This exemption does not extend to any future development(s) upon this property that exceed one or more SEPA thresholds. Public Notice: The Preliminary Short Plat and Type (2) Review were subject to a 20 -day public comment period in accordance with YMC § 14.15.040 and § 15.14.040. Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 -feet of the site. Comments received included concerns related to compatibility, development standards, and traffic. The nature of the comments is summarized below. During the comment period 17 letters and one petition, including 28 names, was submitted. 16 of the 17 letters submitted were in general opposition to the project or aspects of the project. One letter was in favor of the project. The following chart summarizes the concerns received and the frequency of each concern: Concern Frequency Should be consistent with existing (Westcrest) 9 Density 8 Building Height 8 Parking 8 Traffic 5 DOCQ Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 7 INDEX REF #001 -12, CL2 #032 -11, PSP #012 -11, APP #001 -12 _ i Lower property values 3 Connection of Chestnut to the west 3 Should be 5 single -story duplexes 3 Lot coverage 2 Should be bound by Westcrest Covenants 1 Crime will go up 1 Stop any development 1 No room for children to play 1 Setbacks 1 PROJECT CONSISTENCY During project review, it has been determined that this request is consistent with YMC § 16.06.020(A) for making a determination of Consistency as follows: a. The proposed Tn -Plex units are a Class (2) use, and the proposed Duplex units are a Class (1) use in the R -2 zoning district. b. The density of the development is 12 units per acre, which is within the limits of the R -2 zoning district; c. Adequate public facilities are available to serve this site; and d. All applicable development standards for construction in the R -2 zoning district shall be met, and no adjustments are being requested. CONCLUSIONS 1. 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 and Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The proposed Preliminary Short Plat meets the standards as set forth in YMC § 14.15.020 and RCW 58.17.060. Written findings meet applicable standards, and therefore the Preliminary Short Plat approval should be upheld, and the appeal denied. 3 The proposed land use of duplexes on 5 -lots is a Class (1) permitted use and not subject to compatibility review. 4. The applicant's written narrative indicates that the proposed Class (2) Tri- plexes will meet all applicable development standards. As a result, the trr -plex units, as conditioned, are considered to be compatible with the R -2 zoning district and the adjacent land uses. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the Preliminary Short Plat Appeal and approval to establish tri -plexs on two lots, subject to the following conditions: 1. The tri -plex units shall be separated from the intersection of 72n and Chestnut by one duplex lot. 2. The trr -plex units shall be limited to a maximum building height of 25 -feet. DOC. Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 8 ,) REF #001 -12, CL2 #032 -11, PSP #012 -11, APP #001 -I2 CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP #002 -12 APP #001 -12, REF #001 -12 PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER B Site Plan DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX # B -1 Site Plan 01/06/2012 :: ' : REQU I RED A l'TACI I.M ENT �� SITE PLAN -- +fD�' r" P- -' .. - • Note: t'ruducing the site plan from this template is preferred, however, the template can be substituted Ii» • our own medium. (computer aided is .tti ptable.) I ( _ J o t-- a _ o 4— N '1 VI s : _ - .0 w - N -1" l (n ICl "J r O —�4 N } 1 , , llN) N V) u 1 . ,..K« ' i ■ D . J r i s J\ 4 .. - N I \ -C ("- 0 1 \' _ _ z 1j ` _ _ .t}C - . Y I c Ci G1 "......1 l 4-- - 0 -"1 . `� Iv ' -.,,p Iv N — t I - , N n �, h '_ ti ." ( --• to a 5,-x ,! - -t .t-- 31 cN I . m -,s CO • " 1 --4 1 RECEIVED ......<4 iz red ...t.,;777 WI 1 JAN 0 6 2012 -.3-- T' =� • •. _.CITY OF YAKIMA s'7Znd Ave. 1 l 1 1 j , ) •l• 4 •(lvl'.IlA(i1•, (.`f11.cuLATION PARKING CALCt Ltal.O1 (Helirrence'ratite 6-1 or die. tilkm Arru Zoning Ordinance) a) I•i,otpriut(s) of Existing Strut :tnre(s) _ _� SQ FT b) Building Addition /New Stru•turt•(s) Footprint(s) __ S(,Q FT a) N9t spells) required c) Paved Area(s) (Driveways, Walkways, patios, rte.) Total Iv/ ~ SQ FT b) spare(%) provided d) Pugilists' Paved Atea(s) __ V FT „•^ t•) Total Impervious Sudan. (at lit-e d = c) SQ FT !DT INEIRMATIQN 1) Lot Si/P _ SQ FT _ __.. Parcel #(,) --- -- _..__..... 1 13. �.Zd,��b1 _ � 1,Sf� g) Lot l'ttYt•i'agr(r /I� \ Ilnt � __________,s �) _. . _. , .,.__..___.. __.._.._. .... Site Address _ - 72 -_. G- }12$.74_ _ _ 1?. .A lie..._....._ __. . -. ._- .__.. ___.._..�._._._... Zoning _ �'z_ ._. -__ _ -- MAI' SCALE (Please use the given scale, however, in some circumstance , N`)1i1f1 ) 1 Legal Description (brie! P nnl• -•(per' I0.T_!`I ' �L }- N.1Y.r$k_ 1/-Y__ /.' / $P e t -14 .. �tj rdilli•rtnt scale may work hiller) 1 - TOONti. 1P 132 oR•r*t 'F..4.0C.G t_[wMt CI _.._--- ._.___ �Oe�_ I Ch ONE - - -- '` Preferred Scaly I inch on the map =!!40 lirt on the ground BACKGROUND INFROMATION INDEX r Applicant Name _ -___. Ad.� 11)011.h. rre ._ .4_�- _._... r Custom Scale: I inch = 60 ...___ _ Site Address or #. -.... -.. _._, ' Template tie marks are 1 inch apart ., _�._ 240 C . 4'ntl.f. _ _ . Mailing Address 203_ ,.,pi . e(3 . _ ... _ _.._ . . . - . Contact Person _ , ibilli ,�.." R�lffK..__ _- t'o»tact Phone ._N5 y13. - Prutluced by (prim) _ C— Bait• 12.-18•- 1Z. (Indie•:tcNttrth) Applicant Signature _ i ► 7 )lose: / 2- . • -;;; '' � 1, REQU1RE1) n rrAC! IMENT: =c 1 , SITE PLAN — (.1...41s5 1 2c-; .1) ,Ai .,.:,..,....:..::._:.7 Note. Pt oi the site plan from this template is pi rterred, however, the template can be substituted for your own medium. (computer aided is are•rptalde• ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f<ll� t _ V _" I 1 UV 8'N , d , '____ fi 0 CO - c _, 0 .,n c _. 0 t 1 . d _—. _ __ -�.. rI __ ®. 6\ 'El L 0. �'nN : A n ,p :zi ro .at m tA o p w CO .' . P w ,� 0 - r O' CI r� -.r C t\ -4 L } }V _ _._.. - _ _ ._a -- 7 C r. V w. G to uv[ *V`'‘,. i ‹., r t,1 tz) . i t '. .43 %:)/ [ ....‘ ..- ....... 4/4.. ..+..... 0 .., r . , -.I i , c) <.., , .. r~ to L ....$) ,R... r CAD ,f'' 12 ?U • E$rfT - t!). t!). frIk W r _K157, 5i1J Woot.k St 72 N) Ave, RECEIVED JAN 0 6 Z012 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. _._._ 1 1 1 1 ._..1. 1 1 1 (.OT COVERAGE CtU.0 Uj.Ai1' . N 6 ' 7 PARKING CALCULATION (Ilrr•renee Table ti-t or the th•han Area 7. ' g Ordinance) a) footprints) of Existing Structure(s) , SQ I T Id Building Addition /Nett Structure(s) rendprint(s) I /�Q SQ FT a ) /Z. • spare(s) required e) Pared Areas) (Driveways. %Vatkways, patios. eir.) Total jer __ f�;_ SQ FT b) / L space(s) provided d) Proposed Paved Area(s) 1 5 / Z 451 Z SQ7 FT e) Total impervious Sat lace (a +h +c I' 11 = e) 6652 5.652 SQ FT LOT INFORMATION I) ten Size 9/ 5'U 9'!8t 5su FT rater' l/(s) _ _._._ ie.13zo Toll' g) ten (•average (e /1• x Uxt = g) --• - ' -- 6•Q --(s _% Site Address W ' ; � .� =` Y • Zoning - ` Z MAP SCALE use the given scale, however, in snore circumstance T i l t r o l vv li Legal Description (brief) _IL ,Lfl pas' 4G A) JZ , Ale /y, ,tie /y /' SiiGi'} a different scale may work better) - rnWiJS.hP 13 A1,424+4 , 24 Pi E.vl.H CIIECK ONl: ____ —. 0 Preferred Scale: 1 inch on the map = 20 feet on the ground �• BACKGROUND INTROM ATIq N INDEX i - Applicant Name Cohestnl�_.�Tig. )1f�m¢f_U-.C_ . O Custom Scale: I inch = • Template tie marks are t inch apart ∎ Site Address 720 2_Ghes� t4 _ ° p p �� Mailing Address 21p3��_a..� _Cd_wt _ Contact Person �__�^��� _Contact Plume: 5 ' ,_(�7 ' � Products! by (print) .� fl LG_ ,` R06� _ L 12.71.49.7-:12-- (6edie me North) Applicant Signature__ _ ` Date: 12.--i e 11 z Date: �....� • _._. .... - CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP #002 -12 APP #001 -12, REF #001 -12 PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER C Maps D` at x 15Y. CU +E NT 'DATE C -1 Maps: Aerial, Future Land Use, Utility, Zoning, Vicinity 12/22/2011 , V P r n u z Cm • CI :t C ' i . _ : AVM .s' WV AP" i , t 2 2 .,. 4 'a. g A'tr•,Q w, • ie•m ("Awry . w C1,0p0014 11...1)C el a � to; YJdtma Av. <( \ , NI ° I k ",,, ,A■ tY Yn�4rta Am NCh..0.11,,fw , B cop. ,„,,, . . • 4 TIM ' 1 . 0 MI 1 K a' w W0,4 bI .. t. 1 ti . ".:..t t .. .. . . to w wrut sot 1 s , t J 3'J _ . J.1 t . t J sk , . fi . t it • J J• ' J. ' 1�. � J N Jr Sale-1:4000 City of Yakima, Washington Subject Area Site File Number: PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Applicant: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC Property Notification Area Owner: Dale Turner Request: Subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel into seven Tots in the R -2 zoning district and construct duplexes and NOTIFICATION OF triplexes. LAND USE APPLICATION Location: 7200 Chestnut Avenue Parcel Number (s): 18132034011 ,, 1. t; \ Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509- 575 -6183 1 City of Yakima . Geographic Information Services - Thursday, December 22, 2011 )_; Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for ptanning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes 1 no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not __ taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. DOC. INDEX # C -I 1 of 1 ` 12/22/2011 10:38 At 7 R4 . . - i Akan .% A#' W z , ., . i r Y' ' l • 1 - IIIWMM w chro's+t A! - -. / • .7 • , a q ., • n . .- , .... , . .4 4 , B2 A W IV, -a 51 A 1. 1 ■ .R-2 8.1 t i Scale 1:400( L City of Yakima, Washington _� Subject Area Site File Number: PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Applicant: Chestnut Townhomes LLC Zoning Boundary Owner: Dale Turner Request: Subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel into seven Tots in the R -2 zoning district and construct duplexes and triplexes. Location: 7200 Chestnut Avenue Parcel Numberls): 18132034011 - j Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509-575-6183 ` '.. City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services Thursday, December 22, 2011 � I t ' Ma tak Disclaimer: Information shown on this rna ys for tannin and illustration u i p p p g p rposes only. The City of Yakima assumes '-, •,./ no li ability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not en by the user in reliance upon any maps or information pr ovided herein. DOC INDEX # C 1 of 1 12/22/2011 10:37 AM • N z `j' A �yne W Z ® , No % 00".+ WY O r ., ' o 0 0 ti C, \, . •., - ® [Wm CI ((,n+u. Y r.4.k• G n oct b •-.0....- , t . iaLitir , Ne Do• e 0 9 0 0 8 0 G 0 O p e p b 0 r IN wa-ut O Gi 0 S• 0 0 0 i O , • Pr 0 t Scale - 1:4000 ' City of Yakima, Washington _ i Subject Area Site Fite Number: PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Applicant: Chestnut Townhomes LLC Water Pipe Owner: Dale Turner Request: Subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel into seven Tots in the R -2 zoning district and construct duplexes and Sewer Pipe triplexes. Location: 7200 Chestnut Avenue Parcel Number(s): 18132034011 Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509 - 5756183 _- ' City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services - Thursday. December 22, 2011 0 - I Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes • � no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. DOC. INDEX # n -i 1 of 1 12/22/2011 10:36 AM BARGE c'r I 14 16 — j 7505 14 7012 100 J 10 10 11 8 9 7004 l 3 u n M b g ^ r ��0 1 ^p 11 6 n 9 7 10 t � IN AXQdAll E 12 6 8 tal' � rl N. P $ 5 7 6 503 ^ ^ c c n In .y a 3 72 0 1 3 7001 7501 2 n {ii F- g `i7 1 X20? / 7403 WCI€$TIMJT AVE is. 7 t I201 __ —"" ' 200 200 7402 504 7502 7404 _-_- 1 200 203 , 202 200 201 205 205 207 204 < - . 207 203 206 rn — 209 51 205 208 209 III 213 72 1 J E 207 210 211 _ oi 215 217 209 212 213 21 5 409 7407 223 223 223 r Scale's 1:2000 W Nr�t21u4 ST / -. .... 1:2000 L_ _._. - 117 City of Yakima, Washington Subject Area Site File Number: PSP #012 -I 1, CL2 #034 -11 Applicant: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC Low DenstyResWentrat • tit ghbomoodCornmrctal Owner: Dale Turner Memum Density Ii* sOeraaI • Large ConvenenteCenter Request: Subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel into seven Tots in the • Ho Density Reseienbal ArenalCommercIai R -2 zoning district and construct duplexes and HofessronatOnce ■ CBD Core Comneroat triplexes. ■ Regional Commercial Industnal Location: 7200 Chestnut Avenue Parcel Number(s): 18132034011 2- Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509. 575.6183 � ' � City of Yakima Geographic Information Services Thursday, December 22, 2011 d E ' ' ,-- � - Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes ."7.9011_ . no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not - '..,._... taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. DOC • INDEX # c - I 1 of 1 12/22/2011 10:37 AM r `" trwti ' t •( r SURI g ' ' i 1 ____ H IF iii4:420 ., ! i ,.-.. r - • POrit . * 2.,,i2ir ` � rn s . I F L . or ,.. or II 1 il" ,p 4- w . , t ,i - 1 _ , , AI neNV1'.Z �' r , „'yti r Y�'� i1.. 1 N �Y /. _at h ' — rim krJr �, � , _. f 79......: �j �.i • —1 .. �Iw ( 1 �� . � ;; ' h' Y Inca 1vr "lI r—� �-, f J �� + I' i c y ,��� .� . i , tare / 1 ' r- J ( .4 r - —' •• • - "" -� w . 7 .—' '7"- r 1 6- % I j - .. - , ; . Ai S t t _ - o f 1,-- S 1_.. ' { ‘7 • ■ !� 111 �� �` _ ., c 1 • • t — i ' 1 ...., V'i'`‘...1 S' ' , _ at .w.1 r -,. . 71 1 L._ Lit <- L , . _ ,' ....' . F ,._,_, -.1,-,---,_..-._ -.5., , , ,iii, .....,...... , .....,„...,,... u) -_ .1. r .--,---t---4-1 pii- • 4 . . „L..2_,.., ALI !- I J i 1... 1 ; . City of Yakima, Washington Subject Area Site File Number: PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Applicant: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC Aerial Photo: June 2008 Owner: Dale Turner Request: Subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel into seven Tots in the R -2 zoning district and construct duplexes and triplexes. Location: 7200 Chestnut Avenue Parcel Numberls): 18132034011 , -- si t \ Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509-575-6183 €' l City of Yakima • Geographic Information Services - Thursday, December 22, 2011 . � � ). Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only. The City of Yakima assumes `>..., no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. • INDEX 1 of 1 12/22/2011 10:37 AM CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP#002-12 APP#001-12, REF#001-12 PSP#012-11, CL2#034-11 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER D DST Review & Agency Comments OTC 11 -1 ' : - ,Dtie * U1V4ESIT : %, ;1 •11 1. r . 1";% ‘ 1 ' g N :W r "e-` ;1 ' ; " ' V*14 1: ; ; * * 4 d; # 3/4 1 , D-1 DST Request for Comments & Distribution List 01/09/2012 D-2 Comments received from Dan Ford, Engineering Division 01/20/2012 D-3 Comments received from Jenna Leaverton, Nob Hill Water 01/23/2012 Association D-4 Comments received from Randy Meloy, Engineering Division 01/23/2012 D-5 Comments received from Royale Schneider, Codes Division 01/23/2012 Preliminary Addressing D-6 Comments received from Scott Schafer, Wastewater Division 01/26/2012 D-7 Comments received from Joe Rosenlund, Streets/Traffic 01/30/2012 Division D-8 Aerial Site Photo 02/17/2012 City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services i ' 1T , 11 f: v \ ai . II . _ 111411 to A. y 0 _ , , '� w flJ IP fp-1"ft ---- • W Yakima AV- )... i, r• z cNI i 4i d •• INI " — r i i• • Z l l t G I ki . - -71■11.1 — r • C'opynght 2011 City of Yakima. Washington. All nghls reserved. Pine Wrtawee 1Nnm+akca sta•n an Ms map Is for o r+ aryl andaom wmo+,s nap. TM CA rot r udma 111510 ' M um:M rot any .ran mntawns. Created Friday. Feb 17, 2012 al 1 3 i PA{ or nxarac, m w u ow y W tak en awned o arty action en or action not taken by ax use n retance upon any maw krm ot tnaoon vrovided ',era,' January 30, 2012 To: Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner From: Joe Rosenlund Streets & Traffic Operations Manager Re: PSP 012 -11, Chestnut Townhomes No direct lot access to 72 Avenue is allowed. The driveway for the lot closest to 72 " Avenue should be no closer than 50 feet from 72 Avenue.. The shopping center driveway on 72 Avenue at the south property line of this development needs to be reduced in width match the property line location. This will help deter vehicles from hitting the fence encroaching onto Chestnut Townhomes property. A transitional pedestrian ramp needs to be installed at the west terminus of the sidewalk that is to be built with this project. The ramp may be asphalt or concrete in construction. DOC. INDEX # .1)-7 EDITOR . r r r r • r • Wastewater connection charges shall apply. Each building (Duplex and Tri -plex) shall have one side - sewer to the public main. Sewer to be extended in accordance with Title 12 and built to City Standards. DST Comments - Scott Schafer Wastewater Division 01/26/2012 a � { DOC. INDEX "� " Y!�'f �'' DEPARTJIh rT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC J tilt WELOPMENT T .. Office of Code Administration 1,7-: i , 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 `J (509) 575 -6126 or 575 -6121 • Fax (509) 576 -6576 A irm. \` ," codes®ciyakima.wa.us • www.buildingyakima.com MEMORANDUM Date: January 23, 2012 To: Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner From: Royale Schneider, Code Inspection Office Supervisor Re: PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 for the Chestnut Townhomes The preliminary addressing for the Chestnut Townhomes should be as follows. Please note that the individual unit numbers (i.e. Unit 1, Unit 2, etc.) will be assigned as the individual building plans are submitted and the exact orientation of the structure is known. Lot 1: 7310 W. Chestnut Ave. Lott: 7308 W. Chestnut Ave. Lot 3: 7306 W. Chestnut Ave. Lot 4: 7304 W. Chestnut Ave. Lot 5: 7302 W. Chestnut Ave. Lot 6: 7204 W. Chestnut Ave. Unit Lot 7: 7202 W. Chestnut Ave. Unit 0Ca QHD[ City of Yakima Engineering Memorandum Date: January 23, 2012 To: Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner From: Randy Meloy Surface Water Engineer Subject: Chestnut Townhomes PSP #012 -11 72 Ave. and Chestnut Joseph, 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 completed by a licensed Professional Engineer and then 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 with a Professional Engineer's stamp and signature for each well shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer before final project approval shall be granted. Randy Meloy Surface Water Engineer City of Yakima (509) 576 -6606 DOG. INDEX �r ` NOB HILL WATER ASSOCIATION 6111 Tieton Drive • Yakima, Washington 98908 Phone: (509) 966 -0272 FAX: (509) 966 -0740 RECEIVED Nob Hill Water Association JAN 2 3 2012 CITY OF YAKIMA Development Name: Chestnut Townhomes PSP #012 -11 PLANNING Olt Fire Flow Available: NHW can provide 4000 gallons per minute at 20 psi. The static pressure is 73 psi. Nob Hill Water Association has sufficient water rights to serve this development. There is currently a 12" PVC line on Chestnut Avenue that will be accessed to serve this development. Per Yakima Valley Canal there is two irrigation shares available to the property, these shares will need to be utilized if at all possible to provide irrigation water to the development at the expense of the developer. } NOB HILL WATER ASSOCIATION J e vt via Le a ve rto v+. Jenna Leaverton Engineering Technician } INDEX °'R Sga 7r P-3 1 j ' i t 1� ENGINEERINGDEPAlRT11(ENT 'f ' '` . 129 N. Second Street Ut+ i' )'> : Yakima, WA 98901 :.. `' „' PHONE: (509) 5754111 • FAX: (509) 576.6305 Protect Development RECEIVED Date: 1/20/2012 JAN 2 3 2012 To: Joe Calhoun, Planning OTY OF YAKIMA From: Dan Ford, Yakima Engineering PLANNING DIV. Re: Dale Turner — Chestnut Townhomes CL2 034 -11 12.01.020 Applicability -- Compliance. (1) Any person or entity which undertakes to construct any public works improvement in the city of Yakima, including, without limitation, applicants who are granted a permit or approval that is conditioned on or otherwise requires construction of public works improvements in the city of Yakima, shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. 12.05.010 Sidewalk installation required. Sidewalks shall be installed along both sides of all new, improved, and reconstructed streets. 12.06.070 Provision of street curbing. Barrier curbs shall be installed along all public access streets. Engineering requirements are as follows: Plans: The applicant is required to submit civil engineering plans for improvements per the requirements of Title 12, stamped and signed by a civil engineer. Utilities: The existing storm drain line that crosses the east end of the property shall either be constructed within the city of Yakima right of way or centered in a 20' utility easement. Location of said storm drain line is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Stormwater shall be treated and disposed of per the Yakima County Regional Stormwater Manual for both private property and city right -of -way. The applicant shall design, construct and provide a utility easement for a roadway catch basin to be installed at the low point within Chestnut Avenue. Frontage: The applicant is required to construct barrier curb, gutter and sidewalk as well as half street pavement for Chestnut Avenue along the entire frontage of this parcel, aligned with the existing curb return on the south side of the intersection of Chestnut and 72 Avenue. The locations of individual curb cuts on Chestnut Avenue are subject to approval by the City Engineer. The existing asphalt roadway surface of Chestnut is to be saw cut at the design centerline and the new roadway crowned at that saw cut. These improvements are to be extended to the Colony West Subdivision. The applicant is to provide a design that will connect Chestnut and provide a minimum of 24' wide asphalt driving surface with curb & gutter. All construction shall meet the requirements of the City of Yakima standard plans and specifications and is subject to final approval by the City of Yakima Engineer. Dan Ford, P.E. Project Design Engineer City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street [Ii) *C Yakima, WA 98901 II o DEX #_,D,,,,,- 2- 811. ( Ie Arin,inbuuliuu 575.6121 • E 575-6111 • N,i Iilrn,Irnral Servir.•% 57S -61/11 • mann i,o: S75- 617:.+ Call Wan pudig. DST Distribution Lis>,. Applicant: Chestnut Townhomes File Number: PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 Date of DST Meeting. January 25, 2012 Assigned Planner: Joseph Calhoun City of Yakima Divisions and Yakima County Public Services Codes _ Joe Caruso Utility Services Pete Hobbs Codes Royale Schneider Parks and Recreation Ken Wilkinson Codes Glenn Denman Transit Ken Mehin Engineering Dan Ford Transit Kevin Futrell Storm water Engineer Randy Meloy Police Department Shawn Boyle Water /Irrigation Mike Shane Refuse Nancy Fortier Wastewater Scott Schafer Yakima County Public Svcs Vern Redifer Wastewater Shelley Willson Yakima County Planning Steve Erickson Fire Department Brandon Dorenbush 911 Communications Wayne Wantland Streets /Traffic Engineering Joe Rosenlund County Flood Control District Jeff Legg Other Agencies Capitol Theatre Gay Parker P.O. Box 102, Yakima, WA 98901 Committee for Downtown Yakima Jamie Lee Stickel 115 North 3" Street, Yakima 98901 Committee for Downtown Yakima James Stickel P.O. Box 9668, Yakima 98909 Committee Manager - CDY Manager P.O. Box 881, Yakima 98901 Yakima Tieton Irrigation District Rick Dieker/John 470 Camp 4 Rd. Yakima, WA 98908 Dickman Nob Hill Water Jenna Leaverton 6111 Tieton Drive, Yakima 98908 YakimaCounty Health District At McKuen 1210 Ahtanum Ridge Dr, Union Gap 98903 WA State Department of Ecology Gwen Clear 15 W Yakima Ave Ste #200, Yakima 98902 No. Yakima Soil Conservation District , Ray Wondercheck 1606 Perry St Ste F, Yakima 98902 Pacific Power and Light Co. Mike Paulson 500 N. Keys Rd, Yakima 98901 Qwest Tom McAvoy 8 South 2nd Ave Rm 304, Yakima 98902 Cascade Natural Gas Co. Sheila Ross 701 South 1st Ave, Yakima 98902 Yakima School,District #7 , Elaine Beraza 104 North 4th Ave, Yakima 98902 West Valley School District #208 Peter Ansingh 8902 Zier Rd, Yakima 98908 Charter Communications Kevin Chilcote 1005 North 16th Ave, Yakima 98902 County Clean Air Authority Gary Pruitt 329 North 1st Street, Yakima 98901 Yakima Waste Systems Scott Robertson 2812 Terrace Heights Dr, Yakima 98901 Yakima Greenway Foundation Al Brown 111 South 18th Street, Yakima 98901 US Post Office ' Jeff McKee 205 West Washington Ave, Yakima 98903 Yakima Valley Canal Co. Robert Smoot 1640 Garretson Lane, Yakima 98908 Department of Wildlife 1701 South 24th Ave, Yakima 98902 Department of Natural Resources 713 Bowers Rd, Ellensburg 98926 WSDOT (Dept of Transportation) _ Salah AI- Tamini ^ 2809 Rudkin Rd, Union Gap 98903 Department of Fisheries Eric Bartrand P.O. Box 9155, Yakima 98909 Yakama Indian Nation , Thalia Sachtleben P.O. Box 151, Toppenish 98948 Yakima Airport Lee Rimmel 2400 West Washington Ave, Yakima 98903 Trolleys Paul Edmondson 313 North 3 Street, Yakima 98901 City of Union Gap David Spurlock P.O. Box 3008, Union Gap 98903 WSDOT, Aviation Division John Shambaugh 18204 59th Drive NE, Ste B, Arlington WA 98223 Governor's Office of Indian Affairs PO Box 40909, Olympia, WA 98504 ____ Ahtanum Irrigation District Beth Ann Brulotte PO Box 563, Yakima, WA. 98907 Yakima- Klickitat Fisheries Project John Marvin 760 Pence Road, Yakima, WA 98909 De • artment of Fish & Wildlife Mark Teske 201 North Pearl, Ellensbur •, WA 98926 r- err DST Packets Distribution List updated 01.04.2012 INDEX 1i' 11 '.... . Dr' City of Yakima Development Services Team "; 1 Request For Comments � � ' �z January 9, 2012 To: City of Yakima Development Services Team From: _ Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner Subject: Request for comments Applicant: Chestnut Townhomes File Number: PSP#012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 Location: Vicinity of South 72nd and Chestnut Parcel Number: 181320 -34011 DST MEETING DATE: 1/25/2012 Proposal The previous project for a 20 -lot planned development has been withdrawn. The new project is a 7 -lot short plat. The 5 westerly Tots are proposed to be duplex lots and the 2 eastern lots (those closest to the Chestnut/72nd intersection) are proposed to be tri- plexes. Please review the attached application and 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 January 25, 2012 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 email 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 Person Department/Agency Wee INDEX # r -( CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP #002 -12 APP #001 -12, REF #001 -12 PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER E Land Use Applications DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX # E -1 Preliminary Short Plat and Type II Review Land Use 12/20/2011 Application E -2 Appeal Application submitted by Michael & Connie Stone 02/21/2012 a ' RECEIVED FEB 1) 1 2012 ”, =% , LAND USE APPLICATION Cm OF YAKIMA '=' p : CITY OF YAKIMA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPIONNING DIV. 1 51 li oW,. 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2ND FLOOR, YAKIMA, WA 98902 VOICE: (509) 575-6183 FAX: (509) 575 -6105 INSTRUCTIONS — PLEASE READ FIRST Please type or printyour answers clearly. Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this form or the application process, please ask a Planner. 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. This application consists of four parts. PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV — CERTIFICATION are on this page. PART II and HI contain additional information specific to your proposal and MUST be attached to this page to complete the application. PART I — GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant's Name, Address, Name Michael and Connie Stone And Phone Number Street 380 Kail Road City Tieton 1ST WA 1 Zip 1 98947 Phone I (509) 673 -2792 2. Applicant's Property Interest Check X Owner One ❑ Agent ❑ Purchaser ❑ Other 3. Property Owner's Name, Name Address, And Phone Number Street (If Other Than Applicant) City ST Zip ` (Phone ( ) 4. Subject Property's Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 181320 -34011 5. Description of Property. (if lengthy, please attach it on a separate document). North 105 feet of the north half, of the northeast quarter, of the southeast quarter, of the southwest quarter, section 10, township 13 north, range 18 east, W.M. 6. Property's Existing Zoning: ❑ SR 0 R-1 X R -2 0 R-3 0 B-1 0 B-2 0 H ❑SCC 0 LCC 0 CBD 0 GC 0 AS 0 RD 0 M -1 0 M -2 7. Property Address: 7200 Chestnut Avenue 8. Type Of Application: (Check All That Apply) ❑ Administrative Adjustment ❑ Environmental Checklist (SEPA) ❑ Easement Release ❑ Type (2) Review ❑ Right -of -Way Vacation ❑ Rezone ❑ Type (3) Review ❑ Transportation Concurrency ❑ Shoreline ❑ Short Plat ❑ Non - Conforming Structure/Use ❑ Critical Areas ❑ Long Plat ❑ Type 3 Modification ❑ Variance ❑ Admin. Modification ❑ Interpretation by Hearing Examiner ❑ Amended Plat X Appeal ❑ Temporary Use Permit ❑ Binding Site Plan ❑ Home Occupation ❑ Comp Plan Amendment ❑ Planned Development ❑ Short Plat Exemption: ❑ Other: PART II — SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, PART III — REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, & PART IV — NARRATIVE 9. SEE ATTACHED SHEETS PART V — CERTIFICATION 10. I certify that the information on this application and the required attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 4 44t42 SkR. 671,get ,A�te) 2— 21— Zo I — PROPERTY OWNERS SIGNATURE DATE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY Revised 02-11 Notes: FILE Pt? ' M \ - V' DATE FEE PAID RECEIVED BY Amount Receipt No. Hearing Date ®OCa INDEX � 1 Supplemental Application for. APPEAL. Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Chapter 15.16 ❑ Of Administrative Official's Decision ❑ Of Hearing Examiner's Decision X Of Subdivision Administrator's Decision ❑ Of SEPA Determination ❑ Other RECEIVED 1 Appeal of File Number: PSP #012 -11; CL2#034 -11 Date Action Taken: February 8, 2012 FEB 2 2012 New File Number. REF #001 -12 OF YAKIMA CITY 1. Description of Action Being Appealed: PLANNING DIV. Approval of the Preliminary Short Plat to subdivide one existing lot into seven lots, and establish tri- plexes on two of the lots, submitted by Hordan Planning Services, on behalf of Chestnut Townhomes LLC, January 12, 2012. 2. Reason for Appeal: Describe the specific error(s) or issues(s) upon which the appeal is based, including an explanation of why the decision Is not consistent with the Yakima Urban Area Plan, The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, or other provisions of law. (Reference the section, paragraph, and page of the provision(s) cited.) (Attach if lengthy) Chestnut Townhomes' proposal generally complies with the provisions and standards established in the zoning ordinance, e.g., minimum lot size, off-street parking, structure set - backs, maximum lot coverage, etc. However, Chestnut Townhomes' proposal does not comply with, nor is it compatible with, the development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, specifically • Goal 3.3 "Preserve existing neighborhoods." • Policy 3.2.2 "Ensure that the new development is compatible in scale, density, and aesthetic quality to an established neighborhood." • Goal 6.1 "Develop streets that encourage neighborhood safety and livability." In addition, Chestnut Townhomes' proposal is not consistent with several provisions of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance which governs implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically • Section 15.01.030.07 "Provide for adequate privacy, light, air, and view." • Section 15.01.030.10 "Protect existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments." • Section 15.01.030.11 "Reduce traffic danger and congestion on roads and highways." • Section 15.01.030 "Procedures and standards based on Yakima Urban Area Plan are designed to mitigate against undue adverse impacts and to protect individual neighborhoods and the community's general welfare. Both concepts are essential and declared necessary." Chestnut Townhomes' proposal meets the first, more objective, part of the law, but fails to meet the second, more subjective, part of the law. We refer the examiner to the written comments in letters and petitions by the homeowners and residents of West Crest. We believe that 1) if Chestnut Townhomes is restricted to five lots — not seven — and 2) if Chestnut Townhomes is further restricted to building duplexes similar to those in West Crest — height, style, set back, lot coverage, materials, variety, etc. — and 3) if Chestnut Townhomes is held to the same protective covenants and restrictions that affect the plat of West Crest, the proposed development would fall within the requirements of R -2 zoning and the requirements of the comprehensive plan herein specified. Revised 02-11 r Th : Cr- ' ; Office of Code Admintstn 1 ) Receipt Number: ratt12 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor I tt4'.: 0 " Yakima, Washington 98901 FRO! 0 Dif0 O1001 2 rdashier ti tOtiONG1 i PAY.e.ifiraY.0>NariVel: , VI* 0_61101A (.k(e_ONtilt triginalf.Eig) Artiofilit IF**, Apgratioitt t:, ' '- iFkeltielikilOtteiti , Ain79 - ' #01.a i3ii1406) ' ..-, _ _ . APP#001-12 18132034011 Appeal to Hearing Examiner $580.00 $580.00 $0.00 CHESTNUT AVE Total: $580.00 0od . _ -- --,:-,----v Method! ' i Number CHECK 6220 $ 580.00 Total: $580.00 ' itt_?_ Reti#00 Fietel'Opate) , '40:ikit_Ciii:tiii,k ' ' II Id .140 ,Pa _ RECEIVED FEB 2 1 2012 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. DOC. INDEX # -2, titUtJV► D DEC 2 0 2011 LAND USE APPLICATION CITY OF YAKIMA qIV. J 's' Vi CITY OF YAKIMA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELCII �G t `a 129 NORTH SECOND STREET, 2ND FLOOR, YAKIMA, WA 98902 VOICE: (509) 575 -6183 FAX: (509) 575 -6105 INSTRUCTIONS — PLEASE READ FIRST Please t j. a or tint our answers clear/ . Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this form or the application process, please ask a Planner. 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. This application consists of four parts. PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV — CERTIFICATION are on this page. PART 11 and II1 contain additional information specific to your proposal and MUST be attached to this page to complete the application. PART 1— GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant's Name, Address, Name DALE 'TuoJe2 And Phone Number Street 10 $ /40/2.-13+ 9 3 = 0 40E ® 'Ai4..1.I ST W.4 Zip 19908 Phone (S 0 9) 4I57 4 2. Applicant's Property Interest Check One ❑ Owner Agent ❑ Purchaser ❑ Other 3. Property Owner's Name, Name (,+ ft1GsTjJt4T 1 Address, And Phone Number Street 2 Q 3 /40,11.744 9 ' Ave (If Other Than Applicant) City /oftG ST VA I Zip 901D$ Phone (so t/ '7 t0S3$ 4. Subject Property's Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 0/ 2..0 3go1/ 5. Legal Description of Property. (if lengthy, please attach it on a separate document) 6. Property's Existing Zoning: ❑ SR ❑ R -1 'R -2 0 R -3 ❑ B -1 ❑ 13 -2 ❑ HB ❑ SCC ❑ LCC ❑ CI3D ❑ GC ❑ AS ❑ RD ❑ M -1 ❑ M -2 7. Property Address: /ZOO Wes G STNC+r ermi6 8. Type Of Application: (Check All That Apply) RECEIVED ❑ Administrative Adjustment ❑ Environmental Checklist (SEPA) ❑ Easement Release g Type (2) Review ❑ Right -of -Way Vacation ❑ Rezone DEC 2 0 2311 Type (3) Review ❑ Transportation Concurrency ❑ Shoreline 5 Short Plat ❑ Non - Conforming Structure/Use ❑ Critical AreaaITY OF YAKFAA Long Plat ❑ Type 3 Modification ❑ Variance PLANNING 0 U. ❑ Admin. Modification ❑ Interpretation by Hearing Examiner ❑ Amended Plat ❑ Appeal ❑ Temporary Use Permit ❑ Binding Site Plan ❑ Home Occupation ❑ Comp Plan Amendment ❑ Planned Development ❑ Short Plat Exemption: ❑ Other: PART II — SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, PART III — REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, & PART IV — NARRATIVE 9 SEE ATTACHED SHEETS PART V — CERTIFICATION 10. I certify that the information on this application and the required attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. PROPERTY SIGNATURE DATE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY Revised 02 -11 Notes: FILE ' • u, •iL C � �j ���1 DATE FEE PAID RECEIVED BY Amount Receipt No. Hearing Date 1 *t tx * U--( 1-) 31DC' INDEX . } Supplemental Application For: Y '� ° ': PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT CITY OF YAKIMA SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 14 PART 11- APPLICATION INFORMATION 1. PROPERTY OWNERS (attach if long): List all parties and financial institutions having an interest in the property. te(EZruKT' 'TN/A/AWES , z../.4... RECEIVED 2. SURVEYOR AND /OR CONTACT PERSON WITH THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION: DEC 2 0-2-011— 8, 14. f{ot4,1 - Cam-7 4c. t flD 4.2.e 5T• (404 .14 enlA 9 gem i CITY OF YAKIIPtA 6 249- Igi9 PLANNING DIV. 3. NUMBER OF LOTS AND THE RANGE OF LOT SIZES: 4. SITE FEATURES: A. General Description: Flat ❑ Gentle Slopes ❑ Steepened Slopes B. Describe any indication of hazards associated with unstable soils in the area, i.e. slides or slipping? ,40.44 C. Is the property in a 100 -Year Floodplain or other critical area as mapped by any local, state, or national maps or as defined by the Washington State Growth Management Act or the Yakima Municipal Code? Pi o • 5. UTILITY AND SERVICES: (Check all that are available) yaws 'ElectricityX Gas IZSewer NrCable TV Dir Water 4.8 11tu_ 'Irrigation ttu_ e o. 6. OTHER INFORMATION: A. Distance to Closest Fire Hydrant: Rio ` B. Distance to Nearest School (and name of school): 3,00o SKMH'T✓+es- Et—amain-44/ .aHoD•- C. Distance to Nearest Park (and name of park): H4a.oAJ PA/L1c. - $ , S00' D. Method of Handling Stormwater Dr ainage: 01.J - S i1C E. Type of Potential Uses: (check all that apply) X Single-Family Dwellings,Two- Family DwellingsXMulti- Family Dwellings ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial PART III - REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS 7. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY: (if required, see YMC Ch. 12.08, Traffic Capacity Test) 8. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUIRED: (Please use the attached City of Yakima Preliminary Plat Checklist) I hereby authorize the submittal of the preliminary plat application to the City of Yakima for review. I understand that conditions of approval such as dedication of right -of -way, easements, restrictions on the type of buildings that may be constructed, and access restrictions from public roads may be imposed as a part of preliminary plat approval and that failure to meet these conditions may result in denial of the final plat. 1 2— 20^ I ! Prope • ner Si I • re (required) Date Note: if you have any questions about this process, please contact us City of Yakima, Planning Division, 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA or 509 -575 -6183 Revised 02 -11 DOC. INDEX C Supplemental Application For: ' TYPE (2) REVIEW YAKIMA URBAN AREA ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 15.14 & 15.15 PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION 1. PROPOSED LAND USE TYPE: (See YMC Ch. 15.04, Table 4 -1) PART III - ATTACHMENTS INFORMATION 2. SITE PLAN REQUIRED: (Please use the City of Yakima Site Plan Checklist, attached) 3. NARRATIVE: (See Part IV) 4. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY: (if required, see YMC Ch. 12.08, Traffic Capacity Test) 5. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: (if required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act) PART IV - WRITTEN NARRATIVE: (Please submit a written response to the following questions) A. Fully describe the proposed development, including number of dwelling units and parking spaces. If the proposal is for a business, describe hours of operation, days per week and all other relevant information related the business. SEE 14iKa0 WiArleu A oteoPro -v2 Atvwcas Ta A-LL [Dues-m. - B. How is the proposal compatible to neighboring properties? RECEIVED DEC 2 0 201; CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. C. What mitigation measures are proposed to promote compatibility? D. How is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property? E. How is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? F. How is your proposal in the best interest of the community? Note: if you have any questions about this process, please contact us City of Yakima, Planning Division, 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA or 509 -575 -6183 Revised 02 -11 ®OCo INDEX RECEIVED DEC 2 9 2011 WRITTEN NARRATIVE CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING Div. A. Fully describe the proposed development, including number of dwelling units and parking spaces. If the proposal is for a business, describe the hours of operation, days per week and all other relevant information related to the business. The proposal is to subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel, zoned Two - family Residential (R -2), into 7 lots through the short platting process. The proposed short plat is a Class 1 Use in this zoning district. As proposed, Lots 1 through 5 will range in size from 7,132.50 square feet to 7205.25 square feet. These lots are designed for the purpose of duplex construction which is permitted as a Class 1 Use in the R -2 zoning district. Lots 6 and 7 are proposed to range in size from 9,450 square feet to 9,488.75 square feet and are designed to accommodate tri- plexes. The two tri- plexes are a Class 2 Use in the R -2 zoning district because they are considered multi- family dwelling units. The Class 2 Use portion of this application is for the establishment of the tri- plexes. Class 2 Uses are land uses which are generally pennitted in a particular zoning district, subject to administrative review for compliance of development standards and compatibility. Based on YMC 15.05.030B.3., the maximum number of lots permitted on the parent parcel is 16. This number is arrived at by removing the area necessary for additional property to be dedicated as right -of -way for the widening of West Chestnut Avenue, which is about .25 acres. This leaves a parent parcel of 1.25 acres. The 1.25 acres multiplied by 12 (the maximum number of dwelling units permitted per net residential acre) equals 15.02 dwelling units per net residential acre. YMC 15.05.0308.3, further stipulates that any fractional dwelling unit shall be rounded up to the next highest whole number. Thus, 16 dwelling units are permitted at this site. For purposes of clarification, duplexes are proposed to be constructed on Lots 1 through 5 as a Class 1 Use and tri- plexes are proposed to be constructed on Lots 6 and 7 as a Class 2 Use because they are multi- family dwelling units. B. How is the proposal compatible to neighboring properties? The proposal to construct two tri- plexes is compatible with neighboring properties because this is a mixed -use area along a major urban arterial. Properties lying to the north are located within a platted subdivision known as West Crest. The Plat of West Crest, as it abuts this proposal, is constructed with a combination of duplexes and common wall dwelling units and is separated from this development by a local access street, West Chestnut Avenue. West Chestnut Avenue at this location is currently constructed to a half - street standard. The duplex and common wall units within the Plat of West Crest were required to be reviewed through Class 2 Review prior to construction because the property they are located on is zoned ®OCo INDEX DEC 2 9 20 CITY OF YAKIfv1 PLANNING DIV. Single- family Residential (R -1). Based on the Yakima County Hearing Examiner's Decision for the Plat of West Crest, the density within the Plat of West Crest is 8.6 dwelling units per net residential acre. This exceeds the maximum number of dwelling units pennitted in the Single - family Residential (R -1) zoning district, which is seven, by 1.6 dwelling units per net residential acre. This proposed development, however, does not exceed the maximum number of dwelling units permitted per net residential acre, which makes it compatible with properties to the north. In other words, the density proposed in this development does not exceed the zoning district standard. New dwelling units proposed to be constructed by this application will be constructed of similar building materials, as those of surrounding residential housing. Materials are expected to be wood, brick and stone. Property to the east is South 72 " Avenue, a major urban arterial. The two -tri- plexes are proposed to be constructed on Lots 6 and 7 which are as close to South 72 " Avenue as possible. Siting the tri- plexes at this location keeps the number of vehicle trips for the tri- plexes located as far away from the present dwelling units developed in the Plat of West Crest. This reduces their impact on the neighborhood by keeping any additional vehicle trips generated by the tri- plexes concentrated near the intersection and away from existing residential dwelling units. Property to the northeast, across South 72 " Avenue, contains a two -story brick building which houses a Qwest /CenturyLink telephone switching station, single - family residences and some duplexes. The intended use of tri- plexes at this site will have no impact on that facility or those residential properties. In fact, that building provides a buffer from this use to the existing residential uses in that area. Properties which lie directly east and southeast, across South 72 " Avenue are zoned R -1 and generally front or have access to South 72nd Avenue. Some duplexes lie easterly of South 72 " Avenue along West Chestnut Avenue. Most of the properties that front on South 72 " Avenue have direct view of The Orchards Shopping Center, which is zoned Local Business (B -2). Further, to the southeast across South 72 "d Avenue, properties are zoned Local Business (B -1) and contain professional business development. No impact to these properties is expected, as this proposal is a residential development and not a commercial venture. Directly south, and abutting this proposal, is the Orchards Shopping Center. The shopping center was reviewed and approved as a Class 3 Use in the B -2 zoning district in 2000. A culmination of land use applications prior to the approval of the shopping center resulted in the subject property of this application to be zoned R -2 to act as a buffer between the R -1 zoned property which contains the Plat of West Crest and the B -2 zoning district which contains the shopping center. Thus, moderate density development has been planned for the subject site for many years and determined to be compatible with the neighborhood. Property to the west contains contiguous plats known as Colony West and West Valley Country Club. These plats are constructed of single - family residences and manufactured homes. There currently is no transportation connection between the subject property, the Plat of West Crest and Colony West, which directly abuts this project on the west. However, provisions were made in Colony West and the Plat of West Crest to connect these two plats to one another via West Chestnut Avenue and then ultimately to South 72 " Avenue. The provision was made by ®OCa PNDEX DEC 2 Uit PANNING DI providing the right -of -way necessary to make the connection of West Chestnut Avenue from Colony West, easterly through the Plat of West Crest and the subject property to South 72 Avenue. A portion of the right -of- -way dedication from Colony West and West Crest is currently unimproved and no physical connection exists. According to the approval of the Plat of West Crest, monies were either bonded or escrowed with Yakima County, to complete the north half of West Chestnut Avenue when the connection of West Chestnut Avenue between Colony West and South 72 was to be made. The original approval of the Plat of West Crest indicates that no connection between Colony West and South 72 was to be made because West Chestnut Avenue was only to be constructed to a half - street standard. It was determined at that time that too much traffic would be using a half - street, and thus, the connection was not made. This proposal is compatible with development to the west because it is a residential use which connects to other residential uses on the west and north. By dedicating the necessary right-of- way and improving the frontage of this project, the completion of West Chestnut Avenue can occur, which will provide a second means of ingress and egress to those neighborhoods which lie west of this proposal. Once West Chestnut Avenue is connected between Colony West and South 72 Avenue, it will complete the street grid which was anticipated, and will serve residential users only. C. What mitigation measures are proposed to promote compatibility? Normal mitigation measures for a development of this type are proposed. Specifically, through the platting process, right -of -way dedication and frontage improvements to West Chestnut Avenue are proposed. Driveway approaches to the tri- plexes have been placed as far away from the intersection of West Chestnut and South 72 " Avenue, so as to mitigate congestion at the intersection. Sitescreening, as required by YMC 15.07, will be installed per code requirements. D. How is your proposal consistent with current zoning of your property? The proposal is consistent with the current zoning of the property because the development complies with all development standards. The development does not exceed the density requirement of the district. The lots exceed minimum lot size requirements of the district, which is a minimum of 7,000 square feet. The proposed units do not exceed the lot coverage requirement of 60 percent. Two parking spaces are provided for each unit, as required by the parking chapter. The building height is proposed at approximately 28 to 30 feet, which is under the maximum district standard of 35 feet. No adjustments or variances of the development standards are being requested. E. How is your proposal consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties? DOC. INDEX # -I DEC 2 9 2011 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV, The proposal is consistent with the uses and zoning of neighboring properties because properties to the east, north and west are residential. The surrounding residential uses are a mixture of housing types and densities. Likewise, this development is similar to those surrounding uses. This project meets the intent of the zoning district because a Class 2 Use is generally permitted in the district. Other residential uses in the area have also been placed in the general area through Class Use review. Because this project does not exceed density requirements and meets all other development standards, it will be consistent with neighboring properties. Property to the south is commercial. This use is consistent with commercial development provided sitescreening requirements are met. It is a standard planning tool to have different zoning districts with different residential densities to buffer the most sensitive R -1 Zoning District from incompatible uses, such as the commercial district which lies to the south. The subject property which consists of a strip of R -2 property was specifically established for the purpose of providing a buffer between the R -1 Zoning District which lies northerly of West Chestnut Avenue and the commercial development of the Orchards Shopping Center. That R -1 property was ultimately developed at a higher density than permitted by the zoning ordinance though the Class 2 Use to permit duplexes and common wall units. The establishment of two tri- plexes at the most easterly end of the proposed short plat locates the higher density units within this development as far away from other residential development in the area. It also places them as close to the urban arterial as possible. For these reasons, this project is consistent with uses and zoning of neighboring properties. F. How is your proposal in the best interest of the community? This project is in the best interest of the community because it complies with all development standards of the zoning district in which it is located. No adjustments or variances are being requested. The project proposes the construction of new, affordable, safe and decent rental housing in the growing Yakima Community. This proposal provides for a variety of housing types and densities, as determined by the comprehensive plan and the Growth Management Act, Specifically Goal Number 4: "Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote u variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock". Currently, rental vacancy rates are extremely low and this project offers affordable residential housing located in an area where numerous rentals currently exist and where more are contemplated. This site is located in West Valley, along a major urban arterial and bus route. The property is served by all necessary utilities and facilities. The proposal is a classic infill project located in an existing mixed -use neighborhood because this is one of the last pieces of undeveloped residential property in the immediate area. The addition of housing units in this area would benefit the general area, as well as several businesses which are located in the area. DOC. INDEX # E- If this project is approved, it is very likely to be constructed. This will provide good paying construction jobs in this poor economy, while providing affordable housing in the West Valley Area. Because of all the factors listed in this written narrative, the property owner believes this project will be in the best interest of the community, now, and into the future. RECEIVED DEC 2 9 CITY OF KIMA PLANNING DIV. ®OCa INDEX £r 1 .... ... ..Y .uusuunu ueVCIupmam ( : J ; fi ' t > � o V... �. A I jj Receipt Number i'l O ,11- 239009" I Office of Code Adminis, �n t � � i .. _., ` r,4� �" 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor w,",.,, s- Yakima, Washington 98901 Receipt =Date: 121201201;1 ?Castrier: ,JCRUZ, ' • , PayerlPayee Name `:'.QJ %TiURNERs�CONSTRUCmON;e - • • - , OriginaliFee, , 'Amount. ,Fe Application!# ''Parcel; :Fe Description: tAmoun • . 1Paid'. ;Balance; PSP #012 -11 18132034011 Preliminary Short Plat $340.00 $340.00 $0.00 CHESTNUT AVE CL2 #034 -11 18132034011 Class 2 Review $365.00 $365.00 $0.00 CHESTNUT AVE Total: $705.00 RECEIVED Pa �Refer�ence - -- - .. ` - - Payment=' Method ' Numb* Arnounfi DEC 2 0 2011 CHECK 3106 $ 705.00 Total: $705.00 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. PreYious Pay►nenf:'Hi Cory Receipt# - Receipt:dafe, ° ; Fee'Description: , `, ArnouritdPaid' ,Application = # ;ParceI M1 DOC. (INDEX # E —I CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP#002-12 APP#001-12, REF#001-12 PSP#012-11, CL2#034-11 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER F Public Notices *14 . : .. F-1 Determination of Application Completeness 01/06/2012 F-2 Notice of Application 01/12/2012 F-2a: Postcard Notice F-2b: Parties and Agencies Notified F-2c: Affidavit of Mailing — F-3 Notice of Decision and Public Hearing 02/08/2012 F-3a: Legal Notice and Press Release F-3b: Parties and Agencies Notified F-3c: Affidavit of Mailing F-4 Land Use Action Installation Certificate 02/15/2012 F-5 Notice of Appeal and Public Hearing 02/24/2012 F-5a: Postcard Notice F-5b: Press Release F-5c: Parties and Agencies Notified F-5d: Affidavit of Mailing F-6 Hearing Examiner Packet Distribution List 03/01/2012 F-7 Hearing Examiner Agenda & Sign-In Sheet 03/08/2012 F-8 Notice of Hearing Examiner's Decision 03/26/2012 (See DOC INDEX#AA-1 for HE Decision) F-8a: Parties Notified F-8b: Affidavit of Mailing F-9 Notice of Appeal of HE Decision 04/10/2012 F-9a: Parties Notified F-9b: Affidavit of Mailing F-10 Letter of Transmittal: City Council Public Hearing 05/01/2012 (Mailing Labels, Vicinity Map, Site Plan, E-mail to City Clerk) F-11 Agenda Statement — Set Date of City Council Closed Record 05/01/2012 Public Hearing F-12 Notice of City Council Closed Record Appeal Public Hearing 05/04/2012 CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision To Deny the Preliminary Short Plat Appeal and Approve a Class (2) use for Chestnut Townhomes Vicinity of the 7200 block of Chestnut Avenue NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Yakima City Council will conduct a Closed Record Public Hearing of the appeal filed by Michael and Connie Stone, regarding the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Chestnut Townhomes project to deny a preliminary short plat appeal and to approve a proposed Class (2) use, subject to conditions. The proposed land use project is in the vicinity of the 7200 block of Chestnut Avenue. Said closed record public hearing will be held Tuesday, May 15, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter, in the Council Chambers at City Hall located at 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington. For additional information, please contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575 -6162. Any citizen wishing to comment on this appeal is welcome to attend the public hearing or contact the City Council in the following manner: 1) Send a letter via regular mail to "Yakima City Council, 129 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901"; or, 2) E -mail your comments to ccounciaci.yakima.wa.us. Include in the e -mail subject line, "Chestnut Townhomes appeal." Please also include your name and mailing address. Dated this 4 day of May, 2012. Sonya Claar Tee City Clerk Mailed May 4, 2012 •'R t •? i4, ice-! OVS BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No For Meeting of May 1, 2012 ITEM TITLE: Set Date of May 15, 2012 for Closed Record Public Hearing on Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision on Chestnut Townhomes SUBMITTED BY: Joan Davenport, Acting CED Director, 576 -6417 CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner, 575 -6162 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: Set date for a Closed Record Public Hearing on the Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Chestnut Townhomes project. The project is a seven lot preliminary short plat in the R -2 zoning district. Also included is a Class (2) use to establish tri -plex units on two of the lots. The Subdivision Administrator's decision for approval of the seven lot preliminary short plat was appealed on February 21, 2012. Based on comments received during the comment period, the Type (2) application was referred to the Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner held an open record public hearing on March 8, 2012, and issued a decision on March 22, 2012 for the Denial of the Preliminary Short Plat Appeal and the Approval of the proposed Class (2) use, subject to conditions. On April 5, 2012, the decision of the Hearing Examiner was appealed to City Council. You are now being asked to set the date of May 15, 2012 to consider the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision in a Closed Record Public Hearing Resolution Ordinance Other (specify) Contract: Mail to: Contract Term: Amount: Expiration Date: Insurance Required? No Funding Source: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: 70�/ City Manager , STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Set the date of May 15, 2012 for a Closed Record Public Hearing on the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on Chestnut Townhomes. BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Hearing Examiner issued his decision on March 22, 2012 for denial of the Preliminary Short Plat Appeal and approval of the proposed Class (2) use. ATTACHMENTS: Click to download No Attachments Available MOV1 re l t o ns Copyright 2001 -2012 NDFAX g ' // CITY OF YAKIMA, PLANNING DIVISION LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division, have transmitted to: Sonya Claar -Tee, Yakima City Clerk, by hand delivery, the following documents: 1. Mailing labels for CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC (APP #002 -12, APP #001 -12, PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11, REF #001 -12); including all labels for adjoining property owners of subject property, agencies and parties of record. 2. One black and white vicinity map. 3. I have also transmitted to Sonya Claar -Tee, Yakima City Clerk, by e- mail, a Legal Notice which was published for the Hearing Examiner's Public Hearing. This will supply information to be included in the City Clerk's legal notice of the City Council Public Hearing. Signed this 1St day of May, 2012. - - :' * ._boa.4./1-,_ Rbsalinda Ibarra Planning Technician /1 �� Received By: 14_, J��1'%f Date: i 5'1 --/ IIc 0' II c.A � 1 #_,EiL... c/o vale i urner , ENDRES FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST . GCI LP CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES LLC 7310 W YAKIMA AVE 2300 RIVER RD # 13 203 N 93RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989021293 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034490 18132034489 18132034488 MFP LLC MFP LLC MYERS ORCHARDS LLC 5625 SUMMITVIEW AVE 5625 SU TVIEW AVE 715 N 56TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YA , WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132042009 18132031464 18132031463 QWEST CORPORATION RATHOLE RENTALS LLC RATHOLE ', -• ALS LLC 1801 CALIFORNIA ST, SUITE 2500 PO BOX 9965 PO BO. "':5 DENVER, CO 802021984 YAKIMA, WA 98909 Y A, WA 98909 18132042011 18132043463 18132031486 ALFRED A & PAULINE DEAN CARMEN LOPEZ CAROLYN SCHAULS 7 N 72ND AVE 213 S 72ND AVE 14 N 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081624 YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034440 18132031473 18132034443 CHARLES L & JEAN C CUMMINGS DEBORAH DABRUZZI DOROTHY F & MELVAN HOOPES 7402 W CHESTNUT AVE 6 N 74TH AVE 205 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081586 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031465 18132031485 18132034439 ELNORA DOUGHERTY TRUSTEE ESTHER ANNE BLALOCK FRANCISCO J & TINA VILLEGAS 7309 W YAKIMA AVE 12 N 74TH AVE 202 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031458 18132034427 18132043461 GEORGE ERNEST BE - ' '. GERRI WEST GREGORY 1 & DEBORAH DUNN 6 N 72ND AV r .. '' 201 S 75TH PL 209 S 72ND AVE YAKI _ "';' A 989081623 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132042498 18132031493 18132031474 ISIDRO REYNAGA JAMES NETEMEYER SR JANICE WEBER 5 N 72ND AVE 4 N 54TH AVE 2 N 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132043009 18132031484 18132031461 JASON J & CARMEN STUGELMAYER JEAN CHANDLER KATHARINE D __ `•`. • r i 205 S 72ND AVE 5 N 73RD AVE 618 S 34 YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 98908 .r •-`' f A, WA 98902392 18132043515 18132043516 18132042489 KENNETH & IDA LEE KIMBERLY A MANZANARES LAVON F & PATRICIA D PARNELL %PRESTIGE REALTY POTTENGER 7106 W CHESTNUT AVE #1 7101 W CHESTNUT PO BOX 8087 YAKIMA, WA 98908 It flie. YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132042490 18132031424 #±1 . Q .. 1 . 8112034406 LAVON F & PAT t_ - ~ PARNELL LLOYD M & KRISTEN HILER LOREN MARTIN 7101 . _ ' T AVE 3 N 76TH AVE 7403 W CHESTNUT AVE Y • IMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989084100 1V1 1V1 aC L/%KUL I,HICULUJ mAKCiARITO D & LOUISA JUAREZ MARIE CHRISTINE MITZEL 208 S 74TH AVE RODRIGUEZ 11900 NE 18TH ST APT 225 YAKIMA, WA 989081503 PO BOX 10660 VANCOUVER, WA 986844712 YAKIMA, WA 989091660 18132034444 18132043517 18132031459 MARTIN C & JACQUELINE D HAINES MARY KAY SCHULLER MATHIAS & NANCY GARGUS 207 S 74TH AVE 7102 W CHESTNUT AVE # 2 5506 NORMAN RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18132031460 18132034442 18132031466 MATHIAS F & N . GARGUS MICHAEL CAULFIELD MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE 5506 NO' • -" • 5808 SUMMITVIEW PMB 329 380 KAIL RD YAKI A.; 98901 YAKIMA, WA 989083095 TIETON, WA 98947 18132031482 18132043460 MICHAEL. A & CO STONE NANCY RUTTER NANCY RUT : -' °' 380 KAIL RD 207 S 72ND AVE 207 S 7. r'� "• VE TIETON, W 947 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Y • - ' °c A, WA 98908 18132031468 18132031467 18132031479 ORPHA BROCKETT PAMELA A BALDWIN PAUL M & BETH A KUNNANZ 7321 W YAKIMA AVE 73.17 W YAKIMA AVE 5301 N CANYON RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081597 YAKIMA, WA 989011627 18132031457 18132031483 18132031469 RANDOLPH R BEETCHNOW RICHARD SIPPOLA ROBERT D HOGE 8 N 72ND AVE 7 N 73RD AVE 7325 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034445 18132034407 18132031492 ROGER A & DANIEL M CRAWFORD RONALD W & ELISA A JOHNSTON RYAN S CO,, . N 4 209 S 74TH AVE 7404 W CHESTNUT AVE 7307 "`' STNU YAKIMA, WA 989081564 YAKIMA, WA 989081586 ,,„ MA, WA 989 18132031491 18132043464 18132034441 RYAN S COWDEN SALVADOR JUAREZ SCOTT A & SARA L CHAMBERS 8704 GROVE AVE 213 S 72ND AVE 201 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 989081564 18132031481 18132034428 18132031478 SHARLENE PETERS TERRY L & JUDY LEE HARMON THOMAS A & MONIQUE STINE 10 N 74TH AVE 203 S 75TH PL 280 N 99TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081559 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031470 18132031489 18132034437 TOM R & BETTY LAMBERT VERN `ONNA C u ° " ••, ER VICKI L SHAFFER WHITE 7329 W YAKIMA AVE 12 ,' Y • ' '• >. • E `' ' 206 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081597 Y A, WA 98''18 ; r YAKIMA, WA 98908 • '' ,.: ?mo o 18132031476 NFRD s / Wilma Koski WILLIAM & SHIRLEY 0 HARE c/o Cindy Noble North 94 Place 10 ECHO COURT 5609 West Arlington Street Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 PARTIES OF RECORD - Chestnut Townhomes, LLC - APP REF PSP CL2 Updated 03 -23 -12 18132034011 Bill Hordan 18132031466 c/o Dale Turner Hordan Planning Services MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES LLC 410 North 2nd Street 380 KAIL RD 203 N 93RD AVE Yakima, WA 98901 TIETON, WA 98947 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031474 18132031484 18132031424 JANICE WEBER JEAN CHANDLER LLOYD M & KRISTEN HILER 2 N 74TH AVE 5 N 73RD AVE c/o Mike Hiler YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 3 N 76TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034444 18132031490 18132031467 MARTIN C & JACQUELINE D HAINES Ardis & Robert Endres PAMELA A BALDWIN 207 S 74TH AVE ENDRES FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 7317 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 7310 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081597 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031481 18132031478 18132031470 SHARLENE PETERS THOMAS A & MONIQUE STINE TOM R & BETTY LAMBERT 10 N 74TH AVE 280 N 99TH AVE 7329 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081597 18132031476 Philip Lamb Connie Panique & Tim Adams WILLIAM & SHIRLEY 0 HARE Lamb Legal 7203 West Chestnut Avenue 10 ECHO COURT PO Box 4 Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98907 18132031465 Sharon French Francis Meyerrecks ELNORA DOUGHERTY TRUSTEE 7308 West Yakima Avenue 1 North 73rd Avenue 7309 W YAKIMA AVE Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Rosie and Sarah Mitchell Trista and Shawn Johnson Marlena Gruner & Mike Stone 7306 West Yakima Avenue 207 North 70th Avenue 7313 West Yakima Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Michael Sloan & Sara Pastores Marcella Peterson Hannah Mauch 7305 West Chestnut Avenue 7301 West Chestnut Avenue 7311 West Chestnut Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Ashley Mayner & James McLane Roger Huynh Dusty Hanchett 7305 West Yakima Avenue B 01 1 s o 7312 West Yakima Avenue 7302 West Yakima Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 EX YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 EX Robert Hoge Steven Avila Paul & Beth Kunnanz 7325 West Yakima Avenue PO Box 9722 5301 North Canyon Road Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98909 Yakima, WA 98901 Esther Blalock 12 North 74 Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 n0,/i 0.-e f lleak-zrii A-potooa 05/0q f -io In -House Distribution E -mail List Name Division E -mail Address Dan Ford Engineering dford @ci.yakima.wa.us Sandy Cox - Code Administration scox @ci.yakima.wa.us Jeff Cutter - Legal Dept icutter @ci.yakima.wa.us Archie Matthews ONDS amatthew @ci.yakima.wa.us Brandon Dorenbush - Fire Dept - bdorenbu @ci.yakima.wa.us Michael Morales CED Dept mmorales @ci.yakima.wa.us Jerry Robertson Code Administration jroberts @ci.yakima.wa.us Royale Schneider Code Administration rschneid @ci.yakima.wa.us Mike Shane Water /Irrigation mshane @ci.yakima.wa.us Nathan Thompson - Code Administration - nthompso @ci.yakima.wa.us Kevin Futrell Transit Division kfutrell @ci.yakima.wa.us Dave Brown Water Division dbrown @ci.yakima.wa.us Carolyn Belles - Wastewater Division cbelles @ci.yakima.wa.us For the Record /File Binder Copy Type of Notice: no, rf D � � j b? File Number(s): VP& Date of Mailing: o 5/0 1 ///0- 8JIJ .• • . , • - ,=• . .;. . . . . . . ,., . I , Z .. „ . • . 4 . .. o A ,P' Aril,/ . . c, 1 Ve l/i,"::• El `J • , k;WnlyfJl l „, ., ” : '.' ` '• l ••• ••• :,•■ 1 . : , .: 4 A. . . (Alailffilligigli , ' , • ■ lab , r • , , : 1 - i'v '1'144.ItIli, Al,' ! .. 1231 al l i - ..121 -.: gin ,..T.-..' • ,„ .• , IBM - ' .:' ' - . NE MI , , I. • " ; 11: - J ''' I ''' ' Z .v ...: '' ..' '":" " :": ' ,J: r .,''' :; '.. • - ., . 1 , . .. . , , , -, ..' . ' ' 111 111 . ti • . , . i .. .. , ' ... .: . ••.• .. . .. • • ., , .. .: .. , .. . ,... ,..., • - " •,•, .1 _._.. • ,, , .. - .; .„ ,.., ,... .•,, • . ,.. •••• ..,•• ., ., „,",,..„•,,,, .... . , . , ,. ., . ,.„ ...• , ...„. ,.... I t : . ' .• ' '. . • , I I I . 4 , . 1 . . 4 y • , , . .4 .i• . ,. Scale - 1.4000 ' 4, ' .. , ,. 4 • 1 City of Yakima, Washington ,.-,,,' - Subject Area Site File Number PSP#012-11, CL2#034-11 . Chestnut Townhomes, LLC Applicant: Property Notification Area Owner: Dale Turner • Request: Subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel into seven lots in the R-2 zoning district and construct duplexes and NOTIFICATION OF triplexes. LAND USE APPLICATION i Location 7200 Chestnut Avenue Parcel Number(s) 18132034011 4. ,„......,...:„.... „ AliKrAIN Contact City of Yakima Planning Division at 509-575-6183 / N. City of Yakima - Geographic Information Services - Thursday, December 22, 2011 !Ili l '..• • ; , ' 1 . 1 , -1':ii , Cilh. Map Disclairner: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only The City of Yakima assumes \•%,., . ,,ff,i.,g; no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any action taken, or action not ".‘..:".:...:::_....- taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. i ii . NM 1 of 1 12/22/2011 10 38 A Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 3.24 PM To: Claar -Tee, Sonya Subject: Example Notice - Chestnut Townhomes, LLC (APP #002 -12, APP #001 -12, PSP #012 -11, CL2# 034 -11, REF #001 -12) Attachments: Ntc of Public Hearing - Chestnut Townhomes - REF CL2 _legal notice docx Sonya, Attached is the legal notice which was published for the Hearing Examiner Public Hearing on the Chestnut Townhomes, LLC (APP #002 -12, APP #001 -12, PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11, REF #001 -12) This is an example for you to use for publishing the City Council closed record public hearing which will be set on May 1, 2012 for a public hearing on May 15, 2012. The mailing labels will be delivered to you shortly. Thanks! Rpsa1nda I6arra Planning Technician ribarra @ci.yakima.wa.us City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 p: (509) 575 -6183 f: (509) 575 -6105 1 • ,, ND , 1 r a) } r AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: APP #002 -12 (APP #001 -12, REF #001 -12, CL2 #034 -11, PSP #012 -11) Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 7200 West Chestnut Avenue I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Appeal of HE Decision. 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 10th day of April, 2012. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. CPJ.10a )0‘ Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Technician pp PARTIES OF RECORD - Chestnut Townhomes, LLC - APP REF PSP CL2 Updated 03 -23 -12 18132034011 Bill Hordan 18132031466 c/o Dale Turner Hordan Planning Services MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES LLC 410 North 2nd Street 380 KAIL RD 203 N 93RD AVE Yakima, WA 98901 TIETON, WA 98947 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031474 18132031484 18132031424 JANICE WEBER JEAN CHANDLER LLOYD M & KRISTEN HILER 2 N 74TH AVE 5 N 73RD AVE c/o Mike Hiler YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 3 N 76TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034444 18132031490 18132031467 MARTIN C & JACQUELINE D HAINES Ardis & Robert Endres PAMELA A BALDWIN 207 S 74TH AVE ENDRES FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 7317 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 7310 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081597 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031481 18132031478 18132031470 SHARLENE PETERS THOMAS A & MONIQUE STINE TOM R & BETTY LAMBERT 10 N 74TH AVE 280 N 99TH AVE 7329 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081597 18132031476 Philip Lamb Connie Panique & Tim Adams WILLIAM & SHIRLEY 0 HARE Lamb Legal 7203 West Chestnut Avenue 10 ECHO COURT PO Box 4 Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98907 18132031465 Sharon French Francis Meyerrecks ELNORA DOUGHERTY TRUSTEE 7308 West Yakima Avenue 1 North 73rd Avenue 7309 W YAKIMA AVE Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Rosie and Sarah Mitchell Trista and Shawn Johnson Marlena Gruner & Mike Stone 7306 West Yakima Avenue 207 North 70th Avenue 7313 West Yakima Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Michael Sloan & Sara Pastores Marcella Peterson Hannah Mauch 7305 West Chestnut Avenue 7301 West Chestnut Avenue 7311 West Chestnut Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Ashley Mayner & James McLane Roger Huynh Dusty Hanchett 7305 West Yakima Avenue 7312 West Yakima Avenue 7302 West Yakima Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 - - � iii x._ riff Zip / . _ ? ) Robert Hoge Steven Avila Paul & Beth Kunnanz 7325 West Yakima Avenue PO Box 9722 5301 North Canyon Road Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98909 Yakima, WA 98901 Esther Blalock 12 North 74` Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 ner .fri et pc 14-E bectsion App4too 2 - ° oL-11101Q. * • C. r-,j=_q&=_ } In -House Distribution E -mail List Name Division E -mail Address Dan Ford Engineering dford@ci.yakima.wa.us Sandy Cox Code Administration scox@ci.yakima.wa.us Jeff Cutter Legal Dept jcutter @ci.yakima.wa.us Archie Matthews ONDS amatthew@ci.yakima.wa.us Brandon Dorenbush Fire Dept bdorenbu @ci.yakima.wa.us Michael Morales CED Dept mmorales@ci.yakima.wa.us Jerry Robertson Code Administration jroberts@ci.yakima.wa.us Royale Schneider Code Administration rschneid @ci.yakima.wa.us Mike Shane - Water /Irrigation mshane(aici.yakima.wa.us Nathan Thompson Code Administration nthompso@ci.yakima.wa.us Kevin Futrell Transit Division kfutrell @ci.yakima.wa.us Dave Brown Water Division dbrown(a,ci.yakima.wa.us Carolyn Belles - Wastewater Division cbelles @ci.yakima.wa.us For the Record/File Binder Copy Type of Notice: N O b of bec-'S to Y) File Number(s): /PP 602 - ) � Date of Mailing: ® 1140 8R i� Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 10'32 AM To: Belles, Carolyn, Brown, Dave; Cox, Sandy; Cutter, Jeff; Denman, Glenn, Dorenbush, Brandon, Ford, Dan, Futrell, Kevin, Ibarra, Rosalinda; Matthews, Archie; Morales, Michael, Robertson, Jerry; Schneider, Royale, Shane, Mike, Thompson, Nathan Cc: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HE DECISION - Chestnut Townhomes - APP #002 -12 (REF# 001 -12, CL2 #034 -11, PSP #012 -11, APP #001 -12) Attachments: NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HE DECISION - Chestnut - APP002- 12.pdf gZpsalinda Marra Planning Technician ribarra@ ci.vakima.wa.us City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 p: (509) 575 -6183 f: (509) 575 -6105 !It 1 ) April 10, 2012 To: Appellant, Project Applicant, and Parties of Record Subject: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny a Short Plat Appeal and approve a Class (2) use to establish two tri -plex units in the R -2 zoning district. Parcel: 181320 -34011 File: APP #002 -12 Notice is hereby given by the City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development that an appeal was filed on April 5, 2012, by Michael and Connie Stone, regarding the Hearing Examiner's decision on the proposed Chestnut Townhomes project (File: REF #001 - 12; CL2 #034 -1 1; APP #001 -12; PSP #012 -11). The purpose of this notice is to provide parties of record the opportunity to review and submit written argument or memorandum regarding the appeal. Persons wishing to respond to the appeal may submit written comments by April 24, 2012. 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)). Please submit your written comments to the City of Yakima, Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, 129 N 2nd 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, or jcalhoun @ci.yakima.wa.us. Upon completion of the 14 -day comment period, the City Clerk will schedule a date for a Closed Record Public Hearing before the City Council. Notice of the time, date and location of the hearing will be mailed to the parties of record after the hearing date is scheduled. Sincerely, d p , n Davenport Acting CED Director INDEX r AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: REF #001 -12, APP #001 -12, PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 7200 Chestnut Avenue 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 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 26th day of March, 2012. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. 1 • ' . , 14I Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Technician N+ EX I f PARTIES OF RECORD - Chestnut Townhomes, LLC - APP REF PSP CL2 Updated 03 -23 -12 18132034011 Bill Hordan 18132031466 c/o Dale Turner Hordan Planning Services MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES LLC 410 North 2nd Street 380 KAIL RD 203 N 93RD AVE Yakima, WA 98901 TIETON, WA 98947 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031474 18132031484 18132031424 JANICE WEBER JEAN CHANDLER LLOYD M & KRISTEN HILER 2 N 74TH AVE 5 N 73RD AVE c/o Mike Hiler YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 3 N 76TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034444 18132031490 18132031467 MARTIN C & JACQUELINE D HAINES Ardis & Robert Endres PAMELA A BALDWIN 207 S 74TH AVE ENDRES FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 7317 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 7310 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081597 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031481 18132031478 18132031470 SHARLENE PETERS THOMAS A & MONIQUE STINE TOM R & BETTY LAMBERT 10 N 74TH AVE 280 N 99TH AVE 7329 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081597 18132031476 Philip Lamb Connie Panique & Tim Adams WILLIAM & SHIRLEY 0 HARE Lamb Legal 7203 West Chestnut Avenue 10 ECHO COURT PO Box 4 Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98907 18132031465 Sharon French Francis Meyerrecks ELNORA DOUGHERTY TRUSTEE 7308 West Yakima Avenue 1 North 73rd Avenue 7309 W YAKIMA AVE Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Rosie and Sarah Mitchell Trista and Shawn Johnson Marlena Gruner & Mike Stone 7306 West Yakima Avenue 207 North 70th Avenue 7313 West Yakima Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Michael Sloan & Sara Pastores Marcella Peterson Hannah Mauch 7305 West Chestnut Avenue 7301 West Chestnut Avenue 7311 West Chestnut Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Ashley Mayner & James McLane Roger Huynh Dusty Hanchett 7305 West Yakima Avenue 7312 West Yakima Avenue 7302 West Yakima Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 ®` �� YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 *MA i ) Robert Hoge Steven Avila Paul & Beth Kunnanz 7325 West Yakima Avenue PO Box 9722 5301 North Canyon Road Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98909 Yakima, WA 98901 Esther Blalock 12 North 74 Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 fl et of @- C,4 s ion 12,E 1 -1 2 OA, 2 03'1 J t A-9p it-00 -a / ps p ®t2 -) t i. N X In -House Distribution E -mail List Name Division E -mail Address Dan Ford Engineering dford @ci.yakima.wa.us Sandy Cox Code Administration scox @ci.yakima.wa.us Jeff Cutter Legal Dept jcutter @ci.yakima.wa.us Archie Matthews ONDS amatthew @ci.yakima.wa.us Brandon Dorenbush Fire Dept bdorenbu @ci.yakima.wa.us Michael Morales CED Dept mmorales @ci.yakima.wa.us Jerry Robertson Code Administration iroberts @ci.yakima.wa.us Royale Schneider Code Administration rschneid @ci.yakima.wa.us Mike Shane Water /Irrigation mshane @ci.yakima.wa.us Nathan Thompson Code Administration nthompso @ci.yakima.wa.us Kevin Futrell Transit Division kfutrell @ci.yakima.wa.us Dave Brown Water Division dbrown @ci.yakima.wa.us Carolyn Belles Wastewater Division cbelles @ci.yakima.wa.us For the Record /File Binder Copy • Type of Notice: fl0 o f_ i41-7- � J ei - Y) (Z DD I -12 cL2 v11 --1/ File Number(s): pr 0D1 -12 pspc.)2,-11 Date of Mailing: 03 (24,/ Do - Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11 AM To: Belles, Carolyn, Brown, Dave, Cox, Sandy; Cutter, Jeff; Denman, Glenn, Dorenbush, Brandon, Ford, Dan, Futrell, Kevin, Ibarra, Rosalinda, Matthews, Archie, Morales, Michael, Robertson, Jerry; Schneider, Royale; Shane, Mike; Thompson, Nathan Subject: NOTICE OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION - Chestnut Towhomes, LLC - REF #001 -12 APP #001 -12 CL2 #034 -11 PSP #012 -11 Attachments: HE DECISION - Chestnut Townhomes - REF APP CL2 PSP pdf Rpsalint a 16arra Planning Technician ribarra @ci.yaltima.wa.us City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 p: (509) 575 -6183 f: (509) 575 -6105 1 �= NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION March 26, 2012 On March 8, 2012 the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner held an open record public hearing for a Preliminary Short Plat Appeal (APP #001 -12, PSP #012 -11) and a referred Class (2) land use (REF#001-12, CL2 #034 -11). The Hearing Examiner rendered his recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, on March 22, 2012. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Decision is enclosed. The decision is final unless appealed to City Council. Appeals can be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of mailing, and must be accompanied by a $340 appeal fee. For further information or assistance you may contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575 -6162. Joan Davenport Acting CED Director Date of Mailing: March 26, 2012 Enclosure: Hearing Examiner's Decision Ir( tyo 4 `' Gary M. Cuillier ATTORNEY AT LAW 314 N. SECOND STREET YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 (509) 575 -1800 FAX: (509) 452 -4601 HAND DELIVERED March 22, 2012 RECEIVED MAR 2 ;, 2012 Rosalinda Ibarra CITY OF YAKIMA Yakima City Planning Division PLANNING ply, 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Hearing Examiner's Decision: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC., For a 7 -Lot Short Plat with Triplexes On Two Lots at the Southwest Corner Of South 72 & West Chestnut Avenues; APP #001 -12, PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11, & REF #001 -12. Dear Rosalinda: Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the above - entitled matter. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you. Very trul ours, DANIELLE PAINTER Legal Assistant to GARY M. CUILLIER DP: dp Enclosure cc: Vicki Adams, Yakima County Planning Division, w/ Enclosure Pat Spurgin, City of Yakima Pro Tem Hearing Examiner, w/ Enclosure ;� ONI,..,: . HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS HEARING DATE: Thursday March 8, 2012 CASE APPLICANT F . • . 7 'SITE ADDRESS„ APP #001 -12 A. REF #001 -12 CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC 7200 West Chestnut Avenue PSP #012 -11 CL2 #034 -11 PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY! Please indicate which proposal you are interested in: A ;:.. ;.CASE ' NAME : ADDRESS: 'ZIP CODE 1T P77 7 t_c_ 12r v "7- k-6 XCLLe ` ;i 2 e 17 ✓F C / (/{,6. 9f / / `Y J • \QL\U tbEcif,c)6± 142.._vvIck t)& • .0 6 , 7- "75 1,<Im14,4 AF a8 96 G s 5J7 d / v: m p, 0: ti J h '?7d, 1 k6`w,r iti P) J 9 C &/L /LI �l c / e� l•l15 -7 ZL, 1, iLL.t re A kt,, 1 II 0,4,h/on j� ^�L 9 o ' L Y� '�.� ,��1 C; �� Z, .�(J V (` L A flglL NI) ll% lcrJ L4 1 9 7 • • J k ij Dr,tLiter7J 1• ti!„) 14 Y (J / A o f��1c ( ✓ (L%-- 4-41a4.94),) p 2 — 5T (tom • �G11 1 U to iZ - 203 1\► 13( A Vt. \/t v i M 6a 1,0 4 • ci Q ' • DOM Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Sign -In Sheet — 03/08/2012 *tic, x �7 CASE =NAME ,. : . :ADD RESS = ZIP ,CODE 30 y 6i: / (1- 1 , ( a-LL( tY/ • 4/6 7'7 f Roc_L. 73 Z w 1 Ate- t .A. 1� chi • : r® Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Sign -In Sheet — 03/08/2012 a — °' aJ- T . Ari:,tiiu Vn l. LAM I WYIAI H1VuGt.V1YVtVII(. uCvn,LurIvJGIv 'C, Y , y 1 h '% Planning Division Ar f :� . , ' • , > 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 % c j \ / , (509) 575 -6183 • Fax (509) 575 -6105 ',, ••. www.buildingyakima.coin • www. ci. yakima.wa.us/serviceslplanning/ ,11t "‘‘.:,:,:.:----- -- CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER AGENDA Thursday March 8, 2012 Yakima City Hall Council Chambers Beginning at 9:00 a.m. L CALL TO ORDER IL INTRODUCTION III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC (12/20/2011) APP#001 -12 PSP #012 -11 Planner: Joseph Calhoun REF #001 -12 CL2#034 -11 Address: 7200 West Chestnut Avenue Request: The proposed development is to subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel into seven lots and construct tri-plex units on two of the lots and duplexes on five lots. 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. Yakima DOC. 1 �7 VIP _ 1994 Hearing Examiner Phil Lamb KIT -KATS Radio AGENDA ONLY 311 North 3rd Street 4010 Summitview, Suite 200 Distribution List Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98908 All YPAC Yakima Assoc. of Realtors rbeehler@ci.yakima.wa.us Gov. Affairs Committee KARY Radio kcrocket@ci.yakima.wa.us 2707 River Road 1200 Chesterly Dr. #160 mbrown@ci.yakima.wa.us Yakima, WA 98902 blozano@ci.yakima.wa.us Yakima, WA 98902 -1165 Greg Copeland KCYU -FOX 68 KIMA TV Police Chief David Okowski Acting 1205 West Lincoln Ave. 2801 Terrace Heights Drive gcopelan @ci.yakima.wa.us Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98901 Dave Willson Pacific Power KNDO TV Fire Chief Mike Paulson 1608 S. 24th Ave dwillson @ci.yakima.wa.us 500 N. Keys Rd. Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98901 Sonya Claar -Tee Office of Rural FWH y Marty Miller Yakima Herald- Republic City Clerk P.O. Box 9668 1400 Summitview #203 sclaar @ci.yakima.wa.us Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98909 Michael Morales Yakima School Dist. #7 VIVA City Manager Superintendent Acting g 104 North 4th Street P.O. Box 511 mmorales @ci.yakima.wa.us Yakima, WA 98902 Toppenish, WA 98948 Business Times KBBO -KRSE Radio Codes Bulletin Board Bruce Smith 1200 Chesterlye Dr. St. 160 P.O. Box 2052 Yakima, WA 98902 Yakima, WA 98907 Yakima Valley C.O.G. Patrick D. Spurgin 311 N. 4th Street STE 202 411 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima, WA 98901 KAPP TV Attn: Newsroom Gary Cuillier 1610 South 24th Avenue 314 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98909 -5719 Yakima, WA 98901 Radio KDNA Maud Scott P.O. Box 800 ®OC 307 Union Street Granger, WA 98932 O�I®� Yakima, WA 98901 PARTIES OF RECORD - Chestnut Townhomes, LLC - APP REF PSP CL2 18132034011 Bill Hordan 18132031466 c/o Dale Turner Harden Planning Services MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES LLC 410 North 2nd Street 380 KAIL RD 203 N 93RD AVE Yakima, WA 98901 - TIETON, WA 98947 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031474 18132031484 18132031424 JANICE WEBER JEAN CHANDLER LLOYD M & KRISTEN HILER 2 N 74TH AVE 5 N 73RD AVE c/o Mike Hiler YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 3 N 76TH AVE YAKIMA. WA 98908 18132034444 18132031490 18132031467 MARTIN C & JACQUELINE D HAINES Ardis & Robert Endres PAMELA A BALDWIN 207 S 74TH AVE ENDRES FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 7317 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 7310 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081597 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031481 18132031478 18132031470 SHARLENE PETERS THOMAS A & MONIQUE STINE TOM R & BETTY LAMBERT 10 N 74TH AVE 280 N 99TH AVE 7329 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081597 18132031476 Philip Lamb Connie Panique & Tim Adams WILLIAM & SHIRLEY 0 HARE Lamb Legal 7203 West Chestnut Avenue 10 ECHO COURT PO Box 4 Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98907 18132031465 Sharon French Francis Meyerrecks ELNORA DOUGHERTYTRUSTEE 7308 West Yakima Avenue 1 North 73rd Avenue 7309 W YAKIMA AVE Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Rosie and Sarah Mitchell Trista and Shawn Johnson Marlena Gruner & Mike Stone 7306 West Yakima Avenue 207 North 70th Avenue 7313 West Yakima Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Michael Sloan & Sara Pastores Marcella Peterson Hannah Mauch 7305 West Chestnut Avenue 7301 West Chestnut Avenue 7311 West Chestnut Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Ashley Mayner & James McLane Roger Huynh Dusty Hanchett 7305 West Yakima Avenue 7312 West Yakima Avenue 7302 West Yakima Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 p YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 L) o Hearing Examiner Packet AGENDA, STAFF REPORT, Jeff Cutter Dan Ford SITE PLAN AND MAPS......... City Legal Department Engineering Division jcutter @ci.yakima.wa.us dford@ci.yakima.wa.us Yakima County Planning Archie Matthews Michael Morales County Courthouse ONDS CED Director jefferson.spencer @co.yakima.wa. amatthew@ci.yakima.wa.us mmorales @ci.yakima.wa.us us DON'T FORGET TO SEND Binder Copy For the Record/ File ONE TO THE APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER 18132034011 c/o Dale Turner CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES LLC 203 N 93RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031466 MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE 380 RAIL RD TIETON, WA 98947 Bill Hordan Hordan Planning Services 410 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 DOC IINDEX #--.4_, 1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: APP #001 -12 Chestnut Townhomes, LLC / Michael & Connie Stone 7200 West Chestnut Avenue I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the City of Yakima, 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 was addressed to the applicant, appellant, and adverse 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 24th day of February, 2012. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the st ments made herein are just and true. j) osalinda Ibarra Planning Technician Do O DEX F• 5d .... , v..r.uA..A., A Acv: i lJL j LY CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES LLC ) 7310 W YAKIMA AVE I 2300 RIVER RD # 13 203 N 93RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989021293 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034490 18132034489 18132034488 MFP LLC MFP LLC MYERS ORCHARDS LLC 5625 SUMMITVIEW AVE 5625 SU TVIEW AVE 715 N 56TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YA , WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132042009 18132031464 18132031463 QWEST CORPORATION RATHOLE RENTALS LLC RATHOLE - ALS LLC 1801 CALIFORNIA ST, SUITE 2500 PO BOX 9965 PO BO :5 DENVER, CO 802021984 YAKIMA, WA 98909 Y - ; A, WA 98909 18132042011 18132043463 18132031486 ALFRED A & PAULINE DEAN CARMEN LOPEZ CAROLYN SCHAULS 7 N 72ND AVE 213 S 72ND AVE 14 N 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081624 YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034440 18132031473 18132034443 CHARLES L & JEAN C CUMMINGS DEBORAH DABRUZZI DOROTHY F & MELVAN HOOPES 7402 W CHESTNUT AVE 6 N 74TH AVE 205 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081586 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031465 18132031485 18132034439 ELNORA DOUGHERTY TRUSTEE ESTHER ANNE BLALOCK FRANCISCO J & TINA VILLEGAS 7309 W YAKIMA AVE 12 N 74TH AVE 202 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031458 18132034427 18132043461 GEORGE ERNEST ENO G E R R I WEST GREGORY J & DEBORAH DUNN 6 N 72ND (� 201 S 75TH PL 209 S 72ND AVE Y4IGI A, WA 989081623 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132042498 18132031493 18132031474 ISIDRO REYNAGA JAMES NETEMEYER SR JANICE WEBER 5 N 72ND AVE 4 N 54TH AVE 2 N 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132043009 18132031484 18132031461 JASON J & CARMEN STUGELMAYER JEAN CHANDLER KATHARINE D ELDRED 205 S 72ND AVE 5 N 73RD AVE 618 S 34TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989023929 18132043515 18132043516 18132042489 KENNETH & IDA LEE KIMBERLY A MANZANARES LAVON F & PATRICIA D PARNELL %PRESTIGE REALTY POTTENGER 7106 W CHESTNUT AVE #1 7101 W CHESTNUT PO BOX 8087 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132042490 18132031424 DOC. 18132034406 LAVON F & PAT:_ -- 0 PARNELL LLOYD M & KRISTEN HILER IIN®EX LOREN MARTIN 7101 . _ f -5c AVE 3 N 76TH AVE , 7403 W CHESTNUT AVE Y ' ' IMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 r V A V TMA, WA 989084100 _ w a. ...,a4,.. u v.-..u.c. ivut m.LC %.,nz a 1 IINC, M11 208 S 74TH AVE } RODRIGUEZ 1 11900 NE 18T T 225 YAKIMA, WA 989081503 PO BOX 10660 VANC R, WA 986844712 ' ' `� YAKIMA, WA 989091660 18132034444 18132043517 18132031459 MARTIN C & JACQUELINE D HAINES MARY KAY SCHULLER MATHIAS & NANCY GARGUS 207 S 74TH AVE 7102 W CHESTNUT AVE # 2 5506 NORMAN RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18132031460 18132034442 18132031466 MATHIAS F & N GARGUS MICHAEL CAULFIELD MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE 5506 NORM D 5808 SUMMITVIEW PMB 329 380 KAIL RD YAKI A 98901 YAKIMA, WA 989083095 TIETON, WA 98947 18132031482 18132043460 MICHAEL A & CO STONE NANCY RUTTER NANCY RUT 380 KA1L RD 207 S 72ND AVE 207 S 7 VE TIETON, W 947 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Y A, WA 98908 18132031468 18132031467 18132031479 ORPHA BROCKETT PAMELA A BALDWIN PAUL M & BETH A KUNNANZ 7321 W YAKIMA AVE 7317 W YAKIMA AVE 5301 N CANYON RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081597 YAKIMA, WA 989011627 18132031457 18132031483 18132031469 RANDOLPH R BEETCHNOW RICHARD SIPPOLA ROBERT D HOGE 8 N 72ND AVE 7 N 73RD AVE 7325 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034445 18132034407 18132031492 ROGER A & DANIEL M CRAWFORD RONALD W & ELISA A JOHNSTON RYAN S COWDEN 209 S 74TH AVE 7404 W CHESTNUT AVE 7307 W CHESTNUT YAKIMA, WA 989081564 'YAKIMA, WA 989081586 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031491 18132043464 18132034441 RYAN S COWDEN SALVADOR JUAREZ SCOTT A & SARA L CHAMBERS 8704 GROVE AVE 213 S 72ND AVE 201 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 989081564 18132031481 18132034428 18132031478 SHARLENE PETERS TERRY L & JUDY LEE HARMON THOMAS A & MONIQUE STINE 10 N 74TH AVE 203 S 75TH PL 280 N 99TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081559 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031470 18132031489 1--41 (._ 18132034437 TOM R & BETTY LAMBERT VERN & DONNA - ' ' . R VICKI L SHAFFER WHITE 7329 W YAKIMA AVE 7312 W , A AVE 206 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081597 A, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031476 NFRD HOC. Wilma Koski WILLIAM & SHIRLEY 0 HARE c/o Cindy Noble ONDEX 21 North 94` Place 10 ECHO COURT 5609 West Arlington Street # L' _ G Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 ' Ardis & Robert Endres ) 7308 West Yakima Avenue ) lamb Legal ENDRES FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST Yakima, WA 98908 PO Box 4 7310 W YAKIMA AVE Yakima, WA 98907 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Connie Panique & Tim Adams Marlena Gruner Francis Meyerrecks 7203 West Chestnut Avenue 207 North 70th Avenue 1 North 73rd Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 Trista and Shawn Johnson Marcella Peterson Rosie and Sarah Mitchell 7306 West Yakima Avenue 7301 West Chestnut Avenue & Mike Stone YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 7313 West Yakima Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 Michael Sloan & Sara Pastores Ashley Mayner & James McLane Hannah Mauch 7305 West Chestnut Avenue 7305 West Yakima Avenue 7311 West Chestnut Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Dusty Hanchett Roger Huynh Bill Hordan 7302 West Yakima Avenue 7312 West Yakima Avenue Hordan Planning Services YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 410 North 2 Street Yakima, WA 98901 Additional Parties of Record Chestnut Townhomes, LLC PSP #012 -11, CL2#034-11 fll-c of APPea.'( 4-ri° pat.L-C NeA.y`ry (i✓Fv va1?-yla DOC. INDEX # 5e. In -House Distribution E -mail List Name Division E -mail Address Dan Ford Engineering dford @ci.yakima.wa.us Sandy Cox Code Administration scox @ci.yakima.wa.us Jeff Cutter Legal Dept `cutter ci.yakima.wa.us Archie Matthews ONDS amatthew(a,ci.yakima.wa.us Brandon Dorenbush Fire Dept bdorenbu @ci.yakima.wa.us Michael Morales CED Dept mmorales @ci.yakima.wa.us Jerry Robertson Code Administration iroberts @ci.vakima.wa.us Royale Schneider Code Administration rschneid @ci.yakima.wa.us Mike Shane WaterfIrrigation mshane @ci.vakima.wa.us Nathan Thompson Code Administration nthompso @ci.yakima.wa.us Kevin Futrell Transit Division kfutrell@ci.yakima.wa.us Dave Brown Water Division dbrown @ci.yakima.wa.us Carolyn Belles Wastewater Division cbelles@ci.vakima.wa.us For the Record/File Binder Copy Type of Notice: f 3 1 File Number(s): pp#001_ j2 e ,- Date of Mailing: v a I 0/ DOC. ONDEX F- 5c Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 4:41 PM To: Belles, Carolyn; Brown, Dave; Cox, Sandy; Cutter, Jeff; Denman, Glenn; Dorenbush, Brandon; Ford, Dan; Futrell, Kevin; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Matthews, Archie; Morales, Michael; Robertson, Jerry; Schneider, Royale; Shane, Mike; Thompson, Nathan Cc: Bonds, Randy; Brown, Michael; Daily Sun News - Bob Story; El Sol de Yakima - Joseph Trevino; KAPP TV - David Mance; KAPP TV News; KCJT TV News; KDNA - Gabriel Martinez; KDNA Radio; KEPR TV News; KIMA TV - Jim Niedelman; KIMA TV News; KIT /KATS /DMVW /KFFM - Lance Tormey; KNDO TV - Julie Stern; KNDO TV News; KUNS -TV Univision; KVEW TV News; Lozano, Bonnie; NWCN News; NWPR - Anna King; Tu Decides - Albert Torres; UNIVISION TV - Marta Isabel Sanchez; VIVA - Fernando Aceves; Yakima Herald Republic - Adriana Janovich; Yakima Herald Republic - Chris Bristol; Yakima Herald Republic - Craig Troianello; Yakima Herald Republic - Erin Snelgrove; Yakima Herald Republic - Mai Hoang; Yakima Herald Republic - Mark Morey; Yakima Herald Republic - Scott Mayes; Yakima Herald Republic Newspaper; Yakima Valley Business Journal; Yakima Valley Business Times; Yakima Valley Business Times - George Finch; YPAC - Randy Beehler Subject: NOTICE OF APPEAL AND PUBLIC HEARING - Chestnut Townhomes, LLC - APP#001 -12 Attachments: NTC OF APPEAL AND PUBLIC HEARING - Chestnut Townhomes - APP001- 12.pdf Rpsa1 ncta 16arra Planning Technician ribarra @ci.vakima.wa.us City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 p: (509) 575-6183 f: (509) 575 -6105 DOC. INDEX 1 * F-5b I ) > City of Yakima PUBLIC NOTICE OF i ' Planning Department ` Yak i m andSt9aso� LAND USE REVIEW Date of Notice of Application - 02/24/2012 Project Name: CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC - DALE TURN P#001. Location: 7200 W CHESTNUT' AVE Proposal: Appeal the approval of a preliminary short plat (PSP#012 -11) to subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel into seven Lots and construct duplexes on five lots and tri- plexes on two lots. A land use application has been submitted near your property. This Is your notice of that application. To view information on -line go to: http: / /www.ci.yakima.wa.us /postcard When prompted enter APP#001 -12 in the Application ID text box. Click the Submit button to view the land use application information. More information is available from the City of Yakima Planning Division, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 or call (509) 575 -6183. Joseph Calhoun /575- 6162/Assistant Plannerfcalhoun @ci.yakima.wa.us Decisions and future notices will be sent to anyone who submits comments on this application or requests additional notice. Comments may be submitted in writing to the address above or by email to: planning @ci.yakima.wa.us - Please include the Application ID in the email subject line. Also include your name and address In the email. Written or emailed comments must be received by 5:OOpm on 03/08/2012 Public Hearing Date: 03/08/2012 Public hearings are scheduled to begin at 9:OOam in the Yakima City Council Chambers of City Hall located at: 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901 This application may Include multiple land use types, Including compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). For specific information, please contact the Planning Division. Si necesita information en espafiol por favor (lame al (509)575 -6183. Application Submitted: 02/21/2012 Application Complete: 02/21/2012 c - ,. ' 1 ;, City of Yakima Planning Department . + 129 N 2nd St Yakima, WA 98901 LAND USE PUBLIC NOTICE t — 11 Ii 7" _ I 1° k . v. tr t,.,.A.„. I 1 !- f, 1 i _ ,,...... . ,.... .,......._.._,.)0 ,..,„,,,„ .:._....,„. 10 1-1t I 44 ( 11 ,, % r ,e� ' iii .. a I J� I i 1 Location of Proposed Action DOCO OPT 566' ) ) NOTICE OF APPEAL AND PUBLIC HEARING Subdivision Administrator February 24, 2012 On February 8, 2012 the City of Yakima, Washington issued a Notice of Decision and Public Hearing regarding Preliminary Short Plat and Type (2) Review applications submitted by Hordan Planning Services, on behalf of Chestnut Townhomes LLC. The applicant is proposing to subdivide one parcel of property into seven lots, and establish tri- plexes units on two of the lots. The Type (2) Review was referred to a public hearing on March 8, 2012. Assessor's Parcel Number: 181320 -34011 City File Number: CL2 #034 -11; PSP #012 -11 New File Number: REF #001 -12; APP #001 -12 Notice of Appeal: On February 21, 2012, an Appeal of the Subdivision Administrator's Decision was submitted for the Preliminary Short Plat. In accordance with YMC § 16.08.010, the Appeal hearing will be consolidated with the hearing already scheduled. The Hearing will be held on March 8, 2012 at 9:OOam in the Council Chambers; 129 N 2 ° Street, Yakima, WA, 98901. Please feel free to attend the Hearing or to submit written comments. Upon the close of the Hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue his decision on the Appeal and the Type (2) Review within 10 business days. For further information or assistance, you may wish to contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575 -6162 at the City of Yakima Planning Division. - 0 'fie3 Joa D avenport Acting CED Director Notice of Decision Mailing Date: February 24, 2012 DOC. QNDEX it F -5 CITY OF YAKIMA LAND USE ACTION INSTALLATION CERTIFICATE Project Number: C4- -411 Date of Installation: eaF oc Site Address: " d .-3 c-4-- Location of Installation (Check One) sand 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: 1 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) M Date of e. Applicants Signature Telephone Number of Applicant - 6 q 30 7 -3s 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. DOC. INDEX AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: PSP #012 -11, REF #001 -12, CL2 #034 -11 Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 7200 Chestnut Avenue I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an. employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of PSP Decision and Public Hearing. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant and all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of subject property 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 8th day of February, 2012. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. — 0 • 1 R • salinda Ibarra Planning Technician DOCO c/o Dale Turner ) ENDRES FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST ) GCI LP CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES LLC 7310 W YAKIMA AVE 2300 RIVER RD # 13 203 N 93RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989021293 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034490 18132034489 18132034488 MFP LLC MFP LLC MYERS ORCHARDS LLC 5625 SUMMITVIEW AVE 5625 S TVIEW AVE 715 N 56TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YA A, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132042009 18132031464 18132031463 QWEST CORPORATION RATHOLE RENTALS LLC RATHOLE RE.... LLC 1801 CALIFORNIA ST, SUITE 2500 PO BOX 9965 PO BOX ;'-. DENVER, CO 802021984 YAKIMA, WA 98909 YA < , WA 98909 18132042011 18132043463 18132031486 ALFRED A & PAULINE DEAN CARMEN LOPEZ CAROLYN SCHAULS 7 N 72ND AVE 213 S 72ND AVE 14 N 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081624 YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034440 18132031473 18132034443 CHARLES L & JEAN C CUMMINGS DEBORAH DABRUZZI DOROTHY F & MELVAN HOOPES 7402 W CHESTNUT AVE 6 N 74TH AVE 205 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081586 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031465 18132031485 18132034439 ELNORA DOUGHERTY TRUSTEE ESTHER ANNE BLALOCK FRANCISCO J & TINA VILLEGAS 7309 W YAKIMA AVE 12 N 74TH AVE 202 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031458 18132034427 18132043461 GEORGE ERNEST FIEND GERRI WEST GREGORY J & DEBORAH DUNN 6 N 72ND 201 S 75TH PL 209 S 72ND AVE Y , WA 989081623 1 `.. YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132042498 18132031493 18132031474 ISIDRO REYNAGA JAMES NETEMEYER SR JANICE WEBER 5 N 72ND AVE 4 N 54TH AVE 2 N 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132043009 18132031484 18132031461 JASON J & CARMEN STUGELMAYER JEAN CHANDLER KATHARINE D ELDRED 205 S 72ND AVE 5 N 73RD AVE 618 S 34TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989023929 18132043515 18132043516 18132042489 KENNETH & IDA LEE KIMBERLY A MANZANARES LAVON F & PATRICIA D PARNELL %PRESTIGE REALTY POTTENGER 7106 W CHESTNUT AVE #1 7101 W CHESTNUT PO BOX 8087 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98~ ,: © ° YAKIMA, WA 98908 INDEX 18132042490 18132031424 18132034406 LAVON F & PATRICI KNELL LLOYD M & KRISTEN HILER LOREN MARTIN 7101 W C E 3 N 76TH AVE 7403 W CHESTNUT AVE YAKI , A 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989084100 M M & CAROL CAROLUS )MARGARITO D & LOUISA JUAREZ ) MARIE CHRISTI ' TZEL pi,j_ 208 S 74TH AVE RODRIGUEZ 11900 N ST APT 225 YAKIMA, WA 989081503 PO BOX 10660 V LIVER, WA 986844712 YAKIMA, WA 989091660 18132034444 18132043517 18132031459 MARTIN C & JACQUELINE D HAINES MARY KAY SCHULLER MATHIAS & NANCY GARGUS 207 S 74TH AVE 7102 W CHESTNUT AVE # 2 5506 NORMAN RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18132031460 18132034442 18132031466 MATHIAS F & NANCY GUS MICHAEL CAULFIELD MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE 5506 NORMA 5808 SUMMITVIEW PMB 329 380 KA1L RD YAKIM 98901 YAKIMA, WA 989083095 TIETON, WA 98947 18132031482 18132043462 18132043460 MICHAEL A & CO NE NANCY RUTTER NANCY RUTTER 380 KAIL 207 S 72ND AVE 207 S 72ND AVE TIETO A 98947 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, W 8 18132031468 18132031467 18132031479 ORPHA BROCKETT PAMELA A BALDWIN PAUL M & BETH A KUNNANZ 7321 W YAKIMA AVE 7317 W YAKIMA AVE 5301 N CANYON RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081597 YAKIMA, WA 989011627 18132031457 18132031483 18132031469 RANDOLPH R BEETCHNOW RICHARD SIPPOLA ROBERT D HOGE 8 N 72ND AVE 7 N 73RD AVE 7325 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034445 18132034407 18132031492 ROGER A & DANIEL M CRAWFORD RONALD W & ELISA A JOHNSTON RYAN S COWDEN 209 S 74TH AVE 7404 W CHESTNUT AVE 7307 W CHESTNUT YAKIMA, WA 989081564 YAKIMA, WA 989081586 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031491 18132043464 18132034441 RYAN S COWDEN SALVADOR JUAREZ SCOTT A & SARA L CHAMBERS 8704 GROVE AVE 213 S 72ND AVE 201 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 989081564 18132031481 18132034428 18132031478 SHARLENE PETERS TERRY L & JUDY LEE HARMON THOMAS A & MONIQUE STINE 10 N 74TH AVE 203 S 75TH PL 280 N 99TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081559 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031470 18132031489 18132034437 TOM R & BETTY LAMBERT VERN & DO ARRIE VICKI L SHAFFER WHITE 7329 W YAKIMA AVE 7312 LIMA AVE 2 206 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081597 Y A, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031476 NFRD ®. Wilma Koski WILLIAM & SHIRLEY 0 HARE c/o Cindy Noble INDEX 21 North 94 Place 10 ECHO COURT 5609 West Arlington Stre b Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 Ardis & Robert Endres )7308 West Yakima Avenue f Lamb Legal ENDRES FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST Yakima, WA 98908 PO Box 4 7310 W YAKIMA AVE Y Yakima, WA 98907 AKIMA, WA 98908 Connie Panique & Tim Adams Marlena Gruner Francis Meyerrecks 7203 West Chestnut Avenue 207 North 70th Avenue 1 North 73rd Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 Trista and Shawn Johnson Marcella Peterson Rosie and Sarah Mitchell 7306 West Yakima Avenue 7301 West Chestnut Avenue & Mike Stone YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 7313 West Yakima Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 Michael Sloan & Sara Pastores Ashley Mayner & James McLane Hannah Mauch 7305 West Chestnut Avenue 7305 West Yakima Avenue 7311 West Chestnut Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Dusty Hanchett Roger Huynh 7302 West Yakima Avenue 7312 West Yakima Avenue YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Additional Parties of Record Chestnut Townhomes, LLC PSP #012 -11, CL2#034-11 P S • d�ecr g « a nc( pwb1 e /kb 15 psplt 012 --II 65 02/0g/ a D / a-- DOC. ®EX3b vy r 64 -..( / f Total Parce tnut ut Town omes, LLC - PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 In -House Distribution E -mail List Name Division E -mail Address Dan Ford Engineering dford @ci.yakima.wa.us Sandy Cox Code Administration scox @ci.yakima.wa.us Jeff Cutter Legal Dept icutter @ci.yakima.wa.us Archie Matthews ONDS amatthew@ci.yakima.wa.us Brandon Dorenbush Fire Dept bdorenbu @ci.yakima.wa.us Michael Morales - CED Dept mmorales @ci.yakima.wa.us Jerry Robertson - Code Administration iroberts @ci.yakima.wa.us Royale Schneider Code Administration rschneid @ci.yakima.wa.us Mike Shane Water/Irrigation mshane@ci.vakima.wa.us Nathan Thompson Code Administration nthompso @ci.yakima.wa.us Kevin Futrell Transit Division kfutrell @ci.yakima.wa.us Dave Brown Water Division dbrown @ci.yakima.wa.us Carolyn Belles Wastewater Division cbelles @ci.yakima.wa.us For the Record/File Binder Copy • Type of Notice: at $ 3 - V i File Number(s): ps o 12 _( t OEmw I _I2 CL2403(4 -I Date of Mailing: 0/1 O 2,0 DOC INDEX Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:44 PM To: Belles, Carolyn; Brown, Dave; Cox, Sandy; Cutter, Jeff; Denman, Glenn; Dorenbush, Brandon; Ford, Dan; Futrell, Kevin; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Matthews, Archie; Morales, Michael; Robertson, Jerry; Schneider, Royale; Shane, Mike; Thompson, Nathan Cc: Adriana Janovich - Yakima Herald; Bonds, Randy; Brown, Michael; Bruce Smith - Yak. Business Times; Chris Bristol - YHR; Claudia Moreno - Noticias Locales; Criag Troianello - Yakima Herald Rep.; Erin Snelgrove - Yak. Herald Rep; Gabriel Martinez - KDNA; George Finch - Business Journal; KIMA TV; KNDO News; KUNS -TV Univision; Lance Tormey; Lozano, Bonnie; Mai Hoang; Mark Morey; Marta Isabel Sanchez - Univision; NWCN; Randy Beehler - YPAC; Scott Mayes; Yakima Business Journal; Yakima Herald Republic Newspaper Subject: NOTICE OF PSP DECISION and PUBLIC HEARING - Chestnut Townhomes LLC - PSP# 012 -11, CL2#034 -11, REF#001 -12 Attachments: NTC PSP DECISION and PUBLIC HEARING - Chestnut Townhomes - PSP CL2.pdf Randy, please post to: http:/ /www.ci.yakima.wa.us/ services /planning/Noticeofap.asp Thanks! RpsaCrufa Ibarra Planning Technician ribarra @ci.vakima.wa.us City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 p: (509) 575 -6183 f: (509) 575 -6105 ®a !INDEX 1 _ _a Ibarra, Rosalinda From: ssizer @yakimaherald.com Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 4:50 PM To: Ibarra, Rosalinda Subject: Ad: 172368, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Project Loc Attachments: IBARRA -30- 172368 -1.pdf I've scheduled this legal notice for 2/8, for a cost of $63.75. 111014101100 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • • Projecttocation: Vicin- , Ity`of;72nd and Chestnut Avenues: Project Appl4 cant /Owner: Chestnut Townhomes, 'LLC; P9rr 'cei:' 181320. 34011; File: REF #001 -12: CL2 #034- 1,1 Date or Application: 12/21/11: Date of Deter- minatlon of Complete- ness: 1/6/12: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development • is • 'a 7.1ot Preliminary Short Plat and a Type1(2) Review to establish irl- Plait units on- 2'of,thelots.' The remaining 5-1ots• are proposed tribe duplexes. The Type (2) .Review IS being referred to the Hearing:Examiner.to hold an open record public,, hearing. which is sched- ' uled for"3/8/,12 beginning a19 :00 a.m., in the Coun- cil.Chambers; City 'Hall, • '129 N 2nd' St.. Yakima, ; WA. Any. person•des "icing to express their views'on this ma tter is 'invited to • attend the public hearing or to submit written corn - nients..Eollowing,the pub- .lic hearing, the Hearing ,Examiner will issue his decision' within 10 busi- ness days. If you have any question, on this pro -, pose!, please call Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Plan - ner at 509. 575 -6162 or 'jcalhoun'@ci.yakima; •wa.u4: • (172368) 'February 8, 2012, DOMM GNDEX 1 # F - 3a Ad Proof ii\ �.': 11 I I ri , -% ' �\ �' � V- i NOTICE OF PUBLIC + '' HEARING , r Y , ', ') _ ! �• I �• - I. l Project Location: - Vicin- .r�st ^: ' ity of 72nd and Chestnut A daily part of your life F � ` Avenues; Project Appli- . yakima-herald.com cant /Owner: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC; Par - - Ad Proof- cel: 181320 - 34011; File: REF #001 -12; CL2 #034- 11 Date of Application: This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run on the mination Date of n of Complete- ness: 1/6/12. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The dates indicated below. proposed development is a 7 -loi Preliminary Please confirm placement prior to deadline Short Plat and a Type (2) Review to establish tri- plex units on 2 of the lots. by contacting your The remaining 5 -lots are proposed to be duplexes. account rep at (509) 577 -7740. The Type (2) Review is being referred to the Hearing Examiner to hold an open record public Date: 02/06/12 Run Dates: hearing, which is sched- uled for 3/8/12 beginning Yakima Herald - Republic 02/08/12 at 9:00 a.m., in the Coun- Account #: 110358 YakimaHerald.com 02/08/12 cil Chambers, City Hall, 129 N 2nd St., Yakima, Company Name: CITY OF YAKIMA/YAKIMA WA. Any person desiring PLANNING to express their views on this matter is invited to Contact: ROSALINDA 1BARRA attend the public hearing or to submit written com- ments. Following the pub - Address: DEPT OF COMM/ECON lic hearing, the Hearing DEVELOPEMENT Examiner will issue his 129 N 2ND STREET decision within 10 busi- ness days. If you have YAKIMA, WA 989012720 any question on this pro- posal, please call Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Plan- ner at 509 - 575 -6162 or Ad ID: 172368 jcalhoun@ci.yakima. wa.us. Start: 02/08/12 Stop: 02/08/12 21 February 8, Total Cost: $63.75 Agate Lines: 65 # of Inserts: 2 Ad Class: 6021 Account Rep: Simon Sizer Phone # (509) 577 -7740 Email: ssizer @yakimaherald.com ®OCo IND 4/ NOTICE OF DECISION AND PUBLIC HEARING Subdivision Administrator February 8, 2012 On January 12, 2012 the City of Yakima, Washington issued a Notice of Application regarding Preliminary Short Plat and Type (2) Review applications submitted by Hordan Planning Services, on behalf of Chestnut Townhomes LLC. The applicant is proposing to subdivide one parcel of property into seven lots, and establish tri- plexes units on two of the lots. Assessor's Parcel Number: 181320 -34011 City File Number: PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 New File Number: REF #001 -12 Notice of Public Hearing: As a result of comments received during the 20-day public comment period, the Type (2) Review to establish tri- plexes on two of the lots is hereby being referred to the Hearing Examiner, in accordance with YMC ti 15.14.040(C)(5). The hearing is to take place on Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 9 :00 am in the Council Chambers, 129 N 2 " St, Yakima, WA, 98901. 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 on the project within ten (10) business days. Following the required 20-day public notice period, and consideration of all comments received, the City of Yakima has issued the enclosed decision. This decision may be appealed within 14 days from the date of mailing. Appeals must be in writing, in accordance with YMC § 14.50.010, and on forms available from the City of Yakima Planning Division, 129 N 2 " St, Yakima, WA, 98901. The filing fee of $580.00 must accotnpany the application. For further information or assistance, you may wish to contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575 -6162 at the City of Yakima Planning Division. Joa avenport Acting CED Director Notice of Decision Mailing Date: February 8, 2012 Enclosures: Subdivision Administrator's Findings and Decision, Site Plan, Mailing Map DOC. INDEX CITY OF YAKIMA SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR FINAL FINDINGS AND DECISION February 8, 2012 Application to Subdivide One ) PSP #012 -11 Existing Lot into Seven Lots. ) Staff Contact: ) Joseph Calhoun; Assistant Planner Applicant /Property Owner: Chestnut Townhomes, LLC Location: Vicinity of South 72n and West Chestnut Avenues Zoning: Two - Family Residential (R -2) Parcel No: 181320 -34011 Proposal: Subdivide one existing lot into seven lots. The parcels proposed within this Preliminary short Plat will range from 7,132.5 to 9,488.75 square -feet in size. Based upon a physical inspection of the site, comments received during the 20 -day comment period, and after examination of the Preliminary Short Plat for compliance with the City of Yakima's Subdivision Ordinance, Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the Subdivision Administrator makes the following: FINDINGS Background: On December 20, 2011 Hordan Planning Services, on behalf of Chestnut Townhomes, LLC (property owner), submitted an application for a seven lot short plat of the subject property. The application was determined to be complete on January 6, 2012. A Notice of Application was sent to the applicant and adjoining property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on January 12, 2012, requesting written comments during a 20 -day comment period that ended on February 1, 2012. Development Standards: YMC Ch. 15.05 establishes basic development criteria that must be met when reviewing an application for new subdivision. Table 5 -2 establishes minimum lot sizes for new development in the R -2 zoning district. The proposed lots range in size from 7,132.5 to 9,488.75 square feet, which exceeds the established minimum lot size in the R -2 zoning district of 7,000 square -feet for duplex construction. Additionally, all proposed lots are in conformance with the minimum lot width in the R - 2 zoning district of 50 - feet. The required street dedication and construction of Chestnut Avenue to a full Local Access Street will provide the minimum 20 -feet of access onto a public street, as required by YMC 15.05.020(1-1). Specific development standards found in Table 5 -1 of YMC Ch. 15.05, such as maximum building height, lot coverage, and setbacks; along with required parking standards from YMC Ch. 15.06, will be assessed during the plan review stage for allowed Class (1) permitted uses. A separate Type (2) Review to establish tri -plex units on two of the lots is being reviewed concurrently. Due to compatibility concerns expressed by the residents in the area, the Type (2) Review is being referred to the Hearing Examiner at a date and time to be determined. DOM Chestnut Townhomes OND EX 1 # 'F -3 PSP #012-11 I Frontage Improvements: YMC Title 12 requires certain standards for the design and construction of public works improvements in conjunction with subdivision, development, or re- development of real property (YMC § 12.01.010). Sufficient right -of -way is required to be dedicated in order to complete the full construction of Chestnut Avenue in front of the subject property. The preliminary short plat shows 15 -feet of right -of -way to be dedicated, which will provide the minimum required 50 -foot width for a Local Access Street. The applicant is required to construct barrier curb, gutter and sidewalk as well as half street pavement for Chestnut Avenue along the entire frontage of this parcel, aligned with the existing curb return on the south side of the intersection of Chestnut and 72 Avenue. The locations of individual curb cuts on Chestnut Avenue are subject to approval by the City Engineer. The existing asphalt roadway surface of Chestnut is to be saw cut at the design centerline and the new roadway crowed at that saw cut. These improvements are to be extended to the Colony West Subdivision. The applicant is to provide a design that will connect Chestnut and provide a minimum of 24 -foot wide asphalt driving surface with curb and gutter. All construction shall meet the requirements of the City of Yakima standard plans and specifications and is subject to final approval by the City of Yakima Engineer. Concerns expressed by the City Traffic Engineer relate to the shopping center driveway on 72n Avenue at the south property line of this development being reduced in width to match the property line location. This will help deter vehicles from hitting the fence encroaching onto Chestnut Townhomes Property. In addition, no driveways to 72n Avenue will be allowed. A transitional pedestrian ramp needs to be installed at the west terminus of the sidewalk that is to be built with this project. The ramp may be of asphalt or concrete construction. The driveway for the lot closest to 72 Avenue should not be closer than 50 -feet from 72n Avenue. Utilities: Water: All new lots and development shall be served by a public water supply line maintained by the City of Yakima, Nob Hill Water Company, or other water purveyor, and located adjacent to the lot or development site (YMC § 12.04.010). Nob Hill Water is available to serve the lots. There's an existing 12 -inch PVC waterline in Chestnut Avenue that will be accessed to serve this development. Any new fire hydrant placement will be determined by the City of Yakima Code Administration Division and Nob Hill Water. Sewer: All new lots and development shall be served by a sanitary sewer line located adjacent to the lot or development site (YMC § 12.03.010). There is an existing sewer line in Chestnut Avenue. Connection charges shall apply. Each building shall have one side -sewer to the public main. Easements: A minimum 8 -foot wide utility easement shall be dedicated along the frontage of each lot in the proposed subdivision (YMC. § 12.02.020). All access and public utility easements including irrigation, water, storm drainage and wastewater running through this site shall be shown on the final short plat (YMC § 14.15.080). County DID Line: There is an existing County DID Line which runs through the eastern portion of the subject property (DID #38). The applicant is required to relocate the DID line to a location acceptable to the Yakima County FCZD and the City of Yakima Engineer. Any portion of the DID line on private property shall be located within a minimum 20 -foot wide easement. Stormwater: The applicant shall design, construct and provide a utility easement for a roadway catch basin to be installed at the low point within Chestnut Avenue. Complete stonnwater design plans, specifications and runoff /storage calculations supporting the stonnwater design are required • ursuant to D!' Chestnut Townhomes 2 INDEX PSP *012 -11 i 1 the Eastern Washington Stonnwater Manual and City of Yakima standards. These plans and control measures must be completed by a licensed Professional 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 with a Professional Engineer's stamp and signature for each well shall be delivered to the City of Yakima's Surface Water Engineer before final project approval shall be granted. Addressing: All addresses shall be clearly shown on the face of the Final Short Plat (RCW 58.17.280). Additionally, a note shall be shown on the face of the Final Plat stating: "The addresses shown on this plat are accurate as of the date of recording, but may be subject to change. The City of Yakima Code Administration Division is responsible for the confirmation or reassignment of addresses at the time of building permit issuance." The following addresses shall be utilized for the created lots: Lot 1: 7310 Chestnut Ave Lot 5: 7302 Chestnut Ave Lot 2: 7308Chestnut Ave Lot 6: 7204 Chestnut Ave Lot 3: 7306 Chestnut Ave Lot 7: 7202 Chestnut Ave Lot 4: 7304 Chestnut Ave Individual unit numbers (i.e. Unit 1, Unit 2) will be assigned as the individual building plans are submitted and the exact orientation of the structure is known. Preliminary Short Plat Approval Requirements: YMC § 14.15.020 establishes certain criteria for approval, and requires the administrator to approve a short plat if written findings and conclusions support the following: A. The application complies with the general requirements for short subdivision approval as specified by this chapter. B. The proposed short subdivision appropriately provides for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys and other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. The administrator may detennine that other considerations are appropriate to evaluate as criteria of approval. C. The short subdivision and any associated dedication will serve the public interest. Gaileon Park and West Valley Neighborhood Park are located within one mile of this subdivision. Summitview Elementary, West Valley Middle School and Apple Valley Elementary are located within one mile from this subdivision. The proposed subdivision complies with all general requirements for short subdivision of R -2 zoned property. Frontage improvement requirements, connections to water and sewer utilities, required easements, and adherence to development regulations appropriately provide for the necessary provisions of YMC § 14.15.020(B). This proposed short subdivision will serve the public interest by providing for additional housing units through intill development, connection to necessary utilities, and the extension of Chestnut Avenue to the west thus completing the road grid. D o Chestnut Townhotnes tl N DtE/► PSP #012-11 3 # F-3 SEPA Environmental Review: Short Plats are categorically exempt from the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (WAC 197- 11- 800(6)(a)). This exemption does not extend to any future development(s) upon this property that exceed one or more SEPA thresholds Public Notice: This Preliminary Short Plat was subject to a 20 -day public comment period in accordance with YMC § 14.15.040. Notices were mailed to property owners within 300 -feet of the site. Comments received included concerns related to compatibility, development standards, and traffic. Due to the nature of the comments regarding compatibility of the proposed tri- plexes, a public hearing is being scheduled for the proposed Class (2) land use. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Preliminary Short Plat complies with the general requirements for short subdivision approval, including requirements for lot size and lot width, as specified by YMC Ch. 14.15 and Ch.15.05. 2. Appropriate provisions have been made for: public health, safety, and general welfare; open spaces; drainage ways; streets, alley, and other public ways; potable water supplies; sanitary waste disposal; parks and recreation, playgrounds; schools and school grounds. 3. This proposed short plat serves the public use and interest. 4. A separate Type (2) Application is being processed to establish tri -plex units on lots 6 and 7, which is being scheduled for an open - record public hearing with the Hearing Examiner. This approval of the Preliminary Short Plat is to create the lots only. DECISION Based upon the findings and conclusions presented above, this Preliminary Short Plat application is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is authorized to have the Final Short Plat prepared by a registered land surveyor in accordance with the provisions of YMC § 14.15.080. The Final Short Plat must be substantially the salve, with regards to lot sizes and layout, as the preliminary plat. 2. All access and public utility easements including irrigation, water, storm drainage, and wastewater running through this site shall be shown on the final short plat (YMC § 14.15.080). 3. An 8 -foot utility easement shall be dedicated along the frontage of all lots, and shown on the final short plat (YMC § 12.02.020). 4. Each new lot shall be served by a separate sanitary sewer and waterline located adjacent to the lot or development site (YMC §§ 12.03.010 & 12.04.010). 5. The existing County DID line that crosses the east end of the property shall either be constructed within the city of Yakima right -of -way or centered in a 20 -foot utility easement. Location of said storm drain line is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 6. The applicant shall design, construct and provide a utility easement for a roadway catch basin to be installed at the low point within Chestnut Avenue, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7. Full frontage improvements shall be installed along the Chestnut Avenue frontage, consisting of: curb, gutter, sidewalk and half street pavement with a saw cut and new crown at the design centerline, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. DOC. Chestnut Tuwnhotnes PSI' #012-11 4 iBrl ®t5./1 8. A transitional pedestrian ramp shall be installed at the west terminus of the new sidewalk. 9. Chestnut Avenue is to be extended west to connect with the Colony West Subdivision with a rninimum 24 -foot wide asphalt driving surface with curb and gutter, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. No driveways will be allowed to have access off of 72 " Avenue. 11. No driveway shall be closer than 50 -feet to the intersection of Chestnut and 72" d Avenue. 12. All addresses shall be clearly shown on the face of the Final Short Plat (RCW 58.17.280). Additionally, a note shall be shown on the face of the Final Short Plat stating: The addresses shown on this plat are accurate as of the date of recording, but may be subject to change. The City of Yakima Code Administration Division is responsible for the confirmation or reassignment of addresses at the time of building permit issuance." 13. A current Short Plat Certificate, title report, or title policy covering the subject property must accompany the final short plat. 14. All other requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances, although not specifically set forth herein, shall be complied with in their entirety. 15. Any modification to the Preliminary Short Plat layout, as a result of the pending Type (2) Review for tri- plexes on two lots, shall be shown on the Final Short Plat. DATED this 8 day of February, 2012 ilk J . ar Davenport, Acting f ED Director Prelin,ina11% approval of this short plat is valid for a period of 5 years the date of this decision. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL This decision shall be final unless appealed within 14 days following the mailing of the final decision. All appeals must be in accordance with YMC § 14.50.010 Appeal foams may be obtained from the City of Yakima, Planning Division, and must be accompanied by the $580 application fee. D° Chestnut Ttwnhcnne, 5 INDEX PSP#012 -11 dd r kat AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Chestnut Townhomes, LLC 7200 Chestnut Avenue I, Rosalinda Ibarra, as an employee of the Yakima City Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Application. A true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant and all property owners of record within a radius of 300 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 this 12th day of January, 2012. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. �► 1 .a i i! osalinda Ibarra Planning Technician !INDEX # F 2C c/o Dale Turner 1 ENDRES FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST o GCI LP CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES LLC 7310 W YAKIMA AVE 2300 RIVER RD # 13 203 N 93RD AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989021293 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034490 18132034489 18132034488 MFP LLC MFP LLC MYERS ORCHARDS LLC 5625 SUMMITVIEW AVE 5625 SU TVIEW AVE 715 N 56TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YA , WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132042009 18132031464 18132031463 QWEST CORPORATION RATHOLE RENTALS LLC RATHOLE ALS LLC 1801 CALIFORNIA ST, SUITE 2500 PO BOX 9965 PO BO 5 DENVER, CO 802021984 YAKIMA, WA 98909 Y A, WA 98909 18132042011 18132043463 18132031486 ALFRED A & PAULINE DEAN CARMEN LOPEZ CAROLYN SCHAULS 7 N 72ND AVE 213 S 72ND AVE 14 N 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081624 YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034440 18132031473 18132034443 CHARLES L & JEAN C CUMMINGS DEBORAH DABRUZZI DOROTHY F & MELVAN HOOPES 7402 W CHESTNUT AVE 6 N 74TH AVE 205 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081586 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031465 18132031485 18132034439 ELNORA DOUGHERTY TRUSTEE ESTHER ANNE BLALOCK FRANCISCO J & TINA VILLEGAS 7309 W YAKIMA AVE 12 N 74TH AVE 202 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031458 18132034427 18132043461 GEORGE ERNEST BEETCHENOW GERRI WEST GREGORY J & DEBORAH DUNN 6 N 72ND AVE 201 S 75TH PL 209 S 72ND AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081623 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132042498 18132031493 18132031474 ISIDRO REYNAGA JAMES NETEMEYER SR JANICE WEBER 5 N 72ND AVE 4 N 54TH AVE 2 N 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132043009 18132031484 18132031461 JASON J & CARMEN STUGELMAYER JEAN CHANDLER KATHARINE D ELDRED 205 S 72ND AVE 5 N 73RD AVE 618 S 34TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989023929 18132043515 18132043516 18132042489 KENNETH & 1DA LEE KIMBERLY A MANZANARES LAVON F & PATRICIA D PARNELL %PRESTIGE REALTY POTTENGER 7106 W CHESTNUT AVE #1 7101 W CHESTNUT PO BOX 8087 YAKIMA, WA 98908 ®moo YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 !INDEX 18132042490 18132031424 # F 210 '2132034406 LAVON F & PAT PARNELL LLOYD M & KRISTEN HILER LOREN MARTIN 7101 T AVE 3 N 76TH AVE 7403 W CHESTNUT AVE YA MA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989084100 M M & CAROL CAROLUS 1MARGARITO D & LOUISA JUAREZ `9 MARIE CHRISTINE MITZEL 208 S 74TH AVE RODRIGUEZ 11900 NE 18TH ST APT 225 YAKIMA, WA 989081503 PO BOX 10660 VANCOUVER, WA 986844712 YAKIMA, WA 989091660 18132034444 18132043517 18132031459 MARTIN C & JACQUELINE D HAINES MARY KAY SCHULLER MATHIAS & NANCY GARGUS 207 S 74TH AVE 7102 W CHESTNUT AVE # 2 5506 NORMAN RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98901 18132031460 18132034442 18132031466 MATHIAS F & N GARGUS MICHAEL CAULFIELD MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE 5506 NO' ' r 5808 SUMMITVIEW PMB 329 380 KAIL RD YAKI , ,1 A 98901 YAKIMA, WA 989083095 TIETON, WA 98947 18132031482 18132043460 MICHAEL A & CO STONE NANCY RUTTER NANCY RUT 380 KAIL RD 207 S 72ND AVE 207 S 7 VE TIETON, W 947 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Y A, WA 98908 18132031468 18132031467 18132031479 ORPHA BROCKETT PAMELA A BALDWIN PAUL M & BETH A KUNNANZ 7321 W YAKIMA AVE 7317 W YAKIMA AVE 5301 N CANYON RD YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081597 YAKIMA, WA 989011627 18132031457 18132031483 18132031469 RANDOLPH R BEETCHNOW RICHARD SIPPOLA ROBERT D HOGE 8 N 72ND AVE 7 N 73RD AVE 7325 W YAKIMA AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132034445 18132034407 18132031492 ROGER A & DANIEL M CRAWFORD RONALD W & ELISA A JOHNSTON RYAN S COWDEN 209 S 74TH AVE 7404 W CHESTNUT AVE 7307 W CHESTNUT YAKIMA, WA 989081564 YAKIMA, WA 989081586 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031491 18132043464 18132034441 RYAN S COWDEN SALVADOR JUAREZ SCOTT A & SARA L CHAMBERS 8704 GROVE AVE 213 S 72ND AVE 201 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081629 YAKIMA, WA 989081564 18132031481 18132034428 18132031478 SHARLENE PETERS TERRY L & JUDY LEE HARMON THOMAS A & MONIQUE STINE 10 N 74TH AVE 203 S 75TH PL 280 N 99TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 989081559 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031470 18132031489 18132034437 TOM R & BETTY LAMBERT VERN & DONNA CHARTIER VICKI L SHAFFER WHITE 7329 W YAKIMA AVE 7312 W YAKIMA AVE 206 S 74TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 989081597 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18132031476 NFRD ON's EX Wilma Koski WILLIAM & SHIRLEY 0 HARE c/o Cindy Noble #F-2,b 21 North 94 Place 10 ECHO COURT 5609 West Arlington Street — Yakima, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 64 '' Ca ; h ill rtoraan Total Parcels - Chestnut Townhomes, LLC - Hordan Planning Svcs PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 410 N. 2 Street Yakima, WA. 98901 • flo 0-r ApjottCa Psp012» eL-z - 03 q - /i 6 ///; ®OCo INDEX # In -House Distribution E -mail List Name Division E -mail Address Dan Ford Engineering dford @ci.yakima.wa.us Sandy Cox Code Administration scox @ci.yakima.wa.us Jeff Cutter Legal Dept icutter @ci.yakima.wa.us Archie Matthews ONDS amatthew @ci.yakima.wa.us Brandon Dorenbush Fire Dept bdorenbu @ci.yakima.wa.us Michael Morales CED Dept mmorales @ci.yakima.wa.us Jerry Robertson Code Administration iroberts @ci.yakima.wa.us Royale Schneider Code Administration rschneid @ci.yakima.wa.us Mike Shane Water /Irrigation mshane @ci.yakima.wa.us Nathan Thompson Code Administration nthompso @ci.yakima.wa.us Kevin Futrell Transit Division kfutrell @ci.yakima.wa.us Dave Brown Water Division dbrown @ci.yakima.wa.us Carolyn Belles Wastewater Division cbelles @ci.yakima.wa.us For the Record/File Binder Copy Type of Notice: nob (.e Di ,//, - File Number(s): p / 2D 3 • Date of Mailing: 019-0/ DOCo INDEX ` -2b l i Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 11:41 AM To: Belles, Carolyn; Brown, Dave; Cox, Sandy; Cutter, Jeff; Denman, Glenn; Dorenbush, Brandon; Ford, Dan; Futrell, Kevin; Ibarra, Rosalinda; Matthews, Archie; Morales, Michael; Robertson, Jerry; Schneider, Royale; Shane, Mike; Thompson, Nathan Subject: NOTICE OF APPLICATION - Chestnut Townhomes, LLC- PSP#012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Attachments: NTC OF APPLICATION - Chestnut Townhomes - PSP CL2.pdf psaEnda I6arra Planning Technician ribarra @ci.yakima.wa.us City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 p: (509) 575 -6183 f: (509) 575-6105 D000 O DEX 1 # � _2b 1 j "! City of Yakima PUBLIC NOTICE OF 'L�, Planning Department " .\.. . 129N2ndSt LAND USE REVIEW Yakima, WA 98901 Date of Notice of Application - 01/12/2012 Project Name' CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC - DALE TURNPS ;. , #012-11 Location 7200 CHESTNUT AVENUE Proposal: The proposal is to subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel into seven lots and construct duplexes on five lots and tri- plexes on two lots. A land use application has been submitted near your property. This is your notice of that application. To view information on -line go to: http: / /www.ci.vakima.wa.us /postcard When prompted enter PSP#012 -11 in the Application ID text box. Click the Submit button to view the land use application information. More information is available from the City of Yakima Planning Division, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 or call (509) 575 -6183. Joseph Calhoun /575- 6162/Assistant Plannerficalhoun @ci.yakima.wa.us Decisions and future notices will be sent to anyone who submits comments on this application or requests additional notice. Comments may be submitted in writing to the address above or by email to: planning©ci.yakima.wa.us - Please include the Application ID in the email subject line. Also include your name and address in the email. Written or emailed comments must be received by 5 :OOpm on 02/01/2012 This application may include multiple land use types, including compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). For specific information, please contact the Planning Division. Si necesita informacion en espafiol por favor Dame al (509)575 -6183. Application Submitted: 12/20/2011 Application Complete: 01/06/2012 ., ! City of Yakima . :76 . " - ,, Planning Department rJ% 129 N 2nd St `' Yakima, WA 98901 LAND USE PUBLIC NOTICE ' . -WYakima r f a — `' d � - STE - i t `: . ri ! j 1 ( 4 , N _ Location of Proposed Action ®OC. INDEX # F -Zia- 1 � NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATE: January 12, 2012 TO: SEPA Reviewing Agencies, Applicant and Adjoining Property Owners FROM: Joan Davenport, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Preliminary Short Plat and Type (2) Review Project Location: Vicinity of 72 " and Chestnut Avenues Project Applicant/Owner: Chestnut Townhouses, LLC Parcel Number: 181320 -34011 File Number: PSP #012 -11; CL2 #034 -11 Date of Application: December 20, 2011 Date of Determination of Application Completeness: January 6, 2012 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Yakima Department of Community & Economic Development received an application from Chestnut Townhouses, LLC, for a 7 -lot Preliminary Short Plat. Also proposed is a Type (2) Review for tri- plexes on two lots. The density will be 12 units per acre (16 units total). Of the 7 proposed lots, 5 lots will contain duplexes and 2 lots will contain tri- plexes. REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS Your views on this proposal are welcome. There is a 20 -day public comment period associated with this review. All written comments received by February 1, 2012 will be considered. Please mail your comments on this project to: Joan Davenport, Planning Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community & Economic Development 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, Washington 98901 Please be sure to reference the file number (PSP#012 -11, CL2 #034 -11) or applicant's name (Chestnut Townhomes, LLC) in any correspondence. NOTICE OF DECISION A copy of the decision will be mailed to you once it is rendered. The decision will be final unless appealed. If you have any questions on this proposal, please contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575 -6162, or email at jcalhoun @ci.yakima.wa.us. 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: Preliminary Plat, Written Narrative, and Mailing Map DOCe B NDEX # F -2. L -.vs, + UCCAKI! 1CP "rr c. UIVZM Ulvt 1 'YANUi;CUNUMIG'U1 1?EN1 / 1 J f 'A� , +� �� '` Planning Division 4i • 4. 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 .V r;3` (509) 575 -6183 • Fax (509) 575 -6105 I www.buildingyakima.com P g , 'i °A �: • - • www.Ci yakl711a.Wa.uslservicesl Tannin / ' + ".. :, ,...- - January 6, 2012 Chestnut Townhomes, LLC Attn: Dale Turner 203 N 93r Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 Determination of Application Completeness for the following applications: PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Proposal: 7 lot short plat for duplexes and Type (2) Review two triplexes. Location: Vicinity of 72n and Chestnut Avenues. Your application was submitted on December 20, 2011. After initial review, the City of Yakima Planning Division has determined as of January 6, 2012, that your application is now complete for further processing. Continued processing of your request will include, but is not limited to, the following actions: 1. A Notice of Application is to be sent to all property owners within 300 feet of your site. This notice will include a request for public comments during a 20-day comment period as is required by the City of Yakima. 2. Following the comment period a staff report/decision will be prepared by the Planning Division, which may include conditions of approval. The decision will be followed by a 14 -day appeal period. 3. Following the expiration of the appeal period, and after any subdivision conditions have been completed, the Final Short Plat Mylar may be submitted for review. You may contact me at (509) 575 -6162, or email at jcalhoun @ci.yakima.wa.us if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, lc. r' o eph Calhoun Assistant Planner cc: Bill Hordan 410 N 2' 410 N 2 St Yakima, WA 98901 Yakima DOC. INDEX 1 111111 #,„1:.I ,„ I , 1994 CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP #002 -12 APP #001 -12, REF #001 -12 PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER G Public Comments E DUC f 3 . 3" D®'CU f • A > � F r DATE i`�t', maw #'' x f a db� „t "-A :rte 2 ° ` 9'r YI L fi ' k � i G -1 Petition Letter received from the Owners and Residents of 01/30/2012 West Crest G -2 E -mail Comment received from Mike Hiler 01/30/2012 G -3 E -mail Comment received from Connie Panique & Tim 01/30/2012 Adams G -4 E -mail Comment received from Janice M. Weber 01/30/2012 G -5 E -mail Comment received from Sharon French 01/30/2012 G -6 Comment Letter received from Phil Lamb 01/30/2012 G -7 E -mail Comment received from Roger Huynh 01/31/2012 G -8 Comment Letter received from Sharlene Peters 01/31/2012 G -9 Comment Letter received from Elnora Dougherty 01/31/2012 G -10 Comment Letter received from Martin & Jackie Haines 01/31/2012 G -11 Comment Letter received from Bill and Shirley O'Hare 02/01/2012 G -12 Comment Letter received from Tom & Betty Lambert 02/01/2012 G -13 E -mail Comment received from James McLane 02/01/2012 G -14 E -mail Comment received from Bill O'Hare 02/01/2012 G -15 E -mail Comment received from Connie Stone 02/01/2012 G -16 E -mail Comment received from Michael Stone 02/01/2012 G -17 E -mail Comment received from Jean Chandler 02/01/2012 G -18 E -mail Comment received from Michael Stone 02/04/2012 G -19 Comment Letter received from Connie & Tim Adams 04/24/2012 4/19/2012 0 0 0 Connie & Tim Adams 7203 W Chestnut RECEIVED Yakima, WA 98908 APR 2 4 2012 City Of Yakima CP OF YAKIMA 129 No 2nd St PLANNING DIV. Yakima, WA, 98901 RE: Parcel # 181320 -34011 File: APP #002 -12 We are writing in regards to the appeal on the above listed parcel. Tim and would like to express our concerns again on the duplexes and triplexes proposed for the site. We live at the corner of Chestnut and 72nd, have for years. This has not been a problem in the past, but can see a very big problem if this is to go through. I do not believe any traffic studies have been done to see the impact of opening up Chestnut to the housing development to the west of us. If that is done with the additional plans for building across the street from us, the added traffic at that corner will be tremendous. The Orchards Shopping Center to the South of us has now completed the last of their building. This too has increased the stopping and turning and traffic congestion as well on 72nd Ave. Our hope would be that big consideration be made to opening 76th Ave up from Tieton Dr. to SummitviewAve. That would allow all the excess traffic to exit out to Summitview instead if 72nd Ave. The number of proposed duplexes and triplexes wanting to be built on the lot to the south of us will increase the traffic congestion at the corner as it is, so limiting those to the minimum would lessen that somewhat. At the least, a study of some kind should be done and consider a light at the intersection of 72 and Chestnut. Thank You for your time; Connie & Tim Adams Calhoun, Joseph From: Ibarra, Rosalinda on behalf of Planning PostCard Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:16 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: FW: Land Use Review PSP#012 -11, CL2#034 -11 Please print for the file/record. Thanks! Rosalinda Lbarra Planning Technician ribarra @ci.vakima.wa.us (509) 575-6183 From: Michael or Connie Stone jmailto :mikeconniestonecenturylink .nett Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 7:33 AM To: Planning PostCard Subject: Land Use Review PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 To: Joseph Calhoun, Planning Department, City of Yakima From: Michael Stone, West Crest property owner Date: February 4, 2012 Re: Land Use Review PSP #012 -11, C12 #034 -11 Yesterday evening after the planning department offices closed, Bill O' Hare forwarded an email that you had sent to him earlier this week. In this email you said, "A notice should be going out next week informing property owners of the date, time, and place for a referred hearing on the proposed Type (2) land use to establish tri- plexes on 2 of the lots." Let me clarify. We requested a public hearing to discuss the appropriateness of the entire proposal, not just the "tri- plexes on 2 of the lots." We asked for a hearing to discuss the issues of compatibility; population density; parking; quality of life; lot coverage; building type, number, style, size, and materials; covenants; and the widening and opening of Chestnut. You words suggest that we have ceded on the five duplexes as proposed. We have ceded nothing. The entire proposal is at issue. Everything is on the table. We want to discuss every aspect of the proposal that impacts West Crest. Do not attempt to cheat us out of a hearing with language that effectively sidelines issues we care about. DOCo INDEX t j Calhoun, Joseph From: Ibarra, Rosalinda on behalf of Planning PostCard Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 8:48 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: FW: PSP#012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 RECEIVED Please print for file/record. Thanks! FEB 0 1 2012 Rosa linda Iban a CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. Planning Technician ribarra@ci.vakima.wa.us (509) 575 -6183 From: Jean Chandler f mailto:jean66chandAamail.com1 Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 8:44 AM To: Planning PostCard Subject: PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Reference number PSP #012- 11,CL2 #034 -11 • I am writing because I own and live in a home in the West Crest development and am very concerned about what Mr Turner has proposed to do in our neighborhood. There is definately not room for the amount of homes that he is planning on building. We already have a parking problem and if he were to be allowed to build 16 more homes, we would be in a real mess. I would like to see the empty lots with duplexes very similar to what we already have in the area. Hopefully they would all be one level because there are no two story homes in the area. Hopefully they could even have a similar look. That would complete the area as it should be. Points that need to be considered: *increased population density from less than 1 7 /acre to 52 /acre....not acceptable *double the population...not acceptable *erect two story unites...not acceptable *32 driveways on one side of the very short Chestnut St...not acceptable *will lower my property value...not acceptable This is a quiet, family area with people that have owned and lived here for years. This new project is certainly NOT consistent with the residential housing that is and has always been in West Crest. Thank you, Jean Chandler Property owner 5 N 73rd Ave Yakima WA 98908 509- 453 -7965 DOC. INDEX 1 Calhoun, Joseph From: Ibarra, Rosalinda on behalf of Planning PostCard Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:27 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: FW: Land Use Review PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 RECEIVED Please print for file/record. Thanks! FEB Q 1 2012 Rosalinda Ibarra CITY �O YAKIMA � Planning Technician PLANKING ribarra @ci.vakima.wa.us (509) 575 -6183 • From: Michael or Connie Stone jmailto: mikeconniestoneOcenturylink.netj Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:57 PM To: Planning PostCard Subject: Land Use Review PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034-11 To: City of Yakima, Planning Department From: Michael Stone, West Crest property owner Date: January 31, 2012 Re: Land Use Review PSP#012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Mr. Turner doesn't get it. We complained about his first proposal to build 20 units in our neighborhood. His latest iteration, proposing 16 units, isn't much better. Rather than be a good neighbor, rather than listen to the residents and owners of West Crest, the neighborhood he is encroaching on with his rental superplex, he goes to the planning office, sits down with the staff and asks, "What's the maximum number of units I can squeeze onto this lot and still meet (barely) code ?" Mr. Turner would subordinate quality of life, neighborliness, and aesthetics to money. He would subordinate the interests of three dozen families to his own. Apparently he feels justified, not because it is right or fair or decent, but because it is legal. He would wreck a beautiful, low density, middle -class neighborhood by wedging in 16 two -story, claptrap rentals. For Mr. Turner, like too many businessmen today, nothing comes before short-term profits: not the environment, quality of life, being a good neighborhood, aesthetics, customer well - being, doing quality work, public safety and health, even long -term financial security. He has stopped thinking like a builder and started thinking like a profiteer. He no longer cares about building quality homes and providing a real service to the community. Now it's only about making money. He possesses the same mentality that drove Wall Street bankers to wreck our economy. Now he wants to wreck our neighborhood. Mr. Turner could build five attractive, single -story duplexes, provide ample parking and green space, and thereby complement the neighborhood he wants to build in. He knows how to do this. Check out the gated community he is building off Summitview and 93 Avenue. But since he won't be living across the street from his superplex, he doesn't care. Here's where the city planning department comes in. Part of their job, I believe, is to protect citizens from predator businessmen. It looks like the department is more interested in helping out one rich businessman a _. L Alp e n se of 60- 1 INDEX 70 residents and owners. The plannii. office grants the builder a face -to -face me...ing so he can work out a plan that barely meets code, but the same office refuses to meet with the homeowners and residents that will be directly impacted by his proposal. The planning office allows those homeowners and residents an opportunity to comment in writing, but there is no guarantee that the planning office will consider or even look at those comments. The planning office will make its decision behind closed doors. The planning office is under no obligation to give reasons for its decision. That's some democracy. Twenty -five people facing off one builder in a public meeting, which we have requested in a signed petition, can have a very different result than a petition and a few letters sitting on a table while the builder and city planner look at plot plans and discuss their investments. If the planning office approves Turner's proposal, there will be an appeal. Mr. Turner can avoid all of this by submitting a reasonable proposal, one that is compatible with the neighborhood, established 15+ years ago, that he wants to complete. His plan should be compatible in terms of population density, lot coverage, building type, style, size, and materials. In addition, Mr. Turner should be required to put his development under the same covenants and restrictions the West Crest residents live within. (Allowing his tenants to park recreational vehicles and boats in their driveways and operate businesses out of their homes would also degrade our neighborhood.) Mr. Turner wants to build in our neighborhood. He should be required to be a good neighbor. RECEIVED FEB 0 1 2C12 CITY OF YAKion" PLANNING DIV DOC. INDEX Calhoun, Joseph From: Ibarra, Rosalinda on behalf of Planning PostCard Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:38 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: FW: PSP3012 -11 RECEIVED Please print for file/record. Thanks! FEB ®1 2012 Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Technician CITY OF YAKIMA ribarra @ci.vakima.wa.us PLANNING Olt (509) 575 -6183 From: Michael or Connie Stone [mailto:mikeconniestone Tcenturvlink.netl y _ Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:10 PM To: Planning PostCard Subject: PSP3012 -11 To: City of Yakima Planning Department From: Connie Stone, 380 Kail Road, Tieton, WA 98947 (509) 673 -2792 Re: Land Use Review PSP#012 -11, CL2#034 -11 Date: January 30, 2012 This e-mail is another effort to oppose the development proposed by Mr. Turner on West Chestnut Avenue. You have been advised, twice now, that dozens of people recognize that what Mr. Turner wants to build for this development will destroy an existing neighborhood, West Crest. It does not matter whether his proposal is within current zoning and development standards within the city -at- large. It does not matter that this parcel was once approved to be divided into seven lots. Mr. Turner is planning to build within a long- established, mixed residential area and in an otherwise fully developed neighborhood. NO development within many blocks in any direction resembles what Mr. Turner wants to erect on this parcel. If you are not familiar with the neighborhoods within the extended area, 1 suggest you check them out. DOC. 1 8 1® k j Mr. Turner can't be expected to concern himself with the compatibility and the negative impact of his venture. But as city planners paid with tax -payer money, you inherit the responsibility of protecting established residents from random, haphazard, or destructive encroachment into existing neighborhoods. This is what Mr. Turner is seeking. Surely you understand that we are willing to exhaust the appeal process, and more, to protect the value of our property. We believe it is reasonable that you require Mr. Turner to build within the density, lot coverage, height, and quality standards that were met when this neighborhood was developed more than 15 years ago. I look forward to hearing from you soon. RECEIVED FEB 0 1 2012 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. INDEX 2 # -15 I 1 Calhoun, Joseph From: Bills Mail [wsohare @aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:23 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: Re: Chestnut Townhomes Feb. l ,2012 Joe, Had a discussion last night ..people are not happy. There was a date stamped copy with 28 signatures, printed names, addresses and dates requesting a hearing. These people want a hearing!!! I do not know if this request is in the proper format, but technicalities about the format is not going to carry the day. Another question...if the lot size from 2008 is legally binding. Or is a common practice to accept a short plat that was previously approved but never finalized? RECEIVED Please call...509 949 2693 Bill OHare FEB 01 2012 CITY OF YAKIMA Sent from my iPad PLANNING DIV. On Jan 24, 2012, at 2:06 PM, "Calhoun, Joseph' <jcalhoun @ci.yakima.wa.us> wrote: Bill, The dimension we discussed earlier is 3.57 feet. Joseph Calhoun Assistant Planner City of Yakima (509) 575 -6162 icalhoun@ci.valcima.wa.us DOC. 1 INDEX } i Calhoun, Joseph From: Ibarra, Rosalinda on behalf of Planning PostCard Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 11:09 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: FW: Ref# PSP#012 -11 and CL2#034 -11 RECEIVED Please print for the record /file. Thanks! FEB 0 1 2012 Rosalinda Ibarra CITY OF YAKIMA Planning Technician PLANNING DIV ribarra @ci.vakima.wa.us (509) 575 -6183 — ___- - From: James M jmailto:irmac41Ahotmail.com1 Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 11:03 AM To: Planning PostCard Subject: Ref# PSP #012 -11 and CL2 #034 -11 I James R. McLane oppose Mr. Dale Turners proposal (Ref# PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11). This proposal will make an already crowded neiborhood even more crowded. With a more dense population, the crime rate can and will go up. He is simply trying to squeeze in too many buildings into a plot that will not allow that kind of building. Single story duplex units are what this neiborhood already has. He should be consistant with that style. There may be enough room for 4 -5 single story duplex units. Any bigger, the driveways would have to be huge or they would have to park on the street. There is no room for that and it's not safe to park on the street. Accidents and breakins will be a common occurance. Please consider this email in opposition of the proposal listed above. Thank you, James McLane DOCO O DEX 1 # G -1 S 1 1 To: City of Yakima, Planning Department RECEIVED From: Tom and Betty Lambert (Westcrest Homeowners) 7329 W. Yakima Ave FEB 0 1 2012 Yakima, WA 98908 Date: January 31, 2012 CITY OF YAKIMA Regarding: Land Use Application PLP #012 -11 PLANNING DIV. CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES LLC — DALE TURNER @ 7200 W. Chestnut Avenue has an application to build 16 dwelling units on the southern side of Westcrest between 72 " and 74 on Chestnut. This project is proposed to be 5 — 2 story duplexes and 2 — 2 story triplexes. Westcrest consists of 17 single story duplexes. Most of the duplexes are owner occupied, common wall homes on regular size city lots. These are single story; attractive structures with well kept yards. The proposed Chestnut development would be 2 story homes on narrow lots. The Chestnut project would not be in harmony with the Westcrest homes and would lessen the value of our homes. There will be some real traffic problems if the Chestnut project is built as planned. 1. The intersection of 72' and Chestnut avenues will be the main entrance and exit for our neighborhood. Chestnut Townhomes would double the number of cars using this intersection daily. 2. 72 " avenue does not have a left turn lane on to Chestnut. 3. In case of an emergency, it would be difficult for everyone to evacuate through this exit. 4. Most emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, school buses, etc will come through this one intersection. 5. The design of the Chestnut project provides very little space for parking for guests and additional cars. Westcrest has CCRs restricting parking for those living in Westcrest. The residents of the Chestnut project would not be restricted by the CCR's. The streets in front of our homes would be filled with cars from the project. 6. The CT project plans does not provide room for children to play. They will probably end up playing in the street. We certainly do not need a buffer between Westcrest and The Orchards shopping center. Noise, lights, etc has never been a problem. We have a beautiful view of the hills to the south of us. This view would be blocked if two story duplexes were built there. We oppose the building of this project. (Land Use application PLP #012 -11) Tom Lambert & Betty Lambert DOC. INDEX i . C, -12 CITY OF YAKIMA CODE ADMIN. DIVISION January 31, 2012 FEB 01 2012 ORECVD FAXEDO Ms. Joan Davenport, Planning Manager OPAID FYIO City of Yakima, Department of Community & Economic Development 129 No. 2 St. Yakima WA 98901 RECEIVED RE: Chestnut Townhouses LLC, PSP#012 -11, CL2 #34 -11 FEB 0 1 2012 Dear Ms. Davenport, PLANNING NI YADI PLANMIN� Dlv We currently own a duplex in the West Crest development and would like to comment on the Proposal that Mr. Turner has presented. One of the most blatant discrepancies is the figuring of the number of units he has figured he is allowed. By multiplying 1.25 acres by 12 (the number of units allowed per acre), Mr. Turner has come up with 15.02 units. Under no conditions do 1.25x12 equal 15.02! It equals 15 - -no more, no less! Also, to have the "right" to round up .02 units to one complete unit is ridiculous! Mr. Turner has also done some "penciling" and moved the east side setback line from 20' to 19.75. Additionally, the east side property line was changed from 56.43' to 58.43 and because of that change, the diagonal line no longer will meet. We believe the change was the only way Mr. Turner could squeeze the proposed tri-plex into this lot. These line changes are not a scientific survey and to approve this proposal base on these changes is not acceptable. A new survey is needed, so that Mr. Turner and the rest of us can have accurate numbers to use. Even though the number of units proposed is a decrease from the first proposal, the extra traffic generated from these units will most likely cause a problem especially with turning left from 72 Ave. onto Chestnut. There is no left hand turn lane there. A traffic study needs to be done. With the increase in units /people on Chestnut, there becomes a large parking problem. The restrictive covenants on the West Crest properties does not allow curb parking, or RV type vehicles parked along the curb or in • OC. INDEX 1 ) the driveway for an extended period of time. Mr. Turner's proposal does not allow for any extra guest parking and there are no restrictive covenants preventing those units from parking RV type vehicles anywhere they want- - including along the curbs on the West Crest development. With the number of complaints that this proposal has garnered, we feel that a hearing is advisable to address these issues. RECEIVED Sincerely, FEB 0 1 2012 WY OF YAKIMA 'CX 2 G PLANNING 0IV. --j/i-tt 4 Bill and Shirley O'Hare 10 Echo Ct. Yakima WA 98908 DOC. INDEX # t - ' JAN 3 1 2012 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIN. TG z' 2- �2a�c , 2.0 e 2 le e/ett,e7t.Ci2-- ./ / 1 71Z-6:eZ/ P 0 / Z C'a /,Lo /- // cuie." 2 ..az0, cvGr� �i a•74.06 2 - ,, ,, er„ CCU C7 i /.� Tet/ Z/,i e ,.,'0 € 6 � -�- D�e C C Ale,2Zs4e 6?-"?J.e%)- 012 ul,a-CCOd/ .,/(-C>60GOZ2-Z4-- CZ C60001 --�z / -�� X44 RECEIVED JAN 3 1 2012 O TY OF YAKIMA PLANNING Dry 0"7//e6 yrutz-t, _,ec/• , J i ► 1 Za 4 ne o 7 S a7y r n C� Pc-Y0 p- p#0' 766-6 y2/6. DOC. INDEX ,ate, ,1 /74703" /-30 -) RECEIVE JAN 312 N. ' r . crrY OF YAKtMA " lol If "a ! PLANNING DIV. a4,-, ,Lt/ Ati ‘44,,et- , zE t i - 4,v- eiv 4 ...ctptole_g)_t set- d-4-4 a-yv, ..tscett- eolv, edi e t ere „,,,. ee-7., . gen i. „1; ,, ,Sum c.../ Jte, ,zev;texes11 -4P>16 ' &4 1if e;d- " 2 ' 96611-x4 ' ) J a J 4 ZLe z d az f s -eizeu t i v a i , e 4F DOC. INS ;CM: 'Ab 9PINtdm'Id MO 40 AIYJ • ZIOZ 1 Ndf be) 6134,6 'a�J aamoa ( 11\- , */ - x??Vir t) 1 1 7 ' ‘40* A PIP 1 � �r�c ate, - o l ors P-6/7 Poi yr�au, �,°�'��,�rao� q-6/114 4.7 arm 47 -Piyveiv i fitYy-opiw 4 4-9 -- tqg : ),? p 4.*p,),tikpo, 72 -y r (11 e 4 (// vlAc>61. /. .(2 2p.4 ,TVIV/VG(9V/1 I ) Calhoun, Joseph From: Ibarra, Rosalinda on behalf of Planning PostCard Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:53 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: FW: PSP#012- 11,CL2#034 -11 RECENED Please print for the record/file, thanks! JAN 3 1 2012. Rosalinda lbarra O F y AMA Planning Technician NO10 Mt ribarra @ci.vakima.wa.us (509) 575 -6183 From: Roger Huynh fmailto:roger.huynhOornail.com] _ _..___ Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:42 AM To: Planning PostCard Subject: PSP #012- 11,CL2 #034 -11 PSP #012- 11,CL2 #034 -11 To whom it may concern about the new development proposal by Dale Turner. I oppose it. I am a new resident to West Crest, just recently purchased a property there. I was unaware of the development proposal and upon hearing it I am against it. One of the reasons for purchasing the house there was the nice, quiet neighborhood. I think the propose development does not add to the area, but rather take away from it. Roger Huynh 6 DEX 311 N. 3d Street LAMB LEGAL Phone: (509) 930 -1207 P.O. Box 4 Fax: (509) 834 -2119 Yakima, WA 98907 Email: phil ®lamblegaicom CITY OF YAKIMA CODE ADM!N DIVJSION JAN 3 0 2012 January 30, 2012 ❑ REC'VD FAXED❑ ❑ PAID FYI ❑ Ms. Joan Davenport, Planning Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community & Economic Development RECEIVED 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 JAN 3 0 2012 Re: Chestnut Townhouses LLC, PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 CITY OF YAKIMA Dear Ms. Davenport: PLANNING DIV. I represent William and Shirley O'Hare. They own a duplex directly across Chestnut from this proposal, at 7305/07 West Chestnut. They reside at 10 Echo Court, Yakima. This letter contains comments on the revised proposal. Our prior comments, on the original proposal, are incorporated by reference. This proposal is a significant improvement, by reducing density, extending Chestnut west, and eliminating driveways on 72nd. With respect to density, if this is a 1.25 acre parcel, after deducting for additional right of way on Chestnut at the intersection with 72nd, 15 residential units are allowable, not 16. Comparison of PLSA's prepared map of the original proposal (enclosed) with the current hand drawn diagram, reveals a discrepancy in footage at the east end, adjacent to 72nd. The original shows 20 feet, now 19.75 feet, for the side setback. The east side property line was originally 56.43 feet, the new diagram shows 58.43, with the angled property line in both instances being 42.86 feet. If these new dimensions are the legal description, it will not close. I presume these revised dimensions are the basis for stating that the square footage allows 15.02 dwelling units, and therefore rounding allows 16 units. The calculations need to be verified. Even if correct, allowing another unit based upon a 2 /100th fractional lot, is bizarre and abuses the intent of the ordinance. From a traffic safety perspective, a triplex ought not to be allowed adjacent to 72nd, due to driveway interference with the functional area of the intersection. A better design would be to O'Hare comment letter January 30, 2012 Page 1 of 2 gfDEX replace the east triplex with a duplex, retain the triplex on lot 6, with duplexes as proposed to the west. As to the extension of Chestnut, it is not clear if a sidewalk is proposed. A sidewalk would be appropriate at least on the south side, even though design standards require sidewalks on both sides. Sincerely, 1 V"-70-4,` RECEIVED Philip A. Lamb C: Mr. and Mrs. William O'Hare JAN 3 0 2012 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV O'Hare comment letter January 30, 2012 DOC. Page 2 of 2 INDEX # G -1.,o 1 � • 311 N. 3d Street LAMB LEGAL Phone: (509) 930 -1207 P.O. Box 4 Fax: (509) 834-2119 Yakima, WA 98907 Email: phil @lamblegal.com "' 1 CITY OF YAKIMA CODE APMIN.DIVJS JAN 3 0 2012 January 30, 2012 ❑ REC'VL FYI ED 0 PAID Ms. Joan Davenport, Planning Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community & Economic Development 129 N. 2nd St. RECEIVED Yakima, WA 98901 JAN 302012 Re: Chestnut Townhouses LLC, PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 CITY OF YAKIMA Dear Ms. Davenport: PANNING DIV. I represent William and Shirley O'Hare. They own a duplex directly across Chestnut from this proposal, at 7305/07 West Chestnut. They reside at 10 Echo Court, Yakima. This letter contains comments on the revised proposal. Our prior comments, on the original proposal, are incorporated by reference. This proposal is a significant improvement, by reducing density, extending Chestnut west, and eliminating driveways on 72nd. With respect to density, if this is a 1.25 acre parcel, after deducting for additional right of way on Chestnut at the intersection with 72nd, 15 residential units are allowable, not 16. Comparison of PLSA's prepared map of the original proposal (enclosed) with the current hand drawn diagram, reveals a discrepancy in footage at the east end, adjacent to 72nd. The original shows 20 feet, now 19.75 feet, for the side setback. The east side property line was originally 56.43 feet, the new diagram shows 58.43, with the angled property line in both instances being 42.86 feet. If these new dimensions are the legal description, it will not close. I presume these revised dimensions are the basis for stating that the square footage allows 15.02 dwelling units, and therefore rounding allows 16 units. The calculations need to be verified. Even if correct, allowing another unit based upon a 2 /100th fractional lot, is bizarre and abuses the intent of the ordinance. From a traffic safety perspective, a triplex ought not to be allowed adjacent to 72nd, due to driveway interference with the functional area of the intersection. A better design would be to O'Hare comment letter January 30, 2012 DOD. Page 1 of 2 INDEX i ) SEPA Comments. Connection of Chestnut at its west end to 74th is mandatory. The application documents which I have reviewed do not address the issue. YMC 15.05.055 now mandates connection when more than 30 dwelling units are on a cul de sac. By actual count, there are 34 dwelling units now on Chestnut. West Valley Country Club off 76th has 67 units. There are another 55 dwellings on 74th and 76th, with the only access out 76th to Tieton. Connecting Chestnut to 74th provides two access routes for both neighborhoods, eliminating what may be the largest existing cul de sac in Yakima. The connection needs to be a standard street, full width, curb and gutter each side, with at least one sidewalk. The irrigation canal is directly north of 74th, and perched above the street. Excavation to connect the streets will need to be engineered in order to assure slope stability and the integrity of the canal. Although YMC 15.05.055 authorizes a minimum street width of 20 feet, standard residential street standards should be required. National trip generation statistics indicate that 10 vehicle trip ends per day can be anticipated from a standard single family residence. Over 150 existing dwelling units, plus this proposal, mandates a standard street. Whether a left turn pocket should be required for north bound 72nd at Chestnut, and for east bound Chestnut at the same intersection, should be considered by your traffic engineers. Whether a traffic study should be required depends upon traffic count data which I do not have available. Driveways on to 72nd need to be prohibited. The available site plan indicates that the eastern lot puts a driveway out to 72nd rather than Chestnut. Actually, given the small lot, a driveway at either location is problematic, but certainly better on Chestnut. This is consistent with the 2009 short plat approval by Mr. Benson. Nothing has changed which would justify changing that requirement. In addition, given the number of driveways, on- street parking should probably be prohibited on both sides of Chestnut. These issues can all be addressed in conditions, should you issue a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. Substantive Comments. These comments are both procedural and substantive. As an overview, this application proposes dwelling unit densities, lot sizes, and lot coverages, which far exceed the bounds of compatibility contemplated by the R -2 zone. As a point of reference, compare the intent statements, and associated proposed densities, for R -1, R -2, and R -3. This is an R -3 project on a very small lot. Twenty dwelling units on 1.26 acres. Procedurally, the only way this project starts is by styling it as a master planned residential development. The MPRD provisions, adopted in 2008 at YMC Chapter 15.28, require a minimum lot size of 10 acres. YMC 15.28.025: "The minimum lot size for a master planned development shall be ten acres." (Emphasis supplied.) Nothing authorizes reducing the minimum size. The Examin sioess ha e to modify "...currently adopted development O'Hare comment letter October 17, 2011 OCT 7 2011 Page 2 of 4 CITY OF YAKIj !INDEX PLANNING UIV. # G'' I ► standards in order to provide flexibility in site planning;...." YMC 15.28.040(D)(1). The concept of administratively adjusting certain design standards has been a part of this zoning ordinance since 1986. See YMC 15.10.020. However, that authority has been explicitly granted, and never used to circumvent the intent of the underlying zoning district. This is an overlay, which if approved, is to be consistent with, in this case, the intent of the R -2 zone. The Examiner does not have authority to "adjust" or "vary" the ten acre minimum. Utilizing a variance to allow processing this in the R -2 zone subverts the entire zoning ordinance. Any application, for any use, in any zone. Just apply for a variance. If the Yakima City Council intended the minimum size to be five acres, they could have so provided. They certainly did not authorize 1.26 acres as a minimum size. The idea behind planned developments is to give the owner flexibility to develop and grow over time. If the infrastructure is in place, or can be provided, the owner can respond to market demands over time, providing pads or parcels as needed by a new owner or tenant. By requiring a relatively large parcel size for initial conceptual approval, the city is able to require adequate mitigation at the outset. If very small parcel sizes are permitted, it creates a spot zone effect. There is then no point in a broader zoning ordinance; everything becomes ad hoc. Present your proposal, we will go through complicated hearings and procedural expense, and developers who just want to know the rules in order to do a standard project have lost certainty and consistency. Variances are a creature of state statute, and are appropriately strictly reviewed, consistent with the statutory requirements. The criteria are reflected in the City's variance application. Perhaps most importantly, would the strict application of the ordinance deprive the applicant of reasonable use, or create an unnecessary hardship? This parcel was approved for a seven lot plat in 2009. Reasonable use, no unnecessary hardship. The applicant obviously wants to have each dwelling unit on an individual lot. He cannot achieve his desired density if he complies with the zero lot line and lot coverage provisions of the ordinance. Zero lot lines contemplate one zero lot line, or common wall, per lot. This proposal puts zero lot lines on both sides of the interior lots. See YMC 15.02.020 Definitions, zero lot line; Table 5 -1, Design Requirements and Standards, footnote 7: "Zero lot line dwelling units are allowed a zero -foot setback from one side property line not abutting a right -of- way "; YMC 15.09.040 Zero lot line development. Impervious lot coverage in R -2 is fifty percent per Table 5 -1. Even if pavers are used for driveways, and thus not considered impervious, the site plan suggests the interior lots have 61 percent coverage. 27.83 feet wide times 90 feet long equals 2504.70 square feet per lot. The building envelope of 27.83 feet times 55 feet equals 1529 square feet, or 61 percent lot coverage. Including a 400 square foot driveway ups the coverage to 77 percent. R -2 subdivision requirements allow a 35 foot wide lot when zero lot lines are utilized. Table 5- 2. These are about 28 feet wide. A zero lot line lot can be as small as 4,000 square feet, again per Table 5 -2. These proposed interior lots are about 2,505 square feet. The standards of Table 5 -2 control. YMC 15.05.060, Administrative adjustment of certain basic development standards allowed, provides that except as to the zero lot line provisions of O'Hare comment letter REEVED October 17, 2011 DOC. Page3of4 OCT 7 2011 INDEX CITY OF YAKIMA # - PLANNING DIV 1 � Chapters 15.09 and 15.10, no adjustments are allowed except by variance. Factors for a variance do not exist. Comparing this proposal with the R -3 zone is instructive. R -3 contemplates more than 12 units per net residential acre. Twenty units, on 1.26 acres, looks and feels like R -3. So apply for a rezone. Don't torture the existing rules in order to sneak in. With respect to buffering arguments, that has already occurred. There is no need to approve this project in order to "buffer" the Chestnut neighborhood from The Orchards shopping center. The Orchards is zoned retail. This strip, part of the original Orchards project, is zoned R -2. The units north of Chestnut are zoned R -1, and Rich Hochrein went through the normal process to obtain enhanced density approval. The shopping center is at a significantly lower elevation, and much of it is out of direct line of sight from Chestnut. So the buffering contemplated by the elected officials in adopting the zoning ordinance goes from R -1 to R -2 to retail. Certainly not a special circumstance for a variance. This proposal is so far out of the norm that the City would have been justified in returning it as incomplete. If this reaches the Hearing Examiner, this proposal can not be "fixed" by imposing conditions. If withdrawn and resubmitted, with appropriate attention to R -2 standards concerning zero lot line, lot size, and coverage, a nice project could result. Sincerely, Philip A. Lamb E�$ C: Mr. and Mrs. William O'Hare IBC T 201 � DIV1 O'Hare comment letter October 17, 2011 Page 4 of 4 ° ONDEX Calhoun, Joseph From: Ibarra, Rosalinda on behalf of Planning PostCard Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:31 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: FW: Ref. number: PSP#012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 RECEIVED Please print for file/record. Thanks! 2 JAN 3 0 2012 Rosalinda Ibarra CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING nIV• Planning Technician ribarra @ci.vakima.wa.us (509) 575 -6183 From: Sharon French jmailtoahafrenchiCalgmail.coml Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:02 AM To: Planning PostCard Subject: Re: Ref. number: PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 I am requesting that if Mr. Turner wants to build homes on Chestnut Avenue west of 72nd Ave., he conform to the existing neighborhood. Extending the street west will create traffic congestion at 72nd and Chestnut since the housing development in West Valley Country Club will use Chestnut for all traffic going north in addition to all the existing homes in between West Crest and the Country Club development. All current traffic west of the West Crest development must now go south to Tieton Drive. A 40% increase in density is unacceptable. Sharon French 7308 W. Yakima Ave. Telephone: 965 -2752 DOCo 1 !INDEX 1 # Calhoun, Joseph From: Ibarra, Rosalinda on behalf of Planning PostCard Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:30 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: FW • PSP#012 -11, CL @#034 - 11 RECEIVED Please print for the file/record. Thanks! JAN 3 0 2012 Rosalinda Ibarra Planning Technician CITY OF YAKIMA nbarra @ci.vakima.wa.us PLANNING OIV• (509) 575-6183 From: janocds(aaol.com jmailto:janocdsPaol.coml Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 2:33 PM To: Planning PostCard Subject: PSP #012 -11, CL@ #034 -11 City of Yakima Planning a(.ci.Yakima.wa.us I am totally opposed to the building in the West Crest addition. The increased lot density with no parking will ruin our addition. Cars parked on the street when it is a narrow street to begin with, 32 driveways feeding into West Chestnut would be impossible. I could only hope that the homes Mr Dale Turner wants to build would be consistant with the units already in the West Crest area. Reference #PSP#012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Janice M. Weber 2 No 74th Ave Yakima, Wa 98908 ®o 1 INDEX Calhoun, Joseph From: Ibarra, Rosalinda on behalf of Planning PostCard Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:01 PM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: FW: PSP#012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 Please print for the file/record. Thanks! RECEIVED Rosalinda Ibarra JAN 3 0 2012 Planning 'Technician ribaa @ai.yakima.wa.us CCTV �F YAKIMA n (509) 575 -6183 PLANNING DIV. From: Connie Panique fmailto:conniejmsmCalvahoo.coml Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:28 AM To: Planning PostCard Subject: PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034-11 To whom it may concern; My husband Tim and I live at 7203 W Chestnut in Yakima, and I am writing to you again in oppisition of Mr. Dale Turner wanting to build in our neighborhood. As Tim and I live at the beginning of WestCrest I can tell you there is no parking to speak of. If you allow Mr Turner to add all of the units to be built, where on earth are people going to park, our neighbhood is very safe and very quite, and adding these numerus rentals will degrade our neigborhood, I oppose him building any especially 2 story tri- plexes across the street from us, if he has to build there, he should stay in the paramiter of our existing homes. Though I would like to stop any of it if possible. Connie Panique & Tim Adams 7203 W Chestnut Yakima, WA 98908 PSP #012 -11 CL2 #034 -11 D!S' 1 Calhoun, Joseph From: Ibarra, Rosalinda on behalf of Planning PostCard Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:31 AM To: Calhoun, Joseph Subject: FW: Public input to PSP#012 -11 Attachments: planning input yakima 12.doc; ATT138020.htm RECEIVED Please print for file /record. Thanks! JAN 3 0 2012 Rosalinda Ibar I OF YAKIMA ra Planning Technician PLANNING DIV. ribarra @ci.yakima.wa.us (509) 575 -6183 From: Mike Jmailto:hilerkCalclearwire.netl Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 5:16 PM To: Planning PostCard Subject: Re: Public input to PSP #012 -11 From: Mike Hiler, 3 N 76 Ave, Yakima 98908 (509- 965- 2747), January 29, 2012 To: Yakima City Planning Department (Planning @ci.yakima.wa.us) Regarding: PSP #012 -11, land use application: I have reviewed the application notice and wish to make the following comments about this proposal. 1. I support the land owners' proposal to build bi /tri plexes similar to those structures already in place directly north of West Chestnut Ave. 2. The corner of Chestnut and 74 Ave (north and south, east and west) should be addressed in this plan. Because there is presently no east/west access on Chestnut Ave at 74` Avenues (north and south) this comer has become an unsightly bottleneck which has the appearance of abandonment. As no one seems to own or care for this comer it attracts graffiti, weeds, litter, and loitering, and encourages motorized access, illegal motorized racing and resulting noise and dust issues onto the Yakima Canal maintenance road. The neighborhood has inherited this problem due to poor planning, execution, and coordination between the two subdivisions. The new homes proposed for construction will only complicate this problem. This issue should be addressed at this time before property values erode further, as follows. a. Chestnut Ave., which is now closed, should pass east to west at this point and a 74 Ave "S -Turn" should extend north and south. b. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks and signing should be brought up to standard for this corner and in front of the proposed development. c. The ditch bank, (weedlot comer) and road shoulder should be landscaped between the two developments. The irrigation sump and corner should be integrated into a design which does not encourage graffiti, vagrancy, trespass, and illegal motorized use on the canal and further erode property values. INDEX 1 # -2 t 1 Thank you for notifying me of thi proposal. Please confirm receipt of this input letter. Mike Hiler (mh) RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2012 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV- . DOC. I D ri ' 2 l " t - RECEIVED To: City of Yakima, Planning Department JAN 3 0 2012 From: Owners and Residents of West Crest CITY OF YAKIMA Date: January 26, 2012 PLANNING DIV. Re: Land Use Review PSP#012 -11, CL2#034 -11 We submitted comments in October, 2011, opposing the proposed development south of West Chestnut Avenue between 72 and 74 Avenues. While we understand that Mr. Turner has made changes in his proposal, these changes do not, unfortunately, remove the significant negative impact visited upon the immediate area. This parcel is unusual because it borders, and exclusively shares elevation, with an established and contained two -block development, West Crest. For all practical purposes, this parcel is part of the West Crest neighborhood and no other. According to the Notice of Application submitted by Mr. Turner, Class 2 Use is subject to administrative review for compatibility as well as compliance of developmental standards. While Mr. Turner's new proposal may be consistent with current zoning of neighborhood properties, even his Class One development is problematic because it is not compatible with what already exists within West Crest and the surrounding area. The proposal states that the surrounding area is "a mixture of housing types and densities, including single family residences, duplexes, common -wall dwellings and manufactured homes." The proposal, however, does not clearly state that within this area there are: • No two -story homes, duplexes, or common -wall dwelling units, although a single, non- residential, two -story building is located across 72 Avenue. • No triplexes. • No lot density exceeding 8.6 dwelling units per net residential acre. • No lot coverage exceeding 5096. • No population density exceeding 16 people per net residential acre. • Areas for guest/overflow parking on streets or on private property connected to the residences. Mr. Turner appears to be determined to insert high- density housing into a well- established area that has none. Developing within the parameters of the existing residential areas will maintain the mixture of housing types and densities already approved by city planners. In contrast, increasing building height, lot coverage, and lot density (by nearly 4096!) is inconsistent with the codes, regulations, and practices that guided the area's development 15+ years ago. Applying current codes ensures that Mr. Turner's development will stand out in stark contrast to all the residential property in the vicinity. Mr. Turner's proposal especially impacts the West Crest development, as it exclusively shares the same two block cul -de -sac. The homes here, our collective investment worth over $5 million, represent the highest density in the area, and share these characteristics: • All are single -story structures. • All share only a single common wall. • All are partial brick front. • Density is 8.6 dwelling units per net residential acre. This provides for limited on- street parking, space between units far exceeding 10 feet, and yards that accommodate landscaping to enhance street appeal and use. • All units have no more than 50% lot coverage, again providing for space and lawns. DCC. INDEX # -I • All are bound by covenants that restrict on- street parking and bar business operations that would increase traffic in the area. • Eighty percent of the units are 2- bedroom, effectively limiting the number of residents (averaging less than 2 /unit) and the amount of traffic in the neighborhood. There are curreiliECEIVED fewer than 60 residents in West Crest. • All are generating tax revenues. JAN 3 o 2012 Parking from Mr. Turner's development will overflow into West Crest. With no guest, overflow, o OF VApm. street parking available for the new units designed to house approximately 64 residents, all third °P /31 fourth cars owned by its residents, as well as the cars of their guests, will be parked within West Crest, a neighborhood already limited in on- street parking by the nature of being a duplex development. Its lots are small, the roads are curved, and driveways and mailboxes restrict the amount of street parking available for use by residents. Guests visiting the new development will consistently park within West Crest because any other option requires crossing 72" Avenue, walking south on 72 Avenue to Orchards Shopping Center, or walking north on 72 " Avenue to park in the church parking lot. People won't do that. Boats, motorhomes, and recreational vehicles could conceivably be parked, long -term, in front of the homes of West Crest residents banned from such use by covenants. Our covenants would not apply to the new development. Mr. Turner should be required to provide adequate overflow parking for the residences he is building, regardless of how many units are ultimately approved by City Planners. In addition, it appears that the parcel Mr. Turner wants to develop is not as large as he alleges in his application. As submitted, Mr. Turner has altered the periphery measurements from those submitted in his earlier request for variance. It also appears that the widening of Chestnut Avenue is being required by the City Engineer. The actual size of the parcel available for development needs to be clarified. Finally, Mr. Turner's application suggests that Chestnut Avenue was not previously extended because "it was determined at that time that too much traffic would be using a half - street, and thus, the connection was not made." The connection is now required and this proposal necessitates 32 driveways feeding onto West Chestnut Avenue. The anticipated increase in traffic will be realized, and will be interrupted by the use of the number of driveways proposed in this development. Obviously, there will be no parking available fronting this property. Is Chestnut Avenue being widened to full- street size to accommodate the increased traffic anticipated when West Crest was built? If so, does this further reduce the size of the parcel in question? If not, why was there "too much traffic" anticipated 15 years ago that is not anticipated now? If approved, Mr. Turner's proposal will cost us money. West Crest is an uncommon neighborhood. Quiet, attractive, open, and isolated from surrounding areas (other than the parcel in question), people deliberately choose to live or invest here because it is more appealing than other duplex developments in Yakima while still offering affordable housing. Because it is especially attractive, it is well maintained by the people who have chosen to own and /or live here. Cramming 16 two -story units onto this small, adjacent parcel ensures greatly reduced aesthetic appeal, double the population in this two block area, substantially increased noise and traffic, and crippling parking problems within the existing neighborhood. Our resale value will drop, and landlords will be unable to collect the rents they currently receive because the neighborhood's appeal will be degraded. We believe city planners have an obligation to residents to reject projects which undermine property values and rents by allowing a new development to degrade the established neighborhood it is DOCo N®EX completing. As the proposed development is situated within an otherwise fully - developed, mixed residential area, it should be consistent with the housing that already exists: in this case, maximum lot coverage: 50%; maximum lot density: 8.6 units per acre; maximum population density: less than 17 per acre; maximum residential building height: single story. Current allowable densities and coverage were not applied in the development of the area more than fifteen years ago, and cannot be injected now without being incompatible with the homes already established in the vicinity. Developing this parcel so that it is compatible with West Crest would permit Mr. Turner to build 5 single - story duplexes, provide overflow parking and yards, and be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Five duplexes will increase tax revenues. Five duplexes will provide work for local contractors and provide affordable housing for multiple families. Five duplexes will support area businesses and generate revenue for Mr. Turner. It makes no sense to insert new building standards into an area that was established so many years ago. If City Planners are unable to restrict new development beyond its consistency with current zoning and regulation, we request that a hearing be scheduled so that compatibility issues can be addressed by the public. This proposal, which falls well outside existing housing types and den tie_ unding area, negatively impacts the residents affected by it. :e�:�ilf ® We thank you for your consideration on these matters. JAN 3 0 2012 Printed Name Signature Address CRY OF YAKIMA Date PLANNINO O1V (; , A)ij /!- :. 7 u9 ` (7,r ; �..� Wing . 9 Y1, 7 t ,u‹, j� 0,2 l C t) , ri - �kg , , 4 4_rn_ S /,-n - ! W 1 t 6 - d g 4 ih 1 - ‘1 . - - -i.. — Fr,.tn C i 3 t1 e.rredl5 - _, ' l ,nl. 7, J /lye 1-a4- dot ,Ja\ti `� .�1tA�t� •C- 61ctvjla L D N ` uf z1. - i I-0 P. - j ialaw 70 -yvvki,N 4 " 73 0 5 1,-/. / A' ' d O 1 ' ...A.... " I - 7310 U3N Ci (AttLa II .. AL IA , Iii ,,,,, i -.AAA. .% 4' A., -... 3t u.)..CiLirvIA • q. _• . __._ . z ., C ' ` \ , ti , ` c Q L . . . . . . . . L . ° _ • l a t k ■ ; ‘ . L v \ � ` \ ' ('7 \ . \ c , & v. (- ::-"; -/< , At..G, 111-115- , . 1(1 rrs ) . 4, u / - v4 -/' ■ ( i? crt-C a c Cl e," uk r (-_-...- tf C 15' (11A c 1 ( I f INDEX } Printed Name Signatu { Address Date OCAL 40y.11 '"; kir cc i1 0 ;cd 'l, "5/44 ,/ � k - ) f 7 -1 U 7if 4 / l - y 47/ ;l ce 1A-t1" Iz Mr beIt I • 1) ,t 1 313 4. akimq Av � e SCo\ %6,4..10,1) A4, , IA 1 1313 k i . Ya n►m,A/A) -z' z ShITAMe.. 0-1.1a •it 4I -7 'l e% / ._S / ;4 ?Fu r ti ;c?.5/ eifesipal / -, % Rsq c-reS r.� � o wr,f i -751 -I Z.. &QeJ /4- reg. /it -0 vy �'� /7c)/ id ZdG Q / -o Y --- I Z • j r Svt' A5 N ctfneh e ; , ,, i 6 h z ? & 7,302, (A) .j: / - - ��� 5ThivE ,� (Q.5 ;7", w `Ak nAa- / - a -1 z 1 / 10 / 14 e ,h - vtie - A/. */"I To al La ►h e fr � �,. � 7 .2 Q to kt iv a- I -30 `Z' fife® JAN 3 0 2.012 CITY PLA DI ®OCo INDEX CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP#002-12 APP#001-12, REF#001-12 PSP#012-11, CL2#034-11 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER H Supplemental Information Do0C 4.444= = INIDE4x # 1 qt H-1 Hearing Examiner's Recommendation re: Richard Hochrein's 01/12/1994 Preliminary Plat of Westcrest #420 dated January 12, 1994 H-2 Recorded Plat of Westcrest DD-92 05/10/1995 e C I/4 CORNER NO 20. //yy / / � j ��' ) �/� J T #441331a TIP 13 10. RAC. 18 EWA y HrE C ES p Memo (LOFT. IY�ZO O) THE PLAT OF - } T w ,+ LYING WITHIN TIE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20. TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH. RANGE 18 EAST, WA. 4 15 AFFECTS - -41•9410-' I pq imo0 -eD n Il I e s � .. „,. .., ® . A OM sr. ' 31.5.2' n.M • anal Saw I saw - mw 11. . I - -tea a *i9 8 $ n .� 1 II 1 ■ - -CURVE DATA - 15 y . � v, 14 'D6 113 "80 12 E 11 y 4 10 9 A u g • ' U �A7(4« ion or •.% 13 UMr Loot« a ... a Lee b l 0 • 1 = a p ,. taiia�t iT� "' ` • ' : � � N. $� 8 "' " t�RETal.T•Y' IMIII 7E;1)•EIE7'3� 'A• 4 0 t �I Q R I - mi BrigS➢iriiBlt3Eldi1•Bi'TE/ii •.'4 i� • - _.._ x . - - i - 7 • �T♦ MTIEIY'T'SiEIIETIM 1I7F13i - ^' ` � lima« 8 �i0 nA•: 51 NEM= IEZIFFIEl -- '•11RE t14101K14101411111 • ... .` • .> �� - i. n 1 II • T- r r cal t��/T'Y'3ikni frn47i. M_?Ei�Ti \4 • _ . o4'r UA P_ q L I U B =ii• BIFTg:TI'1 1i m - L • :� i .U.KIE'TiiF1117i B=FIETi� / W EST YAKIMA AVENUE e Y NEM= 8 1. I. < �i=iE1EIY13aiFR1.7�tT1EP� 16 1 'N -- ` ot.R a1 ` '� .1 � *g ,, .f A . • i 1 le t3I' aw P1 „ .„•••• - - ' -- M81= EIYILLIGNElFa•I'�ETEIi� - ,. ., 1 � 151k a,, ` .1 6 W ' c •SF�BIIJAra,EC•t')SiFRFIRIE _ _C:FIi I 6 1 I T n i $ z t3E!•i,1'YIICIGUITE'1 a1� I / 24 $ 23 22 L • t t am ' • i l 1 g d' n t31ME EIILL41 ,1MM6. 1 11F!li 1(w 1441 r 1 Lan « .S ON r S 8 .Lot • A 4 I,RI' <iE1•rSY•1gTZilTa'I'i�BlFT7[L7� z a Y _ y_ g I w a • I ... • T, 17 • I . ., -1 I t E_ _ _ B DITT - Mat r I " • • I ma • e °a s • ,0..a t Ram r .- 1 i • • • • ,' V I • E • I • ox • Ia7.70' 1 • I ., I Ao S Str B= MTIITLE1�B[L'EI•iE== p R eaTO 1 - • 31 19 age • 21 < I 5 1=1 4 • : 3 I. t- *�t4111Y . I AI Le 20 * B anr 1 , AeNr 4: am • i{ uw .CT4)•r:YsYl�fE1BMIM.61411i r � y � ' " a. :' « - �SI { _ - AM 1 i ' 1 y l �z I ! ) S; . . ( i. i ...snow 7 , .. 3 Z ` 571,• • mow - •• A1o1' J d 5 "- -__1.L - -- - - IJ A 514.�.� f. 1 = a Yi,L Y A F as0'IZ - 30,11. ' ' 8 a W w orm RW HRH UWNOT OH7 i • 1 ' * WEST CHESTNUT 7• AVENUE 8 + _ _ I a sE OORNEli NE I/4 -, + 0 -'T (Tp�/► �~ 2.5 S • x817442 • • 5)7 • 7 . L S• 4w w . c L a ,I - � „., SW 1/44 SOO1ION 20 • i 4 DAL 1. ! ` ORO - i l5 18681 NON. SET. Y r " •-• j I 151885. 3 17 r+ I ' Y/.....4 .L7s - . INCH MBAR MM Y • r NOM a DAD. EMIT, (BUD FILE 8252575) 11 C 0 t. 0 N Y -" < W E S T 1 • DENOTES //2 CAP. (YARNED BE 18881). � .� j ' ' , , RELOCATED TO COMMA 08TH ENSTINO PIPLNF ( _ -� b ---- 58RVEY POWORAMD 1/111.1940 1017 17 EOM. f(/ •f! s 1� -' .D& J L KEW Immure. mamma cam. . AND N NOTE: ` • ♦ �.Y STANDARD ROD TRAVERSE PROCEDURES EAST WIT FOR 222222221.425 5 7FIEPHWC __ _ - p yyq¢. d ' l 1 (BUD f1LE 12270078) NOW CONPEETELY 5 1/4 CORNER SEC. 20, TYPICAL 545101( 71851(501. MAY GONNA to . (.(K.t •. rt y,. r l ,1(•,0.: [ LOT AREAS NOTED INCLUDE THOSE 40141101(5 I FNO0 4445EB MDON MKT OF WAY DEBHCAIED CONSTRUCTION OR LANDSCAPING ,. HNCUYBOtED 5) 1!E VAMOUS H:ASEYFNIS V T.P 53 N.. (03) 18 CNN. NO BU YORE DUN 170 FEET N MOWN . _ .. : •• I ■ , .' i - P • yj, ' LLCA. 114-4193) _ LOTS 5. 70. n e 2L LEGAL DESCRIPTION M APPROVALS 114E SOUR 1150► OF THE 50u7NEA5T QUARTER OF THE NOENEAST PALMED O' THE SOUTHWEST OUARIE , 1 HEREBY 44(RTSII 17401 ALL MMARGOT: E REGULAR A1•0 SPEOAI ASSESSMENTS COLLECTIBLE BY TNI5 0FF7CC 114AT ARE DUE SECTION I0. TORH5Hm 13 NORTH, RANEE 16 FAST. WA.. MEAT THE CAST 25 FEET FOR ROAD. AND 05•10 ON 15444 PROOPTR7Y HERON DUMBED CN 154E DATE OF 1505 CERTIMATON NAVE MT N 041E AND P 407ES TUNA COUNTT 1REAAW� *R ( /a'//IL DA /fg THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 220 FEET OF THE SOUTH IIALF OF TIE 501111111£51 WARIER OF 154E NORIMA5T QUARTER ACCESS TO LOT 3 MIST BE 500550 THE WEST UNE OF THAT • DIE 50UMW(5T QUARTER OF 5500 swim 20 14710 500170 AND CAST OF 154E YAKIMA VALLEY CANAL RIGHT OF WAY. i , ��/,�) / OAR � 10T. OR AS OTNEAIBSC APPROVED BY THE COMITY ENONCEL APPROVED 8Y 111E YNOYA COUNTY ERECTOR • IIMUC WORKS DEDICATION AND WAVER OF CLAIMS T. a � . _� )(q - �� ACCESS TO LOTS 5 AND 15 MUST BE FROM TIE LOOP DAR Y7"' 51REE0 AND NAVE NO DIRECT MNICI AR ACCESS TO ARCM AL YEN BY 11165E PRESENTS. GEORGE BEETCHENOW, R104ARD C. 000(4135 AND RITA K. NOCKNON. AS MOTS OF APPROVED BY 111E 'MAYA COMITY DIRECTOR OF FLAMING R► - E_ - l WEST CHESTNUT AVOW. TIC LAND HERON DESCRIBED. KAM MM TOUR FREE C0430NT AND A ACCORDANCE MTN TIER DESIRES CAUSED 714E SANE 10 BE SURVEYED AND PLATTED AS 5404714 HEREON. 00 HEREBY DEBKAR THOSE ROADS PRO /OR M0175 • WAY SHOW AS APPROVED BY THE 755055 COMITY 1(15071( DISTRICT OA7E 10 N 15 3 THROWN 24 SHALL 8E APPROVED FOR DU4E OR /SMUG ODICATONS HEREON TO THE UM OF DE PUBLIC. AND DO MEREST WAIVE ON WOLF OF THEMSELVES AND TIER COCOON WALL CONSTRUCTION BASCO UPON 154E APPUCABUE SUCCESSORS O INTEREST. ALL CLANS FOR DAMAGES AOARISY YAIOYA COUNTY AND ANY OTRN ODVCRNYENTK AUTHORITY qt 107 013E woos WY Wo 8E OCCAR0NE 10 ENE ADJACENT LAN0 BY TIE ESTARUSAED CONS1RUC11LH. wham AND YAINTENARCE OF APPROVED BY 170E 80500 a< MAMA COUNTY CORIO5010HER5 • DAR 5 / 5A0 MICA= ROADS MMD/OR RIOOS OF WAY. AND DO HEREBY GRANT AND RESERVE TIE (*51511(75 51515 AS SHOWN HMG. AN MODNIS1RA11VE ADAISTYDN5 WAS GRANTED BY DC BOARD FOR THE USES 09CARD. , OP COUNTY wYw510NE15 TO POND 13 Fo01 REAR YA D / J� [ SURVEYOR'S DECLARATION ° - °�.�" SETBACKS. 1'J # ...n-.A....sotr I �.� F(/1iA^�w;fe...d.�; �LS':pf� ct6R �j L AA BELL, 41401455 CNAL LAND StIRKYOF. 00 HEREIN 010.514E T AT THE PUT OF 'VF TCREST , IS B ROAD APPROACH POWHIS ARE MARCO FOR EACH LOT. 0E 8EE NOW DAZE " - ' OAR fA . NODAR AN ACTUAL SURVEY ARM NRDIN9W OF TNC ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND. THAT THE INSTANCES. ALL ROAD APPROA01E5 mum BE ROAM AND MPROKD ARE SHOW! DORM CORRECTLY AND THAT THE Y3tAUYEHT5 HAVE BEEN SET AM) LOT CORNERS STARED 81 DM COUNTY ENGINEER PNOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AS 511004 ON 11C PUT. I+ E. 81IODO0 P0050. //A OAR 4 11118 U IN 18 PT 18 LOCATED WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF STAR a< WASHINGTON 55 /` CERTIFICATE NO 70081 / /41}7 I -• i.. DAD.1(0. 30. 110 RUNOFF' 18 PERMITTED TO ENTER THE mum K YAKDIA 1 AM BELL E 0.53. OTHER THAN THAT WHICH OCCUR0 AT BEFORE 110. ON 115 RESPECTIVE OATE5 ABOVE MOTO.. PERSONALLY APPEARED GEORGE BEETCHENOW, R,CHARO C. HOCHREIN / \' 'T1U8 TIME AND RITA K. 14001RE85 00 IM KNOWN To az THE 407501(5 005MR=CO 04. ARSE 040 =CUED DM! FORECMN0 4SIRUIIOIT. FILING CERTIFICATE IN WTN65 Y7ILREOF 4 MAK IEROIN70 SET YY NANO A MR= BY OFFIGAL SEAL THERE SMALL BE NO STRUCTURES PLACER WITHIN At• 440040M 14 T 0 E0GC0 TO 41 THEY 0400 THE SAE AS THOR 11 0 AND VOLUNTARY ACT ANO 0® THE E PURPOSES av,Aa. u.r.• H 9C. AND USES THEREIN YFNTONEB. Art THE EASEMENT or D.1D. N0. 30, OR ANY OTHER FILED FOR ROOM Ha.QDAY ' TT S�� T8oA.' AT_ A.. • 00wc] S PUTS AT PAGO212. (*5108ENT. _ NO YOLUIC - =cm RECORDS. P AGE RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY. WASHINGTON. �.P., - LARUE (} 8. BELL // W..: TH{ 11(sj NO ►a DC STAR�90NOTO RE9DNG S STEM •Mi MI '03 - P S 0 � 1 F YAKIMA COUNTY ADORN'. BY . DEPUTY i OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA PHILIP A. LAMB 311 NORTH THIRD STREET, P.O. BOX4 (509)248 -0706 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 FAX: (509) 248 -0707 January 12, 1994 Mr. Steven Erickson Assistant Planning Director Yakima County Planning Department Room 417, Courthouse Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Richard C. Hochrein COUNTY NO. Preliminary Plat #420 Westcrest Examiner No. 093 -4 -43 Dear Steve: My recommendation is enclosed. The hearing was held on December 16, 1993. Sincerely, N17 Philip A. Lamb Hearing Examiner PAL/pjl Enclosure cc Chris Wilson, City of Yakima Planning Department w /enc. Board of County Commissioners w /enc. INDEX Hr! ISSUED: JANUARY 12, 1994 Master Application by ) EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION RICHARD C. HOCHREIN ) County No. Preliminary Plat #420 Westcrest for Preliminary Plat No. 420, ) Westcrest, and Class 3 Review ) Examiner No. 093 -4 -43 Re Duplex and Common Wall ) Construction ) Richard C. Hochrein has applied for preliminary plat approval of a 27 lot subdivision. He has also applied for a Class 2 review to permit duplex and common wall construction. Two neighbors attended, expressing concern about the number of dwelling units and traffic. The Examiner inspected the property prior to the hearing. A public hearing was conducted on December 16, 1993. This decision constitutes a recommendation to the Yakima Board of County Commissioners, supported by written Findings and Conclusions, pursuant to YCC Ch.14.20. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION. This application should be approved, as revised herein to 25 lots with 36 dwelling units. The original proposal was for 27 lots with 38 dwelling units. From the view of the site, the matters contained in the official record including the Staff Report, a review of both the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and from evidence received at the hearing, the Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS 1. Applicant. Richard C. Hochrein 2. Location. The property lies near the northwest corner of West Chestnut Avenue and South 72nd Avenue, about one -half mile west of the Yakima City limits. Assessor's Parcel No. 181320- 31011. It constitutes 5.4 acres. 3. Application. This is a master application for DOC. HEARING EXAMINER • !INDEX FOR THE CfTY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248 -0706 subdivision and Class 2 review to permit duplex and common wall construction for a 27 lot subdivision resulting in 38 dwelling units. 4. Legal Description. The south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 20, Township 13 north, range 18 East W.M. except the east 25 feet thereof for road, and that portion of the east 220 feet of the south 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of said section 20 lying south and east of the right of way of the Yakima Valley Canal. 5. Jurisdiction. This application for preliminary approval of a subdivision comes before the Hearing Examiner pursuant to YCC 14.20.060, which requires review of a proposed subdivision by the Hearing Examiner, who then makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. 6. Land Use and Zoning. The site is zoned Single Family Residential (R -1) and is currently vacant. Property to the south is large in size and planted in orchard. Properties to the west and east are generally developed with single family dwellings. The 58 lot plat, Colony West, lies to the southwest. Property north is undeveloped. A previous hearing approved the vacant land immediately to the north for development as a church. The Congdon Canal runs along the western boundary line of the property. 7. Project Description. The preliminary plat reviewed at the hearing shows 27 lots. Access is from Chestnut Avenue. Chestnut is currently undeveloped, but would be built by the developer running west from 72nd. The proposal is to build it to a half street width, providing curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the north side. An interior loop drive would serve the remaining lots. Chestnut would be designed so that it could be connected in the future to 74th, which is part of the Colony West subdivision. It currently deadends at its north end, about even with Chestnut. Lots 1 and 2 would be created to deal with two existing houses located on 72nd Avenue. This entire site is currently one parcel. Each of the two houses would have 10,500 square feet lots. The EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 2 DOC. HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE ONDEX CITY ANO COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 15091 248.0706 remaining lots range in size from 4,712 feet to 10,010 feet. Most of the lots are either 5,000 or 8,000 square feet. The 8,000 square foot lots would have duplexes. The 5,000 square foot lots would have common wall residences. This means that each building is located on its own lot of 5,000 square feet, but is attached with a common wall to the adjacent building on the adjacent lot. As originally proposed, this project includes 2 houses, 11 duplexes, and 7 common wall structures. The 11 duplexes mean 22 dwelling units. Seven common wall structures mean 14 dwelling units. The total dwelling units would be 38. Of the 27 lots, two would have the existing single family houses, 11 would have duplexes, and 14 would have common wall housing. Thus 27 lots would generate 38 dwelling units. In response to a number of design issues raised by the Public Works and Planning Departments, Mr. Hochrein at the hearing indicated that he agrees to revise the preliminary plat. He was responding to concerns about location of driveways relative to 72nd, concerns about construction in the vicinity of DID No. 38, and concerns about lot size. As revised at the hearing, lots 3 and 4, which are the first duplex lots immediately off 72nd, serviced by Chestnut, will become one lot, with the west boundary of that lot being the DID. The DID will be the back (west) line for lots 1 and 2. Lots 3 and 4, east of the DID, will be combined into one lot of approximately 11,000 square feet. This results in loss of one duplex (2 dwelling units) . Lots 20 and 21 will also be combined, for a new duplex lot. This is in response to concerns about the location of the driveways relative to the intersection of Chestnut Avenue of the loop road, as well as concerns about lot size. This results in loss of 1 common wall structure, 2 dwelling units. Mr. Hochrein also indicated that lots 1 and 2, currently served by septic systems, will be connected to public sewer. Combining lots 3 and 4 into one allows placement of the driveway approach on Chestnut further from 72nd, which is EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 3 DOC. HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE INDEX CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA Li 1 POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 15091248.0706 responsive to Public Works' concern about the traffic flow at the intersection. It also creates additional area within which to build improved 72nd Avenue. They need additional right of way, including room to handle the slope and the drainage ditch. The effect of these revisions needs to be shown on a revised preliminary plat. All of the lots will be jiggered around some. The net effect should be a 25 lot subdivision, consisting of two single family houses, 11 duplexes (22 dwelling units) (one lost with merger of lots 3 and 4, one gained with merger of lots 20 and 21), and 12 common wall dwelling units (6 structures). There were 14 common wall dwelling units, but merger of lots 20 and 21 eliminates two common wall units. The total number of dwelling units is reduced from 38 to 36, on 25 lots. 8. Proposed Subdivision Specifications. 8.1 Total Area. 5.4 acres. 8.2 Number of Lots /Lot Density. 25 lots, with 36 dwelling units. Of the 5.4 acres, the area devoted for lots equals 183,360 square feet. This equals 4.2 net residential acres. The dwelling units per net residential acre are thus 8.6. (36 dwelling units divided by 4.2 net residential acres). These numbers are based on the site plan as revised at the hearing. 8.3 Lot Size. Two single family residential lots will each be approximately 10,500 square feet. The duplex lots will be just over 8,000 square feet. The common wall lots will be just over 5,000 square feet. Two larger 10,000 square foot duplex lots are reflected in the original preliminary plat, but their size may change on the revised preliminary plat. 8.4 Water Supply. Nob Hill Water. 8.5 Sanitary Sewage Disposal. City of Yakima. 8.6 Storm Water Drainage. Retained on site, with provisions for not restricting flow from adjacent property. 8.7 Type of Housing. Single family and duplex, site built. 8.8 Curb, Gutter and Streetlights. Provided on the EXAMINER' S RECOMMENDATION - 4 DOC. HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE ll ®EX CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA p� , 1 POST OFFICE 80X 4 f 1 1 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248 -0706 north side of Chestnut Avenue and on one side of the interior loop road. 8.9 Utility Easements. Reflected on the plat. Drainage Irrigation District 38 runs north and south through this property, near its east end. The actual location of the DID is different than the recorded location of the easement. This will need to be corrected, with a new easement consistent with the physical location. Since the DID cannot normally be built over, Mr. Hochrein is revising the preliminary plat to place it on the lot line. 8.10 Parks and Playgrounds. No provisions. 8.11 Provisions for Schools. No provisions. 8.12 Streets. Fifty feet of dedicated right of way for the interior loop road. Thirty feet of dedicated right of way provided for Chestnut Avenue, with construction to an enhanced half -width standard. The Public Work Department believes that West Chestnut Avenue should not be connected with South 74th, because the new West Chestnut will only be built to a half - street width. This half street may not be able to handle additional traffic which could be generated by the Colony West and West Valley Country Club developments. Public Works requests that the applicant construct West Chestnut Avenue around the radius of original lot 21, then barricade it at that location and escrow funds for the future improvement of the undeveloped portion of West Chestnut Avenue which lies on this property. This is generally acceptable to the applicant. Public Works also requests that the normal half- street width of 20 feet of paved roadway section be increased to 24 feet. This allows two standard 12 foot wide travel lanes. Normally this street would be built on the property line. According to the applicant, the south property owner is not interested in participating at this point. Mr. Hochrein does not want to build the full street on his side of the line. It is appropriate to require that the street be built to a 24 foot width, together with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the north side. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 5 E; HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE 11 D CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 # i** , YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 -•••� 1 1 y (509/248-0706 Public Works requests an additional 10 feet of right of way along 72nd, so that they have 40 feet of right of way west of the center line. Forty feet is necessary in order to improve 72nd to a four lane urban arterial standard. The initial preliminary plat shows an existing 25 feet of right of way west of the center line, with an additional 10 feet to be deeded by the developer. There was some confusion at the hearing as to whether the county has 25 feet or 30 feet. It is reasonable, based upon this existing record, and the willingness of the applicant to grant an additional 10 feet, to require that 10 feet be deeded, regardless of whether that results in 35 or 40 feet of right of way from the center line. The Chestnut Avenue right of way of 30 feet is probably sufficient, unless detailed plans indicate that additional width is necessary to provide an appropriate slope along the edge of the street, in which case additional right of way should be granted. 9. Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. The site design standards for the ordinance are met by this proposal. This includes building setbacks, maximum building height, minimum lot size, lot width, maximum lot coverage, and parking. The minimum lot size for duplexes is 8,000 square feet, meaning two dwelling units are located on one 8,000 square foot lot. The minimum lot size for common wall construction is 5,000 square feet, meaning that two dwelling units are located on a total of 10,000 square feet. Class 2 review is required for the duplexes and common wall units, since they have the potential for substantially increasing the dwelling unit density in the R -1 zone, and present a number of compatibility issues. There are a number of technical issues in this proposal which have been dealt with fairly effectively by Mr. Hochrein's proposed revision of the preliminary plat. The major controversy involves the number of dwelling units which should be allowed. Since the density provisions of the ordinance generate more confusion than clarity, the next section reviews the applicable provisions and attempts to reconcile them to provide a framework not only for this decision but also future application of the ordinance. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 6 ®a HEARING EXAMINER OKIDL' FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA �...� POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248.0706 10. Dwelling Unit Density. Duplexes and common wall construction are Class 2 uses in the R -1 zone (YMC Chapter 15A.04, Table 4 -1). Class 2 uses are generally permitted, but the compatibility between a Class 2 use and the surrounding area cannot be predetermined and may be incompatible at a particular location. Class 2 uses therefore receive Class 2 review in order to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the zone, and the objectives and development criteria of the comprehensive plan. YCC 15A.04.020(2). The primary issue here is whether the high number of dwelling units per acre is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Table 4 -1 establishes dwelling density limitations for multi- family dwellings and planned residential developments, but does not do so for duplexes or common wall construction. Multi - family dwellings are those structures with three or more families. Zero to seven dwelling units per net acre are a Class 2 use, 8 to 12 units per acre are a Class 3 use, and higher densities are not allowed in R -1. Planned residential developments are similar to multi- family dwellings, but typically involve a variety or structures on one parcel of ground. For some reason zero to seven units per acre are a Class 2 use, with no higher densities allowed in R -1. The definition of R -1 includes a statement that dwelling density in the zone is ... generally seven dwelling units per net residential acre or less. However, development exceeding seven dwelling units per net residential acre may be allowed as a Class (3) use in accordance with Table 4 -1. This higher density development shall be allowed only on those.limited occasions when, after Class (3) review, the Hearing Examiner 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. ... ". YCC 15A.03.030(2). The reference here to Table 4 -1 is not helpful, since the table makes no provisions for Class 3 review of higher densities for either duplexes or common wall structures. Table 4 -1 does refer to the definitions of duplex and common wall construction. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 7 DOM HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE INDEX CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA '' POST OFFICE BOX 4 _ YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248 -0706 Duplex is defined as a two family dwelling on one lot, and has no reference to density. Common wall construction is defined as a single family attached dwelling, with each dwelling unit located entirely on its own lot. Again, no reference is made to density. YCC 15A.02.020 (pp. 14 and 13). Another chapter deals with preliminary plats, establishing minimum lot size and other development standards. YCC Chapter 15A.05, Site Design and Improvement Standards, has a section which deals specifically with creation of new lots and subdivisions, and the maximum number of dwelling units permitted per net residential acre. (YCC 15A.05.030). It states, among other things, that once approved under this chapter, no subdivision may be further modified to raise the density beyond the maximum number of dwelling units permitted by Table 5 -2. It also states that development exceeding the maximum number of dwelling units may be allowed in R -1 as a Class 3 use in accordance with Table 4 -1. As we have already discovered, Table 4 -1 does not deal with higher densities of duplexes as a Class 3 use. Table 4 -1 does not deal with any densities for duplexes or common wall construction. But it does allow both types of dwelling as a Class 2 use. Minimum lot sizes are established by Table 5 -2, Subdivision Requirements. In the R -1 zone, duplexes must be on a lot with at least 8,000 square feet. Common wall structures must have at least 5,000 square feet per unit. This assumes availability of public water and sewer, which is the case in this instance. Moving back to YCC 15A.05.030, dealing with site design, subsection (C) also deals with minimum lot size and states in part: "The smaller lot size for zero lot line, attached [duplex] and multi - family dwellings does not permit an increase in the maximum number of dwelling units per net residential acre established in subsection (B) of this section. Any lots created for zero lot line, attached and multi - family dwelling shall be so designated on the face of the plat or short plat." The reference to subsection (B) is circular, since subsection (B) does not provide any limits on dwelling unit density for either type of structure. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 8 HEARING EXAMINER u FOR THE INDEX CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 ( t509) 249 -0706 Table 5 -2 seems to be the one place in the ordinance which provides the most guidance. It establishes minimum lot sizes for both duplexes and common wall construction, but it establishes a density limit for multi - family dwellings and planned residential development. The thinking seems to be that when dealing with individual lots, rely on the lot size to establish density, after subtracting the area utilized for streets and sidewalks. With respect to multi - family dwellings and planned residential developments, however, these are often apartment buildings on one parcel, so the lot size approach does not work. Then you calculate density as set forth in subsection (B) of YCC 15A.05.030, and go to Table 4 -1 for the applicable level of review and standard of compatibility. From an administrative standpoint, relying on lot sizes when individual lots are involved is far simpler. Dwelling density per acre is still a factor, and may be a significant issue in determining compatibility, but if the ordinance intended higher densities of duplexes or common wall construction to be subject to Class 3 review, there should be a category for that on Table 4 -1. There is not. Using minimum lot sizes in effect provides an absolute maximum. It is difficult to know what the upper limit may be, because street configurations, and thus the amount of land available for lots, will vary. This particular application is illustrative. Starting out with a 5.4 acre parcel, 1.2 acres are used up for streets. The remaining 4.2 acres is available for housing, and given the current configuration works out to 8.6 dwelling units per net residential acre. Table 4 -1 says duplexes in common wall units are subject to Class 2 review, with no reference to a density limitation. Utilizing minimum lot size to establish the upper limit on the number of units is easy to administer, easy to explain to land owners, neighbors, and developers, and is subject to the control of Class 2 review. In Class 2 review, the neighbors are always alerted, have an opportunity for input, and an opportunity for a public hearing if desired. The standard of review by the decisionmaker is that these projects are generally compatible, but EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 9 DOCI HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE IN®[1.A CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKI MA. WASHINGTON 98907 "' �® (S09)248-0706 on occasion may not be. The affected neighborhoods will always have an opportunity for input, while the developer will not have to guess as to whether unclear dwelling unit density limitations may apply. 12. Dwelling Unit Density and Compatibility. This density of about 8.6 units per net acre is slightly higher than the normal range of up to 7 units identified in the definition of the R -1 zone. The density of this proposal is substantially higher than that of the surrounding property. The single family housing to the west and south may have a density of no more than 4 units per net acre, although that has not been calculated. Properties to the north and south of this project are vacant. Accordingly, this project is substantially more dense, but not necessarily incompatible. All of the traffic from this development will flow to 72nd, and will not pass through existing residential neighborhoods. Although kids will obviously wander, there are no developed pedestrian connections with the existing residential neighborhoods, and the canal serves as a physical barrier prohibiting pedestrian contact with houses west of the canal. Conversely, the canal bank also serves as a pedestrian walkway, but this should not adversely affect nearby property owners. The major impact will be visual, at least as to those houses to the west which are higher than this property. The zoning ordinance provides little if any guidance concerning visual compatibility. In any event, the visual compatibility of this project with the area is significantly higher than if a number of mobile homes were being installed. Due to the unique location of this project, the expected traffic patterns that will be generated, and its separation from existing housing, this project is deemed compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. It is also deemed consistent with the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, which promotes infill of property within the urban area when well served by utilities and streets. This project also promotes the provision, within the urban area, of a variety of housing. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 10 DOC. HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE INDEX CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE PDX 4 $ .r YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 �¢ (509/248-0706 13. Environmental Review. A Mitigated Determination of Non - significance was issued on November 16, 1993. It requires: "The proponent must enter into a written agreement with Yakima County to financially participate in the construction of South 72nd Avenue to an Urban Arterial Standard. The proportional share of the development costs for the roadway improvements will be determined by the County Engineer." Immediately prior to the hearing the Examiner received and reviewed a letter from the Public Works Department addressed to Richard Anderwald, dated December 15, 1993. It covers a large number of technical design issues, most of which are dealt with by the proposed redesign of the preliminary plat. The supplement to the letter indicates that the financial commitment for improvement of 72nd Avenue should be $8,200. The rationale as set forth in the supplement is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. 14. Notice. Public notice of the hearing was provided in accordance with the ordinance. From the foregoing Findings, the Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Examiner has jurisdiction. 2. The proposed subdivision conforms with the goals and policies of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Yakima County Subdivision Ordinance, Title 14, and will serve the public use and interest, subject to the conditions set forth in the Recommendation below. Based upon the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Examiner submits to the Yakima Board of County Commissioners the following: RECOMMENDATION Approval of the proposed subdivision, as well as Class 2 approval of the proposed Class 2 use for duplexes and common wall construction, subject to the following conditions: .1. Lots 3 through 26 shall be approved for duplexes or common wall construction based upon the applicable lot size. The J tcc EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 11 8 pp� Ct ® Ea0 HEARING EXAMINER L�d� FOR THE #_8,. ..±...._ CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (S09)248-0706 plat shall reflect the type of construction approved for each lot, pursuant to YCC 15A.05.030. 2. The applicant shall enter into a written agreement with Yakima County to financially participate in the construction of South 72nd Avenue to an Urban Arterial Standard, in an amount not to exceed $8,200. 3. All common wall lots within this subdivision must be at least 50 feet wide at the required front yard setback. If this cannot be attained through this lot configuration, this requirement is Administratively Adjusted so that a common wall unit can be constructed on the lot as long as the front of the common wall unit is located at the point where the lot width is at least 50 feet. 4. Lots 1 and 2 shall be connected to the public sewer system prior to final plat approval. 5. Any alteration or relocation of any portion of D.I.D. No. 38 will require plan preparation by a licensed professional engineer, and review and approval by the County Engineer. Relocated portions of the D.I.D. must maintain required minimum pipe slope grades, and new cleanout manholes must be installed at each change in pipe direction. Access must be provided to each cleanout. All costs associated with relocation work is the responsibility of the owner or developer. An inspector from the Public Works Department will inspect the actual construction to ensure that it meets the permit requirements. Inspection costs must be reimbursed to Yakima County by the Developer. 6. An easement of equal width on each side of the centerline of the D.I.D. shall be provided. The actual required easement width will be determined by the County Engineer based upon the depth of the D.I.D. and based upon access considerations. No buildings, pavement or structures may be constructed over the D.I.D. easement. 7. All lots shall be served with public sewer and water. 8. Fire hydrants are provided and installed by the developer at locations and to the specifications of the Yakima County Fire Marshal. 9. All public and private utilities shall be underground. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 12 DOC ° HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE INDEX CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA 110�{���j� POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 1509) 248.0706 10. Final lot dimensions and lot area shall substantially conform with the revised preliminary plat as reviewed above. 11. Storm water drainage facilities to accommodate runoff generated within the plat and runoff which enters and passes through the plat must comply with a drainage facilities plan prepared by the developer and approved by the County Engineer. Since drywalls are to be used, the developer must notify the Department of Ecology (DOE) and shall place a warning next to the collection grate that says: "Dump No Waste - Protect Your Groundwater." The stencil is available from DOE. ' 12. Streetlights must be installed by the developer according to the specifications of the County Engineer. 13. West Chestnut Avenue shall be designed in its entirety from South 72nd Avenue to South 74th Avenue and improved to minimum county half street standards for a local urban access roadway with curb and gutter from South 72nd Avenue to the western radius of Lot 21. The pavement width shall be 24 feet. That portion of West Chestnut Avenue not constructed to a local urban access standard beyond the radius of Lot 21, must be generally left in its natural state. The developer must make payable to Yakima County the funds to complete one -half of the undeveloped portion of West Chestnut Avenue located on the applicant's property to a local urban access standard. The dollar amount to complete the undeveloped portion of West Chestnut Avenue will be determined by the County Engineer and payable to Yakima County prior to final plat approval. A temporary end of road barricade must be installed by the developer at the terminus of West Chestnut Avenue near the radius of Lot 21. The loop road which extends northerly off West Chestnut Avenue and ties back into West Chestnut Avenue must be constructed to full local urban access roadway standards. The plans for the streets shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer and reviewed and approved by the County Engineer prior to construction. 14. A sidewalk that meets the specifications of the County Engineer shall be installed at least along one side of each roadway within this subdivision. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 13 DOC. HEARING EXAMINER [INDEX FOR THE GITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE 8OX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 15. The type of curb (whether rolled or barrier) and their locations will be determined by the County Engineer. 16. The following notes must be placed on the face of the plat: (a) Road approach permits are required for each lot. All road approaches must be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. (b) Access to Lot 3 of this subdivision must be along ' the west line of the lot or as otherwise approved by the County Engineer. 17. A pre - construction conference must be arranged by the developer prior to road or utility construction within the plat of road right -of -way, and an inspector from Public Works must inspect the actual construction. 18. A method of dust control during the construction phases shall be submitted to, and approved by the Yakima County Clean Air Authority. A written copy of their approval must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to construction of any work phase. The developer must designate a responsible party for contacts during working hours regarding alleged air quality violations. 19. Prior to recording the final plat or issuance of building permits, either: (a) all required plat improvements, i.e., sidewalks, streets, utilities, and drainage facilities must be installed, or: (b) an escrow account established or a bond provided in an amount and with conditions acceptable to the County Engineer to assure installation of all required improvements. If a bond or surety is established, building permits may be issued on a lot -by- lot basis by the County Engineer when determined that building construction will not interfere with utility and roadway construction. 20. At the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the right -of -way for the local urban access roadways may be reduced from 60 feet to 50 feet, provided the roadways can be accommodated within the 50 foot width. DOC. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 14 !INDEX HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE 14 -' CITY ANO COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (5091246.0706 21. An additional 10 feet of right -of -way must be dedicated along South 72nd Avenue. Thirty foot vision clearance triangles must also be dedicated to the public at all intersections or as otherwise determined by the County Engineer. 22. Placement of the curb and gutter, streetlights and the radius of West Chestnut Avenue, where it intersects with South 72nd Avenue, shall be determined by the County Engineer to mitigate possible future problems when it comes time to widen South 72nd Avenue. 23. All road names must be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. 24. The Yakima County Public Works Department will determine if any road signs are required for this development. If so, they will be installed by the Public Works Department prior to acceptance of the road and all costs associated with supplying and installing the signs must be reimbursed to Yakima County by the developer. 25. Utility easements shown on the preliminary plat shall be provided as specified. 26. Community mailboxes must be located within the subdivision. DATED this c2.- day of January 1994. a PHILIP . LA Hearing Examiner EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 15 �gCl ® � HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE �, CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA I POST OFFICE BOX 4 -SLo YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES, LLC / APPEALED BY MICHAEL & CONNIE STONE APP #002 -12 APP #001 -12, REF #001 -12 PSP #012 -11, CL2 #034 -11 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER I Documents Submitted at the Hearing 'V.. � i a* a x r, - a �i�" Oyu' " '� ° $k . , "a i, „ ;t� );t ”- ., -.k,. ,'rP.,'"f` �i.. I -1 Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Haines 03/08/2012 I -2 New Site Plan Submitted by the Applicant 03/08/2012 I -3 8 Photos Submitted by Applicant 03/08/2012 I -4 Copy of YMC Ch. 16.06 Submitted by Applicant 03/08/2012 I -5 Full Size Copy of the Withdrawn Chestnut Townhomes Plat 03/08/2012 Submitted by Applicant I -6 Notes Submitted by Connie Stone 03/08/2012 I -7 Powerpoint Slides Submitted by Mike and Connie Stone 03/08/2012 I -8 Copy of Subdivision Administrator's Decision (PSP #025 -08, 03/08/2012 PAL #002 -08) submitted by Bill O'Hare I -9 Notes Submitted by Bill O'Hare 03/08/2012 1 -10 Copy of Westcrest Recorded Covenants Submitted by 03/08/2012 Applicant Auditor's File No.: 3093363 Date recorded: May 10, 1995 Volume No. 1477 STATEMENT OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING THE PLAT OF WESTCREST KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT: Richard C. Hochrein, being the present owner of all the land included within that certain plat known as WESTCREST, as recorded in Volume DD of Plats, Page 92, records of Yakima County Washington does hereby establish with respect to the said Plat of WESTCREST, the protective covenants herein set forth, and declare that each and every lot in said subdivision is hereby rendered subject to the following protective and /or restrictive covenants and the same hereby imposed upon each and every lot in said addition. Said covenants shall run with the land, and shall continue in effect for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of recording. At the termination of said thirty (30) year period, these covenants shall be automatically extended for an additional period of ten (10) years. The present owner and all subsequent purchasers and owners of any of said lots shall take and hold the same subject thereto: unless in the meantime modified, amended or rescinded in writing by two - thirds (2/3) of the owners of said lots. Said covenants shall thereafter remain effective unless a majority of the then owners of said lots herein shall consent in writing to setting aside, amending or modifying said covenants and restrictions; and every purchaser and grantee of any said lots by acceptance of a deed thereto or other document evidencing an interest therein accepts and agrees to the covenants as herein stated, to wit: 1) No building shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot until the construction plans and specifications and a plan showing the location of the structure have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee as to quality or workmanship and materials, harmony of external design with existing structures, and as to location with respect to topography and finish grade elevation. The Committee's approval or disapproval hereunder shall be in writing. In the event the committee, or its designated representative, fails to approve or disapprove the plans and specifications, and notify the applicant accordingly, within thirty (30) days after said plans and specifications have been submitted to it, (or in any event, if no suit to enjoin the construction has been commenced prior to the completion thereof) the same shall be considered as having been approved, and this section shall be considered as complied with. The Architectural Control Committee shall be further notified fifteen (15) days prior to the start of actual construction. Any building erected, altered or placed on any lot covered herein shall be in strict conformity with the uniform building code and the building code of the governing body having jurisdiction at the time of construction. - 1 - DOC. 9NDV: # -,o Auditor's File No.: 3093363 Date recorded: May 10, 1995 Volume No.: 1477 2) The Architectural Control Committee is composed of the following persons: Richard C. Hochrein Rita K. Hochrein Melissa A. Hochrein A majority of the committee may designate a representative to act for it. In the event of death or resignation of any member of the committee, the remaining members shall have full authority to designate a successor. Neither the members of the committee, nor its designated representative shall be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this covenant. The decision of a majority of the committee shall control, the committee shall remain as originally composed until all lots in the subdivision have been sold. If a member of the committee shall resign or die, the remaining committee shall have the power to appoint a successor. If a majority of the committee is unable to agree on any metter, said matter shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the then existing Washington Arbitration Statutes. The decision of the arbitrator(s) shall be binding. 3) No fences shall be erected which extend closer to the street than the front line of the house. No roofing shall be applied to any residence or structure, except when specifically approved by the Architectural Control Committee. All roofing materials, siding and brick, shall be approved by the Architectural Control Committee. 4) Easements for installation and maintenance of utilities and irrigation facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded plat. Within these easements, no structure, planting or other material shall be paced or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of utilities in the easement. The easement area of each lot and all improvements in it shall be maintained continuously by the owner of the lot, except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible. 5) No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on or upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. No outdoor T.V. dish, etc. shall be allowed. 6) No temporary structure shall be erected, placed or maintained on any lot excepting contractor's tool house, and these shall be permitted only during the normal construction process. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, mobile or motore home, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence either temporarily or permanently. - 2 - be INDEX Auditor's File No.: 3093363 Date recorded: May 10, 1995 Volume No.: 1477 7) During construction, no lot shall be used in whole or in part for the storage of any property or thing which will cause such lot to appear in an unclean, disorderly or untidy condition, or that will otherwise be obnoxious. Garbage and similar solid waste shall be kept in sanitary containers suited for the purpose of disposing of materials. During the construction period the adjacent streets are to be swept clean of mud and dirt. 8) No sign of any kind, on any lot, shall be displayed to the public view except one professional sign of not more than (1) square foot, one sign of not more than (5) square feet advertising the property for sale or rent, or signs used by a builder to advertise the property during the construction and sales period. 9) No oil drilling, oil development operation, oil refining, quarrying or mining operation of any kind shall be permitted upon or in any lot, nor shall oil wells, tunnels, mineral excavations or shafts be permitted upon or in any lot. No derrick or other structure designed for use in boring for oil or natural gas shall be erected, maintained or permitted upon any lot. 10) No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot, except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose. Any such household pets shall be kept and maintained in such a manner as to not become a nuisance to the neighbors or neighborhood. Such pets shall not be permitted to roam the neighborhood unattended or become an annoyance by constant barking or howling. 11) No lots shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish, trash, garbage or other waste shall not be kept except in a sanitary container. All incinerators or other equipment for the storage or disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. Trash and garbage containers shall be kept at the side or rear of the dwellings except on a regularly scheduled collection day. 12) Within a reasonable time after completion of construction, but not later that six (6) months from the commencement of construction, the front, back and side yards shall be planted to lawn or landscaped and kept in condition so that there are no noxious weeds or plants thereon. Landscape plan must be approved by Architectural Control Committee. 13) No individual water supply system, or above ground swimming pools, shall be permitted on any lot. 14) No boat, trailer, motor home, snowmobile, motorcycle or any other recreational item or vehicle may be stored or parked on the public streets within the subdivision, or on the front yards or driveways of any lot. - 3 - INDEX /e. 7E"1 Auditor's File No.: 3093363 Date recorded: May 10, 1995 Volume No.: 1477 15) Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant either to restrain violation or to recover damages. Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. PROPERLY SIGNED, NOTARIZED AND ACKNOWLEDGED - 4 - D c I N D E X X L' Mj Ytve. a Ggitifrc March 7, 2012 Notes for Turner Appeal „_,,0 4 �G A short history of Chestnut Townhouse Project, located at 72nd Chestnut. A proposal was put forth by Dale Turner, in Sept- October 2011, with a hearing scheduled. A project survey was completed by PLSA FOR MR. TURNER. I WILL SUBMIT A COPY OF THIS SURVEY FOR YOUR REVIEW. THIS PROPOSAL IN 2011 WAS FOR 20 UNITS ON THE SAME PROPERTY. THE PROJECT AT THAT TIME WAS SUBMITTED UNDER THE MASTER PLAN 15.28. YAKIMA CITY CODE. MR. TURNER WAS ASKING FOR A VARIENCE FROM THE 10 ACRE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT TO A 1.25 ACRE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT. A DECREASE OF APPROX. 88 %. THIS PROPOSAL WAS SENT OUT BY THE CITY FOR A HEARING MR. LAMB SUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE CITY ON BEHALF OF THE LOCAL PROPERTY OWNERS OF WEST CREST. WEST CREST IS A DUPLEX COMMUNITY ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 17 DUPLEXES AND 34 RESIDENCES IN WESTCREST. IN SUMMATION, MR. LAMB'S LETTER GAVE MR. TURNER AND THE CITY PLANNERS A LOT TO CHEW ON. THREE DAYS LATER, I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE CITY STATING MR,. TURNER HAD RESCINDED HIS PROPOSAL FOR THE 20 UNITS. THEY ADVISED THE HEARING FOR THIS PROPOSAL WAS CANCELLED. OC. THE SECOND PROPOSAL FROM MR. TURNER IS INDEX REQUESTING ONLY 16 UNITS. BUT IT STILL HAS FLAWS. THE REASON I BROUGHT UP THE SURVEY BY PLSA FROM THE FIRST PROPOSAL WAS TO SHOW THE EXTERNAL BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT. MR. TURNER SUBMITTED A HAND DRAWN MAP FOR THE PRESENT PROJECT. MR TURNER HAS CHANGED THE MEASUREMENTS ON HIS DRAWING FROM THE ORIGINAL SURVEY COMPLETED BY PLSA. BY DOING THIS, MR. TURNER HAS INVALIDATED AND CHANGED THE SURVEY THE EAST BOUNDARY ON LOT 7 HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM 56.43 TO 58.43 FEET. ON MR. TURNERS DRAWING, THE SAME BOUNDARY LINE HAS BEEN MOVED FROM A 20 FOOT SET BACK TO 19.75 FOOT SETBACK ON 72 AVE. MR. TURNERS WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE IT IS ONLY A COUPLE OF FEET AND 3 INCHES,. MY QUESTION IS, "WHY THE CHANGES ?" HERE ARE SOME ISSUES I HAVE: 1. IT CHANGES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE AREA FROM THE ORIGINAL SURVEY. 2. IT REDUCES THE SITE DISTANCE OF CLEAR VIEW TO 72 AVE FOR SAFETY. 3. MR. TURNERS DRAWING HAS NO TANGENT BOUNDARY FOR THE EXTERIOR OF HIS PROPERTY. One of the most blatant discrepancies is the figuring of the number of units he is allowed. Mr. Turner by his own admission states he DOC. II DEX • has 1.25 acres. Mr. Turner is allowed 12 units per acre. Mr. Turner had come up with 15.02 units. Under no conditions, do 1.25 x12 equal 15.02. It equals 15, no more, no less. Mr. Turner believes it is his right to round up .02 units to one full unit is ridiculous. Was the idea to extend the east boundary 2 feet to garner his extra .02 unit, so he could extend to 16 units when he is only entitled to 15? In dealing with Mr. Turner, it is obvious that inches do matter in his thought process. Is Mr. Turners only goal in this entire process is to obtain his 16 unit on this property? Is this the intent of the City Planners to allow an extra unit based on .02 of a unit? I can assure the originators never intended this kind of abuse of the code. In dealing with Mr. Turner, inches do matter. Is Mr. Turner a good neighbor with the West crest Community? Or is it about greed? Can Mr. Turner be trusted? Mr. Turner should never be allowed a 16 unit under any conditions-period!! I would like to have the Hearing Officer be aware of the fact, that a telephone line easement of 10 ft. is running between lots 4 & 5. There appears to be 2 other easements in the same area as the telephone line easement. One is a 12' water easement and a 16' sewer easement. These easements should be reviewed by the planning dept and Mr. Turner as to the right of way requirements. There appears to be an existing well head and house on the very northwest corner of Orchard Park mall. There appears to be 240 volts of electricity to this. I have been unable to determine if this is indeed a well or who is the owner, and if there are any easements concerning this site proposal. I can assure you, if this is a well, it DOC. INDEX # -9 • is well within a 100Ft. Radius of the proposed building site. One of my major concerns is the extension of Chestnut Ave. into Colony West. The information available on this roadway seems vague at best. I have been advised by City Planners the roadway will be required 24 feet in width. This seems somewhat bizarre in the fact that Chestnut to the East of this extension will be approx 31 feet wide. West of the extension, on 74 Ave is 32 feet, curb to curb. Chestnut, west of 74 is also 32 feet curb to curb. Mr. Turner should be required to install a 32 foot roadway curb to curb with sidewalks on both sides to meet City standards and to be compatible with the rest of Chestnut Ave. Mr. Turner should be held to a standard of which everyone else is required. It seems the City is bending over backwards to appease Mr. Turner. Why is the City creating a bottleneck ? CzJ Has the City considered, as an alternative plan, placing a bridge on the existing 76 Ave to connect Tieton Dr. to Summitview. By placing a bridge across Yakima Valley Canal, this would complete 76 Ave from Tieton to Summitview. This could alleviate the problem of the extensi n of Chestnut. 7 A 4Asv ... With the extension of Chestnut Ave., one possible major concern would be the integrity of Yakima Valley Canal. This canal was built in the 1940's and is adjacent to Chestnut Ave. This canal is cement lined and appears to be 7' wide, approx 4' deep and approx 4" thick on the sides. Depending on how the Chestnut extension is completed, this canal may be within 25' of the roadway, or less. To complete this extension, it will take an extensive excavation of soil which could potentially disturb the integrity of the canal. It appears that this area has been undisturbed for decades. I can assure you, if this canal ruptures, at peak irrigation season, there will be a major flood. It should be noted that the canal horse -shoes tangent to where the extension of Chestnut would take place. Will -®C. INDEX there be a study of the effects of road construction at this site? City Planning has advised me that the increased traffic on Chestnut and at the intersection of 72n Ave. will not create a traffic problem. How many trips per day will 15 more units create? Will there be a right hand turn lane eastbound on Chestnut and 72n Ave. I was advised by City Planning that there was a left hand turn lane northbound on 72 Ave - -there is not. Why is Mr. Turner not required to have a 20 foot setback on Lot 7 for the purpose of clear view? He can easily adjust the building footprint to allow for this. Another reason that no triplex should not be allowed on this lot. Compatibility and common sense would dictate that Mr. Turner place duplexes on all the lots to match up with his West Crest neighbors. Presently, West Crest is one of the best duplex areas in all of Yakima. One has to compliment Rich Hochrein for the quality he achieved in developing West Crest. West Crest has restrictive covenants which protect the integrity of the area. These pertain to parking, fences, outbuildings and recreational vehicles. Parking will become a major problem. Westcrest presently restricts parking at the curb with its protective covenants. Will Mr. Turner be required to have any parking regulations? I foresee renters and owners of Chestnut West Townhouses parking consistently on the north side of Chestnut Ave. Mr. Turners proposed project indicates no guest parking area. There will be virtually no curb street parking available on the south side of Chestnut. Guests, renters, and owners will be parking continuously on the north side of Chestnut. There are simply too many units allowed in too small an area. Last night, I noticed in 2 documents there is an existing Yakima DOC. NIX County Drainage Improvement District. The lines are running through Lots 6 & 7 of Mr. Turners proposal. This DID is mentioned in Mr. Rich Hochreins original request for the preliminary plat of Westcrest in 1994. Examiner #093 -4 -43. This DID is also mentioned on Jan. 26 , 2009 by Hearing Officer Bruce Benson,. City File #PSP #25 -08 -PAL #002 -08. It states in part in the findings #6, There is an existing Yakima County Drainage Improvement District (DID) running through Lots 6 &7. Yakiima County has an existing 20 foot easement for the line. No structures can be located within these easements. Any modification to or relocation of the DID line will require an agreement with Yakima County. I have not been able to locate any information reference this DID #38 that runs through the proposed property. Has the line been abandoned? Has this been addressed? If it has been, on who's authority? Were all procedures followed? Who gave final approval? In discussing this with Mr. Lamb last night, he stated that some of these DIDs are as large as 3ft in diameter and can transport thousands of gallons of water. He stated that these lines can be very fragile because of their age. This is my last chapter - -it is called, "Welfare for Contractors ". During these 2 proposals, it has been mentioned to me on several occasions, "Does Turner have the City Planners in his hip pocket ?" I have, in the past, attempted to support the City Planners and their integrity. I will be honest, 2 days ago, in reviewing Chapter 15.28.025, in the Master Development Plan, I noticed that the minimum area for a Master Development Plan was changed from a minimum of 10 acres down to a minimum of 2 acres. This is hard to believe that the City of Yakima now allows since December 18, DOC. INDEX 2011 a Master Plan can be contrived out of 2 acres. Who was this code written for and who requested the change? Yakima should change their sign on I -82 from the Palm Springs of Washington to Welfare for Contractors. Mr. Collier, I want to thank you for your time and consideration on what the Westcrest neighborhood has to say. I realize this area needs to be developed. However, it would be nice if we had some consideration for the neighbors who have invested in this area. It may appear that I have ill will towards Mr. Turner and contractors in general - -this is not the case. I have personally observed Mr. Turners completed residences and they are of a high quality with beautiful appearance. ®®C. INDEX 'Y i' � ���- � � ✓ " - '" . ` ^•A VA a-- VlriWIu v,iI HAULCt.UIV it' DEVELO PMENT - � Planning Division � ' 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 %,v'. i (509) 575 -6183 • Fax (509) 575 -6105 • ow s www.ci.yakima.wa.us J B / �� vsk 0) ■_/ t l NOTICE OF DECISION Subdivision Adminrstrator January 26, 2009 ∎` _____) On December 30, 2008 the City of Yakima, Washington issued a Notice of Application regarding a Preliminary Short Plat and Easement Release application submitted by Bill Moultray /Tim Nelson /HBD Properties. The applicant is proposing to subdivide one parcel of property into seven lots and release a portion of a utility easement. The subject property is located at the SW corner of South 72 " and West Chestnut Avenues. Assessor's Parcel Number: 181320-34011 City File Number: PSP #25 -08; PAL #002 -08 Following the required 20 -day public notice period, and consideration of all comments received, the City of Yakima has issued the enclosed 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. The filing fee of $505.00 must accompany the application. For further information or assistance, you may wish to contact Joseph Calhoun, Assistant Planner at (509) 575 -6162 at the City of Yakima Planning Division. inifr • Bruce Benson Acting Subdivision Administrator Notice of Decision Mailing Date: January 26, 2009 Enclosures: Subdivision Administrator's Findings and Decision, AYE Site Plan, Vicinity and Mailing Maps ' _ea Yakima Aktarkacit 1 111 1994 CITY OF YAKIMA SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR FINAL FINDINGS AND DECISION January 26, 2009 Application to Subdivide One ) PSP #25 -08 Existing Lot into Seven Lots and ) PAL #002 -08 Vacate a Portion of an Easement ) Staff Contact: In the Two Family Residential (R -2) ) Joseph Calhoun Zoning District. ) (509) 575 -6162 Applicant: Bill Moultray /Tim Nelson/HBD Properties Location: SW Corner of South 72 and West Chestnut Avenues Zoning: Two - Family Residential (R -2) Parcel No: 181320-34011 Proposal: Subdivide one existing lot into seven lots, and release a portion of a utility easement. The parcels proposed within this short plat range from 7,020 to 9,245 square feet in size. Based upon a physical inspection of the site, comments received during the 20 -day comment period, and after examination of the Preliminary Short Plat for compliance with the City of Yakima's Subdivision Ordinance, Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the Subdivision Administrator makes the following: FINDINGS 1. On October 30, 2008 Bill Moultray /Tim Nelson /HBD Properties, submitted an application for a seven lot short plat and partial easement release of the subject property. The application was determined to be complete on December 23, 2008. A Notice of Application was sent to the applicant and adjoining property owners within 500 feet of the subject property on December 30, 2008, requesting written comments during a 20 -day comment period that ended on January 20, 2009. 2. The new lots shall all have direct access to West Chestnut Avenue. Lot 7 cannot access South 72 " Avenue (YMC § 15.03.020(C)). 3. All new lots and development shall be served by a public water supply line located adjacent to the lot or development site (YMC § 12.04.010). Nob Hill Water Association is able to serve the new lots. 4. New fire hydrant placement will be determined by Codes Division and Nob Hill Water Assn. 5. Each new lot is required to be served by a separate sanitary sewer located adjacent to the lot or development site. (YMC § 12.03.010) City of Yakima sewer services are available in Chestnut Avenue to serve this site. INDEX HBD'Moultray PSP #25 -08, PAL #002 -08 / 6. There is an existing Yakima County Drainage Improvement District (DID) line running through proposed Lots 6 and 7. Yakima County has an existing 20 -foot easement for the line. No structures can be located within this easement. Any modification to or relocation of the DID line will require an agreement with Yakima County. 7. The requested release of the north 4.69 feet of an existing sanitary sewer easement will not negatively impact the nature and purpose of the easement. 8. All proposed lot sizes are in conformance with zoning standards for lot size and width in the Two Family Residential (R -2) zoning district. (YMC Ch. 15.05, Table 5 -2) 9. Gailleon Park and West Valley Neighborhood Park are located within one mile from this subdivision. 10. Summitview Elementary, West Valley Middle School and Apple Valley Elementary are located within one mile from this subdivision. 11. The following addresses shall be utilized for the created lots: Lot 1: 7308 West Chestnut Avenue Lot 5: 7300 West Chestnut Avenue Lot 2: 7306 West Chestnut Avenue Lot 6: 7202 West Chestnut Avenue Lot 3: 7304 West Chestnut Avenue Lot 7: 7200 West Chestnut Avenue Lot 4: 7302 West Chestnut Avenue 12. All access and public utility easements including irrigation, water, storm drainage (Yakima County DID Line), and sewer running through this site shall be shown on the final short plat. (YMC § 14.15.080) 13. Short Plats are categorically exempt from the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This exemption does not extend to any future development(s) upon this property that exceed one or more SEPA thresholds. 14. The passage of the Growth Management Act (SSB 2929) in 1990 requires local governments to produce written findings for short plats. This is to ensure that appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare. This short plat will not create additional need for schools, parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities; adequate public services are available to the site including potable water, public sewer and public transit. CONCLUSIONS 1. The short plat complies with the general requirements for short subdivision approval as specified by YMC Title 14. 2. Appropriate provisions have been made for: public health, safety and general welfare; open spaces; drainage ways; streets, alley, and other public ways; potable water supplies; sanitary waste disposal; parks and recreation, playgrounds; schools and school grounds. 3. The short plat serves the public use and interest. DOC. INDEX HB D /Moultray 2 PSP #25 -08, PAL #002 -08 DECISION Based upon the findings and conclusions presented above, the preliminary short plat and easement release applications are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is authorized to have the short plat prepared by a registered land surveyor in accordance with the provisions of YMC Chapter 14.15 (City Subdivision Ordinance). The final short plat must be substantially the same, with regards to lot sizes and layout, as the preliminary plat. 2. All access and public utility easements including irrigation, water, storm drainage (Yakima County DID Line), and sewer running through this site shall be shown on the final short plat. (YMC § 14.15.080) 3. Each new lot shall be served by a separate sanitary sewer and waterline located adjacent to the lot or development site. (YMC §§ 12.03.010 & 12.04.010) 4. All lots shall have direct access to West Chestnut Avenue (YMC § 15.03.020(C)). r 5. No structures shall be built within the existing 20 -foot easement for the County DID line on ki ots d 7. 6. All addresses shall be clearly shown on the face of the final short plat (RCW 58.17.280). Additionally, a note shall be shown on the face of the final plat stating: "The addresses shown on this plat are accurate as of the date of recording, but may be subject to change. The City of Yakima Code Administration Division is responsible for the confirmation or reassignment of addresses at the time of building permit issuance." 7. A current Short Plat Certificate, title report, or title policy covering the subject property must accompany the final short plat. 8. All other requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinance, although not specifically set forth herein, must be complied with in their entirety. DATED this 26 day of January 2009 Bruce Benson Acting Subdivision Administrator Preliminary approval of this short plat is valid for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of this decision. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL This decision shall be final unless appealed within 14 days following the mailing of the final decision. All appeals must be in accordance with YMC § 14.15.110 of the. Appeal forms may be obtained from the Department of Community and Economic Development and must be accompanied by the application fee for filing short plat appeals of $505. O' DL , HBD'Moultray �j PSP #25 -08, PAL #002 -08 3 # mot �/ / LEGAL OESCRIPT ION LEGEND TK 2WWH 205 KEE1. Or 174E 20912 1/2 10 129 209129452 2/2 07 129 SOJT29AS7 f/. c in SEC 20 7 13 K A 16 Ew II AE ff 129 901176EST 1/4 Cr SEC71041 20. 11719452122 13 20970. 0*2 1 29. E.2.0 1.1.011a0 0ALL/0 E0 5( AL CAP 0207 _- 0 [ T2A2 P0ar162 EIE TO COMTT R TAY IOA, STAAE 6 02 1 1. , OIL SEE LW IM-1I)0 -S- DENOTES EXISTING SEWER 0r T E01 DEE 0 KCVO 2 TI94E EOT 30 . 0 01 7002• S rT RARER 177 3 7 70052°9 Alp 700020209. _-90- 0E11OTES EXISTING STORM DRAIN 40v1 2008 ^G- DENOTES EXISTING GAS I 9 -e1- DENOTES EXISTING WATER - -A- DENOTES EXISTING POWER GRAPHIC SCALE 1' -50 NAMING ^n'' --7 DENOTES EXISTING TELEPHONE zzlr 0 50 100 150 (.-:: =i _:_'� DENOTES (0150106 ASPHALT /yl _ ' gM i 1 E•'- ., j DENOTES EXISTING CONCRETE /t E'551'Pi, ® DENOTES PROPOSED ASPHALT = ( / r � ! j80/ h ® DENOTES PROPOSED 5 SIOEMALx 1 1 1 ti/ I 20 0.1 0. 30 Mr 1 ZS v DENOTES PROPOSED CASED IIpM1ENT 1 I 9 � - 2. 1 1 011. 1/2.. I I MAT OF NE / . a 1 2 227 6 2 I 1 l f226.W 1 0 ' PU E 1, 1 IE. 1215.09 1 I / E A . * ..1 J. _ x x-1 xsa�s- _ --- .N.,„-.-,,-„,-,- p : 1 tz F - 1 - `1 3TIi'T�SS ,xa�'r !.. 'f- r .226 'T� ' � (It j ,.71 4 " _ _ < . 1 - ..f... 7 692 i 1 e a-_r, +a: F6 .`t,,. e.. Y.'!t: i9F :,� i /u/ i ..i /� /u7n:i /// i z / i _. / /d�;► •046" /� /iiirn: ////.9 w (i%/ /i / /i %/ / :• r y .�. .r � . y ^ f - f: 96' 0 / N�� : NW ,. /NON/> < �\ . X\\ Q\ \\'// ,\ \����,�����,���/////./, \\\\'/"\Nye \*/ tea �� \NN\ 5 4 7 -, -- °� -- - 291 )Ep .90 -- 9.40 - - -- --�` - i.:. -' 1 CR`a. 07 -- 8 9YYf5E0 25 • PM • .O ` . 2 O PD E92'1 '1.. x . !. . \ 1 i ce • K,)T.. - ' LOT 1 22 g 'LOT 2 g 8 LOT 3 0 g 8 g LOT A n g LOT 3 S LOT 6 g c g\ �:1�' 1 � / - - a S 70895f - 702051 8 70205E g 70205 p ° 8 861051 y 8 86105E / C3 < _ g i 97 I g . 92175E 2.01 7 1_' ! 1PT3� 1: / ± + '7 * / 1`, -!EE OErAII 6ELOY P I 1 \"_ s /� Q/ 7 0 00 70 00 70 00 n.00' 1 05.09' 96 00 1 22.99 . t ; � u2' W 091'1 g ' ` d,,,� 0/ 1 es-s.-ss-E 1 1 � u 657.00 '^ I 1 I 1 25 FO ESN 7 1 00 E5N T 00' w ES. I y (Ail,/ 'I I ' An 1 32, T I it 51 n14071 1 1/. 7624071 1 1 104 7614072 1 /1 / 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1Z�'1 I 1 I S 8 LI 1 1 5 1 2 a 1. E22 1 UM /. 0004 SEC 20 770 I3 13 K 1O1 CASE !EE ECP IIF 1103 _1976 63 - - - - - _ - - 659 54 - - - - Y 90'00'00' 0 2036 27' A CM sac 20 2 13 K 9I6 cop 9 - -- _ O1 24001E 9122 1120 II 2.3.10 K 9TN . 69 7FET 0r T 16 700 SEE 1.1:A 19-1130 0 7. ' 109E ME WWTBr 10 1 1.21 7 1072 rM10rO5ES 10 YAUrEO sr IA 0071 PEAT J ■ �1 NOTES 1 , p H 1� / - ' - �\\ _ \ ' 729 P1.691.17 fPTY OESCA MEM2029D R 10E0 K02 f6 zOD ~ / / L1 21 0415132221 K S7 SO415132221 AYE. TO IN 02sIEMEO To THE CITT 6 TA %vow sTAKNAEN 1• N 0090 SIOE22 0FET5 6T 091671 9°51 / ` 31 04617E STOW 60E9 TO 6E 5000 TO CI72 712A 997440.4.170. .1 WEN 9617 sow, srmta TO 0 09 SE (E2I61E0 TO 0 CIT oF ram / / fl 57.46/.725 FOP e1.02 AaoPp6co 01110.21703 .77 -r y r 1 /OY.L ,...0 1 LOT 1 / LOT 7 1 0,' 10.16 -0 �5 ' -N- I a PARENT PARCEL 181320-34011 y 1 1 ' °- 151 ., / DON MILTON SURVEYING 309- 151 - 8195 02 1 IFS/ /210 )�I/ PO 00* 2275 YAXIMA, MA 96907 // AAp. oPC PRELIMINARY / OCT 20. 2009 SHORT PLAT o / ytE 02221 '2* ® o 1 RRi*OAVE TIM NELSON $ ® � X - DETAIL 9422 ' -f0 YAKIMA. MA PLOT TEO MT[ T 13 N. 0 16 EON / P 1 • r I I I I I N AVE ` '-`.. -- — ■ II SUMMITV�<\ l / 9 id : :■ i r < ____ II II III ■ . 1 N i ■■U A RN WAY / /�/ / \ r . J =,11 �„ ( AL RNE WAY �C/ = ______. :111111 IS < ,ex, ....or -mini CHINOOK OR • 11111 111111 f YAKIMA AVE :� ___.-.N ` \,■ �� -, '� � W AKIMA AVE �, N, s,_____:: W W Warns Avs\ v, r N�� i R MI. , — •1 r [2:11 n ED n C yr , Wes/[ Am W Chesm�t A .,( -- . �� - � AVE r • 1 . . , �` E \, , - .. . f O N N * ._...h. .� ■■ ■ r W WALNUT ST _ f ■ r I W WALNUT ET - 1 ■ i ■' _ . Nahh� m — N N n 3 Ams' Tleeon Dr _. { , 41) \__ _. murta limo Or TI ETON DR a - �� f' w W to n _ Q _ 0 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON ` .11c ,,,,, i VICINITY MAP •'us. ' ,. FILE NO: Preliminary Short Plat #25 -08, Easement Release #2 -08 • • APPLICANT: Bill Moultray ��;fy o REQUEST: 7-lot short plat in R-2 zone & 1NDL % r\ Yakima City Limits Utility Easement Release - Scale - iUn =400ft LOCATION: Vic of 7202 W Chestnut Ave 0 200 400 pnzsos 12a4roe n l 1 1 2 --------/ -- N AVE S UMM1 \ TVA S II II - /4z.0 W y ■ ■ 110! li • • • • _ r • • ■ i \ _ 111111 .. j __ALPINE WAY ALRNE WAY lir CHINOOK DR 416. 31010 I 31434 ' 31006 1 31166 jAVE v � . 31464 �C Afilmmi. Pr" lir �i� 31467 : 1M!E 1 \ 4 31476 i ■ ® = 1 , ,„ = 31461 1466 42009 42490 424711 / I I Cy f •. ' W CtuaU•! S T1'IUT AVE 1 ■11 34011 435 836 7 -6W/66I '-) / 4 Afg 34439 31142 361. CPI 4 30Ce 43482 am - Li rr 3 6136 34486 1 4 43160 13161 31113 '4> 3µ{4 34166 344 �� / ■ _ , b/4.: 34137 n 43463 43466 \ 34423 Irl 34416 �� °. 34487 W . 1 c : MI 34435 w 34146 , S Y \ ■ ■■ ®E...�`\ 34447 __ 34466 �� m m Ir Imo - IN 34463 — W WALNUT ET 1111111.1.111 ' MI _ W WALNUT 6T > ■ MEM all/ '! 2 - / n - ^"' TMwn Dr 1 111 , rwm o T � __ TIETO D R Q J — N " Q / --- F E — I s + CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON j 1 ! 1 Property Notices FILE NO: Preliminary Short Plat #25 -08, Easement Release #2:08 APPLICANT: Bill Moultray / Subject Site REQUEST: 7-Iot short plat in R-2 zone & De Utility Fasement Release INDEX 6 ( 0 4 LOCATION: Vic of 7202 W Chestnut Ave . �' ' Cori-% g PARCEL NUMBER(S):18132034011 Scale— lin =400ft IN " 0 200 pre2508 11/24/08 3/8/2012 Chestnut Townhomes Proposal Public Hearing hursday 20i APP#OU1 -1 € SpIJ12. -11 ` s', it 1. .�<. t.i_2#034.-1 Proposal Overview • 1.25 acre parcel, zoned R -2. • Bordered on north, east, and west by residential neighborhoods, zoned R -1, medium density. • Bordered on south by commercial. • Applicant wants to build high density housing, max allowed for R -2, within an established R -1 medium density neighborhood. • Applicant wants to build seven two -story structures, 10 feet apart, in a neighborhood of single story, common wall homes and duplexes on spacious Tots. LOC INDEX 1 3/8/2012 Compatibility - General • No 2 -story duplexes exist in the surrounding neighborhoods • No triplexes exist in the surrounding neighborhoods • Only single story, single family homes, duplexes and common wall homes exist in the surrounding neighborhoods • The visual appearance would contrast sharply with the surrounding area Compatibility — West Crest • Proposed development completes the last parcel in West Crest, but contrasts sharply from the character of West Crest in terms of density, scale, size, style, and aesthetics. • Proposed development produces a level of activity and noise in sharp contrast with West Crest. • Proposed development produces traffic congestion and danger in sharp contrast with West Crest. ®®C. 6 1DEX 2 3/8/2012 Comparisons Across Chestnut • 9 single story units on the north side vs. 16 two -story units on the south side • 16 driveways on the north side vs. 32 driveways on the south side • 9 two - bedroom units on the north side vs. 16 three - bedroom units on the south side • 16 residents living in units on the north side vs. 64 residents on the south side Comparison, continued • Varied, high quality construction of complimentary units on the north side vs. uniform, "affordable" units on the south side • Lawns and landscaping on the north side vs. minimal space around and between units on the south side • Plentiful sunlight on the north side vs. a 25+ foot wall of buildings creating shade on the south side DOC. 64S®EX 3 3/8/2012 Residential Unit Density • Proposal anticipates 12.8 units per acre. 16 units /1.25 acres. • Proposal exceeds maximum density for class 2 use in an R -2 zone, which is 12 units per acre. • Proposal exceeds medium density designation for this area, which equals <7 to 11 units per acre. Residential Unit Density • West Crest increased density over R -1 by 23 %. R-1 = 7 /acre; West Crest = 8.6 /acre. • Proposal increases density over R -1 by 83 %. R-1 = 7 /acre; Proposal = 12.8 /acre. • Proposal increases density over West Crest by 49 %. West Crest = 8.6 /acre; Proposal = 12.8 acre. D000 NDEX 4 3/8/2012 Population Density • Population in West Crest is Tess than 15 /acre, based on an actual count: 53 residents /3.5 acres. • Estimated population in proposed development is 51 /acre, assuming 4 residents per 3- bedroom unit. 16 units x 4 = 64. 64/1.25 acres = 51 • 340% increase in population from West Crest to the proposed development. Automobile Density • Automobile density in West Crest is 56 autos /3.5 acres = 16 cars /acre, assuming 1 automobile per garage space. • Automobile density in proposed development is 32 autos /1.25 acres = 26 cars / acre. • 160% increase between West Crest and proposed development. *C INDEX 5 3/8/2012 Increased Traffic Congestion • 17 units in West Crest house only 1 resident, 50 residents drive • The proposal introduces 30 to 60 additional drivers, including teen residents and their guests • The intersection at 72nd and Chestnut has poor connectivity; no left turn pocket onto 72nd from Chestnut, no left turn pocket onto Chestnut from north bound 72nd Avenue • Cars entering Chestnut from 32 driveways on the south side increase congestion and reduce traffic safety within West Crest Street Parking • Proposal adds 57% more cars to the West Crest neighborhood. • West Crest provides 19 street parking spaces, serving 34 homes and 56 cars. 1.7 spaces per home. • Proposed development adds 16 homes and 32 automobiles, yet provides at most 4 street parking spaces. .12 spaces per home. • Extreme density prevents developer from providing overflow parking for his homes which, as a result, burdens West Crest. DOC 1" DEX 1 6 3/8/2012 Lot Coverage • West Crest and adjacent neighborhoods were developed at no more than 50% lot coverage. • Proposed development anticipates 60% lot coverage. (Law changed in December 2011.) • Reduces area for lawns and trees which enhance quality of life. • Increases potential problems with storm water run -off and percolation Erosion • Potential erosion problem along south edge of the parcel. 4 • High lot coverage could affect storm water i ' r percolation and run -off. ' '` - • Slope stability and soil View of Orchards alley along south retention questioned. edge of parcel, looking west. DOC. INDEX 7 3/8/2012 Density Observations • Parcel is not large enough to blend from medium density to high density housing. • All high density housing is clustered together on a small parcel and is incongruous with the surrounding area. Negative Effects • Safety will be impacted by increased traffic flow. • Traffic on Chestnut and 72nd Avenues will be congested with the additional volume of traffic at an intersection that has poor connectivity. • Livability will be reduced because of increased noise, activity, and population; because there is Tess space for lawns, trees, and shrubs. • The proposed two -story buildings will block the view of Ahtanum Ridge to the south, and shade residences on Chestnut from sunlight. D ®Co t1 8 3/8/2012 Negative Effects cont. • Property values and rent revenues of West Crest owners are likely decline sharply. • The character of the neighborhood is altered substantially. • InfiMI development is visually incompatible with the scale and density of the surrounding area. • The existing sense of community is severely compromised. Compatibility - Height • Surrounding area has height limited to 18 feet. Proposal anticipates buildings that are 28 -30 feet. • Proposed development sits on opposite side of a residential street, not a major grid thoroughfare. • Inadequate set back to mitigate height variance. DOC. INDEX 9 3/8/2012 Compatibility - Height • Two story buildings would block West Crest's view of Ahtanum Ridge to the south. • Parcel is bordered on the south by Orchards shopping center, which sits at a lower elevation. Single story buildings would adequately conceal stores from view yet preserve view of Ahtanum Ridge. • West Crest is north of the proposed development. The sun is always south. Development would cast a shadow, darkening an otherwise sunny street and prolong icy conditions on Chestnut during winter months. Compatibility - Height Looking north toward West Crest Looking west down alley between from Orchards parking lot. Orchards shopping center and proposed development. D ©C. INDEX #� 10 3/8/2012 Compatibility - Height Looking south toward Ahtanum Ridge Looking south toward Ahtanum Ridge and Orchards from West Crest. and Orchards from West Crest. Compatibility - Aesthetics • Looking at the proposed buildings individually, each one fits the definition of a duplex or triplex, i.e., structures that share a common wall. • Looking at the project as a whole, seven two -story structures, 10 feet apart, we see a virtual solid wall towering above the adjacent homes, a residential megaplex, a block of apartment houses or condominiums. • Proposal is out of character with West Crest and the surrounding neighborhoods. DOC. INDEX 11 3/8/2012 Compatibility - Aesthetics • Exceptional Yakima duplex neighborhood — not typical cookie cutter design — so well designed that it looks like an R -1 neighborhood. • Variety of floor plans, facades, and roofline designs (4A, 5B, 4C, 2D, 1E, 1F / 6 designs / 17 duplexes). • Variety of brick trim (5 different materials that coordinate / various treatments — corner, full face, lower half, partial face, etc.) • Variety of yard sizes and shapes • Variety of distances between homes • Variety of set backs Compatibility - Aesthetics • Restricted fence placement. • Restricted parking on roads and driveways. • Lots of sunlight and space. • Quality construction, included enhanced interior features: vaulted ceilings, rounded corners, decorative trim around doors, built in microwaves and garbage disposals. • Homes are small. 31 of 34 units are two - bedroom. • Well-maintained yards and homes. it *Co INDEX 12 3/8/2012 Compatibility - Aesthetics 0 14-1104*; L West Crest Typical Duplex Neighborhood Doug Hughes Development Cottonwood Grove Compatibility - Aesthetics West Crest Typical Duplex Neighborhood Doug Hughes Development Cottonwood Grove DOD. INDEX 13 3/8/2012 Compatibility - Aesthetics Nr West Crest Likely Townhouse - Proposal Development at 74th Ave / Tieton Traffic Connection • If Chestnut is opened at west end of proposed development, traffic from 192 homes would flow down narrow, winding residential streets, around parked cars, and through West Crest. • Many children in West Crest and Colony West. • Need a left turn lane on 72nd Avenue so traffic is not blocked for cars turning onto Chestnut Avenue. • Opening 76 Avenue would mitigate this problem. • Request a traffic concurrency review under the Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance. DOC. INDEX # 16 3/8/2012 Traffic — Chestnut Avenue . To, T If .ki. ' ' . Chestnut Avenue, looking Chestnut Avenue, continuing east from 76t Avenue east from 76th Avenue Traffic — Chestnut Avenue .,- - - --:1-'m _ Ai Chestnut Avenue, looking Chestnut Avenue, looking east from west end of east from west end of construction site. construction site. DOC. !INDEX 17 3/8/2012 Traffic — 76th Avenue .,t 76th Avenue, looking south 76th Avenue, looking north from Summitview Avenue from Tieton Drive Traffic -76th Avenue 76th Avenue, looking north at 76th Avenue, looking north at Nob Hill Water Canal Nob Hill Water Canal DOCo INDEX 18 3/8/2012 Other Matters • West Crest has restrictive covenants that govern street and driveway parking, fence placement, and operation of business that would increase traffic. Proposal provides none. • Yakima code allows construction noise from 6 AM —10 PM, Monday — Friday 8 AM —10 PM, weekends and holidays These hours should be reduced. _ _ -- ‘- • . ;.. . Please protect our neighborhood. DOC. INDEX 19 3/8/2012 Submitted by Michael & Connie Stone 380 Kail Road Tieton, Washington 98947 (509) 673 -2792 Owners of two houses in West Crest 7313 W. Yakima Avenue 8 N. 74th Avenue DOC. !INDEX 20 To: Hearing Examiner From: Connie Stone Date: March 8, 2012 Subject: Written Comments for Public Hearing Assessor's Parcel Number: 181320 -34011 City File Number: PSP#0 12-11; CL2 #034 -11 New File Number: REF #001 -12 Cited Codes & Decisions Yakima Municipal Code Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance 15.01.030 — Purpose and Intent: "...promote the general health, safety, and welfare of present and future inhabitants of the Yakima Urban Growth Area." THIS TITLE IS DESIGNED TO BE �. FLEXIBLE AND INTENTIONALLY INCREASES THE - POTENTION USES OR CHOICES r s AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. THIS FLEXIBILITY IS BALANCED BY PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS BASED ON THE YAKIMA URBAN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNED TO GUARD AGAINST AND MITIGATE UNDUE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE COMMUNITY'S GENERAL WELFARE. BOTH CONCEPTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO THIS TITLE AND DECLARED NECESSARY FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE GENERAL HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. 15.01.030 (2) Dividing the Yakima Urban Area into districts according to the use of land and structures and the intensity of each use; 15.01.030 (3) Encouraging the location and use of structures and land for commerce, industry, and residences in districts where they are compatible with neighboring land uses; / j 15.01.030 (7) Providing for adequate privacy, light, air, and view; 1 15.01.030 (10) Protecting existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments; Subdivision 14.05.02 — Purpose and interpretation: "This subdivision code is enacted...to prevent overcrowding land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways; to provide for adequate light and air." DOC. INDEX GOAL 6.1 DEVELOP STREETS THAT ENCOURAGE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY AND ( d,IVABILITY POLICY H.1.6.2 ENCOURAGE COMPATIBLE INFILL OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS ,L. l OBJECTIVE L -2 ESTABLISH A PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT THAT SUPPORTS A SENSE OF COMMUNITY, The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as suitable for Medium Density Residential development, which is defined as follows on page III -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. Figure 111 -2 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 recommendation. Development regulation, 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." Introduction 1' , _5 The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance is flexible in offering choices to property owners. The parcel, zoned R -2, could conceivably house high density, two story, multi - family housing if it is found to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and the applicable standards of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. However, preservation of existing neighborhoods, protection against undue adverse impacts on existing . neighborhoods from ad'acent development, and reduction of congestion on streets and highways are established t.ffi the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. The Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance 1. Encourages use of structures and land for residences where they are compatible with neighboring land uses (15.01.030(3); and INDEX 2. Provides for protection for existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments (15.01.030 10). 3. Defines compatibility as "The characteristics of different uses or development that permit them to be located near each other in harmony." (15.02.020); and 4. Defines intensity as "The combination of factors (including visual appearance and building size, traffic generation, noise, dust, light and economic value) associated with a particular use that determines the potential impact of that use on neighboring land uses ", adding, " Generally, the intensity of a land use will determine its compatibility with other land uses." The Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan requires the following: 1. Preserve existing neighborhoods (Goal 3.3) ,STYLE= 2. Ensure new development is compatible in scale! density, and aesthetic quality to an established neighborhood (Policy 3.2.2) 3. Develop streets that encourage neighborhood safety and livability (Goal 6.1) 4. Establish a pattern of development that supports a sense of community (Objective L- 2) Narrative The proposed project involves a 1 1/4 acre parcel zoned R -2 surrounded on three sides by residential neighborhoods zoned R -1 and designated suitable for Medium Density Residential 0 Development (YUACP). The developer seeks to introduce high density R -2 standards within a well - established R -1 neighborhood. This project involves a small parcel that does not allow mitigation of negative impact through fencing, structure placement, or any other means because of its size and close proximity to the adjacent neighborhood to the north, West Crest. IT IS THE INTENSITY OF THIS PROJECT (INCLUDING VISUAL APPEARANCE AND BUILDING SIZE, TRAFFIC GENERATION, NOISE, LIGHT, AND ECONOMIC VALUE) THAT DETERMINES THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THAT USE ON NEIGHBORING LAND USES. GENERALLY, THE INTENSITY OF A LAND USE WILL DETERMINE ITS COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER LAND USES (15.02.020). IT IS THE INTENSITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT MAKES IT SO INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND CREATES SUCH SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS. The project is located within a 2 -block cul -de -sac that contains West Crest, sits above and apart from adjacent property to the south, and is separated from development to the west and east by fence fir a 4 -lane road (72 Avenue). DOCo 11 DEX Cited Codes & Decisions This proposal fails to meet several provisions of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance 15.01.030 (3) Encouraging for the location and use of structures and land for commerce, industry, and residences in districts where they are compatible with neighboring land uses; 15.01.030 (10) Protecting existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments; 15.03.030- Intent and character of the R -2 zoning district are described as b. Locate residential development with densities up to twelve dwelling units per net residential acre in areas receiving a full range of public services Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan POLICY 3.2.2. ENSURE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE IN SCALE, STYLE, DENSITY, AND AESTHETIC QUALITY TO AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. POLICY G9.3 ENCOURAGE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SCALE AND DENSITY OF THE SURROUNDING HOUSING The project exceeds the maximum density allowed for Class 1 use in an R -2 zone. The parcel is described as 1 '/4 acres after the road is widened. The application states that when that is divided by 12 units per residential acre, the result is 15.02 units. In reality, 1 1/4 acre divided by 12 equals 15 units. The proposed 16 units generate a density of 12.8 dwelling units per acre, exceeding the maximum density for Class 1 use in an R -2 zone. The project also exceeds the density described in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan for this area designated "suitable for Medium Density Residential Development ", specifically 7 to 11 DURA. Although the Land Use Compatibility Chart lists a proposed High Density Residential Use as "generally compatible" in a Medium Density Residential designation, depending on each specific use, compatibility may be more or less than indicated on the table. y4 The City's zoning ordinance more specifically implements the MDR designation by providing that multi - family dwellings having a density in excess of 12 DURA are Class.(3) uses which are Qv, , generally not compatible in a particular district. Cited Codes & Decisions — compatibility with area This proposal fails to meet several provisions of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance 15.01.030 (3) Encouraging for the location and use of structures and land for commerce, industry, and residences in districts where they are compatible with neighboring land uses; BND z--, 15.01.030 (10) Protecting existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments; Narrative - Area Since there are no two -story duplexes or triplexes in the immediate area, the proposed project would stand out in stark contrast to the single story homes that exist for blocks in all directions. The visual appearance would be conspicuously different from the surrounding area. The number and capacity of units proposed would result in a level of activity that would be in sharp contrast to the level of activity in the surrounding area and adjacent neighborhoods. Drawing from the Hearing Examiner's Decision regarding Envisage Development Group dated 11/4/2008, the proposed high density duplexes and triplexes'would " fail to comply with Comprehensive Plan Objective L2 which is to establish a pattern of development which supports a sense of community, with Comprehensive Plan Policy 111.6.2 which is to encourage compatible infill of existing neighborhoods, and with Comprehensive Plan Policy G9.3 which is to encourage infill development with construction that is compatible with the scale and density of the surrounding area." H Even if the duplexes in this project would not exceed R -2 standards, they would be placed 0 I together in a concentrated fashion in very close proximity to the R -1 zone to the north, the west, • the east. There is not sufficient land with this project to blend from medium density to high density housing. Compatibility with West Crest There are 8 homes and an end wall on the West Crest side of Chestnut, and 16 homes proposed on the other side. That is almost doubling the units from one side of the street to another. There would be stark contrast from one property to the next with increases in traffic for high density use and corresponding increases in activity, noise, and population turn-over. This incompatibility can be rectified only by requiring a mirror image so West Crest residents would see the same lot sizes, lot coverage, building height, quality, and capacity of structures. There are 16 driveways on the West Crest side of Chestnut, and 32 driveways proposed on the other side. That is tripling the number of vehicles entering Chestnut along a 2 block length between 72 " and 74 Avenues. The additional traffic will increase congestion at the intersection of 72 " and Chestnut, decrease safety for drivers and pedestrians within the neighborhood, and increase danger for drivers on 72 Avenue. Traffic congestion will be further exacerbated by the project's intensity and population capacity. This project includes 16 3- bedroom units that will potentially house larger families. More children playing in the.area, more teens driving into and out of the neighborhood, more trips per unit to support family activities, and more visitors to the increased number of residents are all reasonably anticipated outcomes of this higher- capacity housing. Increased traffic increases congestion at a minor intersection and decreases safety for residents in the area. Related parking problems and increased noise would negatively impact the neighborhood and reduce livability for current residents. DOC INDEX 15.02.020 — Definitions Compatibility: "The characteristics of different uses or development that permit them to be located near each other in harmony." Intensity: "The combination of factors (including visual appearance and building . size, traffic generation, noise, dust, light and economic value) associated with a particular use that determines the potential impact of that use on neighboring land uses. Generally the intensity of a land use will determine its compatibility with other land uses." 15.03.030- Intent and character of the R -2 zoning district are described as 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 full range of public services 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. 15.04.020 Land Use Classification System B. Class (2) Uses are generally permitted in the district. However, the compatibility between a Class (2) use and the surrounding environment cannot be determined in advance, and occasionally a Class (2) use may be incompatible at a particular location. Therefore, ,a Type (2) review by the Administrative Official is required in order to promote compatibility with the intent and character of the district and the policies and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan GOAL 3.3 PRESERVE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS GOAL 3.3.1 PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS POLICY 3.2.2. ENSURE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE. IN SCALE, STYLE, DENSITY, AND AESTHETIC QUALITY TO AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. 4)' POLICY G9.3 ENCOURAGE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SCALE AND DENSITY OF THE SURROUNDING HOUSING DOC (INDEX Narrative This project does not encourage compatible infill of existing neighborhoods. It is surrounded on 3 sides with neighborhoods zoned R - This district is characterized by up to 50% lot coverage, density ranging from <7.0 to 8.6 residential units per acre, and overwhelmingly building height limited to 18 feet. Typical uses in this district are single- story, single family residences. To the north, West Crest is a development of attractive duplexes at a density of 8.6 units /net residential acre. Density which was increased through variance to accommodate duplexes in R -1 zone was mitigated by constructing 31/34 residences as 2- bedroom units. This development is protected by restrictive covenants and owners have maintained these homes to a high standard for more than 16 years. Neighbors are committed to preserving the unique character of this neighborhood. Lot coverage /drainage Lot coverage for this project presents a potential problem with storm water runoff. Dense lot coverage could generate erosion and soil retention problems on the south edge of the property. This parcel is located at a higher elevation than the property to the south, Orchards shopping center. The parcel is bordered on that side by a downhill slope with a retaining wall for stabilization, but much of the slope is exposed. The proposed high- density housing and the high lot coverage raise questions about whether the limited remaining exposed land could adequately absorb storm water, ensuring slope stability and soil retention. This is a safety issue that should be resolved prior to any development on this parcel. Cited Codes & Decisions This proposal fails to meet several provisions of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance 15.01.030 (3) Encouraging for the location and use of structures and land for commerce, industry, and residences in districts where they are compatible with neighboring land uses; 15.01.030 (7) Providing for adequate privacy, light, air, and view; 15.01.030 (10) Protecting existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments; and This proposal fails to meet the following goals of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan: GOAL 3.3 PRESERVE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS Do INDEX 3.3.1 Preserve the character of neighborhoods such as historical character, architecture, natural features and layout. " 3.3.2 Ensure that i new development is compatible in scale, style, density, and aesthetic quality to U ne hborhoo . /) an esta is e g P ^' • i � Narrative This project does not preserve the character of the neighborhood in any way. This project is not compatible in scale, size, density, and aesthetic quality to an established neighborhood. It does not promote a sense of community. It does not encourage safety and livability. It does not encourage infill development that with new construction that is compatible with the scaled and density of the surrounding housing. Cited Codes & Decisions - Traffic This project fails the following provisions regarding traffic: Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance 15.01.030 — Purpose and Intent: "...promote the general health, safety and welfare of present and future inhabitants of the Yakima Urban Growth Area." 15.01.030 (10) "Protecting existing land uses and property values from adverse impacts of adjoining developments." 15.01.030 (11) "Reducing traffic danger and congestion on roads and highways." 14.05.020 — Purpose and interpretation: "This subdivision code is enacted...to prevent overcrowding land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways;...and to provide for proper ingress and egress. Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan GOAL 6.1 Develop streets that encourage neighborhood safety and livability. 6.1.1 Discourage through traffic and vehicular speeding on local streets...through selected engineering modifications. 6.1.2 Ensure that neighborhood streets have good connectivity with the Collector Street System to allow traffic to flow and disperse without concentrating through trips. Where possible, grid pattern streets should be encouraged. DOC 6.1.4 Enforce intersection clear -view standards. INDEX Narrative This project doubles the population of the neighborhood which now averages <lbr people per acre. Because 90% of the units in West Crest are 2 bedroom, more than half of the dwelling 3 ti units are occupied by a single individual, thus a single driver. Only one residence houses 3 drivers. As a result, traffic in the neighborhood is very light. There are currently 50 drivers residing in the 34 homes in this two -block area. Adding 16 3- bedroom units potentially adds 30 to 60 additional drivers, depending on how many families include teens, grandparents, etc. This nearly doubles the traffic into and out of the neighborhood. This street does not have good connectivity with the Collector Street System. This has not presented a problem while the population density was low, but denser population and traffic would be problematic. There is no left turn pocket north bound on 72 Avenue onto West Chestnut Avenue. As a result, traffic backs up as residents wait for traffic to clear when entering Chestnut Avenue from the south. Because Chestnut Avenue is only 2 blocks south of Summitview Avenue, south bound lanes on 72 Avenue are fed from both east and west -bound traffic at the light. The proposed development significantly increases the volume of cars seeking to enter West Crest from the south, and contributes to congestion where a minor road meets a major arterial. Safety and livability are sacrificed. There is no left turn pocket east bound on West Chestnut Avenue. As a result, traffic backs up at peak times while residents wait to turn left onto 72 Avenue. Similarly, significantly increased traffic volume leaving the neighborhood compromises safety and livability, and unduly increases congestion. The proposed development ensures that traffic flow is further congested by the addition of 32 driveways entering this 2 -block length of Chestnut Avenue from the south side. The north side of the same length of Chestnut contains 16 driveways, provides for a degree of on- street parking for guests, and promotes safe use of the sidewalk. Doubling the number of driveways across Chestnut Avenue increases congestion, decreases safety and negatively impacts aesthetics and - livabiilliity. GL o - vq The proposed development offers no parking other than in driveways and garages, so street parking within the neighborhood is predicted to be a persistent problem when more than 2 drivers reside in any unit or when guests visit residents of the development. The parking of boats, RVs, company vehicles, etc. could spill into the existing neighborhood because there is no reasonable alternative. This, too, increases congestion on the streets and creates a significant adverse impact on the neighborhood. Covenants exist and are followed within West Crest that limit parking of vehicles on streets and on driveways. Any development on this parcel should require adequate parking for all residents and guests to minimize overflow into the existing neighborhood. 1) ` I C. INDEX Finally, the proposed development places 2 -story buildings adjacent to 72 " Avenue. These necessitate multiple driveways entering Chestnut near the intersection and minimum compliance with clear -view standards. These do not promote safe and convenient travel at this intersection. A traffic study, prior to acceptance of this proposal, seems prudent. Stricter limitations than meeting R -2 zoning standards are needed to increase compliance with the designation of Medium Density residential development, compatibility with the character of the existing residential uses in the neighborhood, and consistency with the objectives and development criteria of the Yakima Urban Area Development Plan. Connection to South 74 Avenue While city engineers have recommended a connection to South 74 Avenue on the west end of Chestnut, this is a change that is neither safe nor efficient, and has a major negative impact on the West Crest neighborhood and the neighborhood of Colony West. This connection would introduce the traffic from adjoining areas that contain 142 homes. Many would be seeking to turn left onto 72" Avenue from Chestnut, or to turn left onto Chestnut from 72 " Avenue. When the residents of West Crest are, added, the result is 176 homes potentially using this intersection. When the proposed development is added, the number jumps to 192. This intersection cannot safely handle such volume. Nor could this volume of cars through the neighborhood have any impact that is not adverse to safety and livability. (See s escriptio of intersecti • at 7 "d and Chestnut Avenue under Traffic.) 47 E Chestnut Avenue between south 74 and 76 Avenues is a curvy road through a residential neighborhood. Many vehicles are parked on the street reducing clearance for traffic. Traffic on this section has been minimal due to the layout of the neighborhood. A curved section would be added creating a connection through the historically light -use length within West Crest. This connection does not promote the general safety and welfare of present inhabitants (15.01.30 YUAZO). This connection does not protect existing land uses from adverse impacts of adjoining developments (15.01.030 YAUZO). This connection does not reduce traffic danger and congestion of roads and highways (15.01.030 YUAZO). This connection does not develop streets that encourage neighborhood safety and livability (6.1. YUACP), discourage through traffic, and ensure good connectivity with the Collector Street System. This connection does not conform to preferred grid -pattern streets at any point within the 4 -block length affected. This connection significantly increases danger to the residents of both neighborhoods and to traffic on 72 " Avenue where it intersects Chestnut. A better solution would be to extend 76 Avenue across the Nob Hill Water canal. It appears that this connection was anticipated when 76 was constructed, as standard -width streets were developed up to the canal on both the north and the south. This complies with the preferred grid - pattern streets, offers a straight road as additional ingress /egress for two neighborhoods, and provides for predominantly right -hand turns onto Summitview Avenue rather than frequent left - hand turns onto 72 Avenue from Chestnut. If the number and intensity of dwelling units were limited on the applicant's parcel, Chestnut Avenue could be left as a loop serving this small neighborhood only. Even with 10 additional dwelling units, the number of housing units would DOCo INDEX be less than those in the cul -de -sacs of Colony West and West Valley Country Club which have had only one ingress /egress since their development. In short, this proposal is a traffic nightmare on all fronts. IOC. GNDE MHO it rt rLP utVELOrMtNT - SINGLE USE - AND , PRELIMINARY PLAT OF , CHESTNUT TOWNHOMES CEN. SEC. 20. T -13 N. R -18 LYN UNMARKED ALUM. CAP FOUND. SEE LCR 1 14-1470 . 1 I 1 (Tr__ f 1 - - - -L I 1 L TC T Z��N v I� =9 1 1 F 1 1 & or 4a 1 � .or a r r�/ I< 1 I LOT " ' I LOT 20 ®T '2 1 Z I 1 1 LOT 6 i + EA SEM ED NT � I 1 'z 1(40./2 P f ® � I 25' R/W 2S' R/W I Flo' Pu EsN'r 1 25' R/W 25' R/W .I esF� I ` �, .,��� = -- ■ I . j�� . _ h 128 ; i G i .i: y \ � — �r�.> / �ra� .. ..,vi ` , 1dgNa` CHESTNUT rc 1T — m AVENUE i ' ' till 7„—Orsass \ L ' e/ r T 4S8E 65778 � r---- . — _ �. iii 3{,12 . 27 32.13' .. _ - .. _ _ 32.1 / 27 63' 32 "„j 27 .87 27.63' 1283' 3263' 27,83 • d3' 3261' 32. 2 7.&7' 2763' 3267 — — , t1 _ — a ry BUILDI SETBACK UNE 1 i E ASEM EASEMENT BUILDING _SETBACK UNE — — — — �� � '� 3 W 3' b,' I LOT I 7 5 V �1: h ° � � ,, � 0T 18 / / E 1/:i L0j19$ LOT 10$ LO7 fa LOT 16 $ . LOT 14$ LO4 12 $ LOT 11$ LOT 11 T 8 L LOT 4 LO3 Z LO2 1 LO 1 I d F . g 8 FL $ alt. so & g / er. 4 $ sa sr $ 6 25°6 g 9 'g . 4 $ 8 Pr. g 54°54. -stink/ n, g ! T. I .2.4%. . ig BQ 2FL o Z 30 0 30 FEET / y, -1224 a 1 h1 ti I p1 I 5 12 � '—' 7 1 f >« ' - SCALE: . 30' 5 F1-5. \ T k - ��1 I - 4- IELT I f' � : • e B Y p � / X11 ,x,, u in s SETBA UNE I \ BUILDING SETBACK UNE -- 0 325 27,83' 27.- 3283' 32.13' 27,87 27,63' 3287 3283' / I 27.83 A �' 7;.' 3283' 3287 27.63' 7.eY 3267' _ 7. 27.: 4241' 1 T 4 R�W to .1 s 8834 a 657.91 -- - 1224- -- — — g &T, n8 � li I 1 1 LOT 42 I r---1-- �.p. ��s s 1n 1 1 I I , 4NED► 2 1 � i2EA T 1 TOP Ir 1 I I LOT 2 LOT V 1 I LA4�t1T — 1 III 1 I LEGAL DESCRIPTION NOTES S 1/4 COR. SEC. 20, T -13 N, R -18 E,WIA ALUM, CAP IN NON, CASE E NORTH 105 FEET OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE 1. PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R -2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOUND. SEE LCR 1 M -1193 SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, RANGE 18 EAST,W,M. 2. THE PARCEL CONTAINS 54,674 SQ. FT./1.26 ACRES. EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DEEDED FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBERS 7005189 AND 7060219. RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY. WASHINGTON. 3. STREET IMPROVEMENTS WILL CONFORM WITH CITY OF YAKIMA STANDARDS. 4. STORM WATER DRAINAGE IS PROPOSED TO BE MANAGED ON -SITE 5. SANITARY SEWER WILL BE CONNECTED TO THE CITY OF YAKIMA SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM. 6. DOMESTIC WATER WILL BE PROVIDED BY NOB HILL WATER ASSOCIATION. 7 THE UNDERGROUND POWER, TELEPHONE, NATURAL GAS AND CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS YALL BE PROVIDED BY THE RESPECTIVE UTIUTY. $ LEGEND 8. BUILDING SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY UNES: B � 25' 10' ' 15' R � L G iV i) FRONT - 20' OR 16.43' FROM FRONT PROPERTY UNE 25' BEING 45' FROM CENTERUNE OF RIGHT OF WAY SIDE - FROM LT UNE FX FEA1 E� PROPOSED FEATURES REAR -55' FROM LOT UNE 6,5' PAVEMENT @ 165' COSTING 6,5'3 EJOSTNG 02 70'1 WIDENING 5' ' SANITARY SEWER , �[ t, ; ", • , , ,I z a a aNT.Ar ` < : J DOMESTIC WATER € ; oz FT r -- v NATURAL GAS 9J AK - 1t384 _ POROUS PAVING ✓ UNDERGROUND POWER 1 € ,,. �* ,w,E 7MY utrE v'1 -- GEDTEKTILE FABRIC, WRAF, 500x 1 0.5 (WIN) - BARGE ST m T UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OR 3 POROUS ASPHALT (COMPACTED DEPTH). (COMPACTED DEPTH) — —�"— STORM DRAIN L .. n • TWA AYE • TMONA AVE ?; -- — — — — — 1' CONTOURS f 1 1 - m M TAMA AYE r CSBC (COMPACTED DEPTH) 1,� i � .! ° `- 0 CURB & WRGUTTER Y SITB *PANE g ` € < . < . NO A VE WIDENING — RESIDENTIAL SECTION INDEX g NO SCA T r � « . . B NN1Ui AYE . < w m a ` l PROPERTY/RIGHT OF WAY UNE g 1 m O N" TEL TELEPHONE MANHOLE TIETcw AW O ss SEWER MANHOLE p Fll FIRE HYDRANT 1 F ` J i ��1120 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE S A YAKIMA. WASH24GTON 98902 . CONCRETE WC/7M sT - € € s 15091 575 -6990 I l ASPHALT 12 CR e $ OWNER/DEVELOPER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR _ PRELIMINARY PLAT _ ° +' 813' RICK NAYALE RD CHESTNUT TOWHHOMES, LLC. RICK WDIR OF PARCEL NO 181320 - 34011 GATE: 7/18/2011 DALE TURNER P 20 W. LINCOLN AVENUE RVEI'1NG — PREPARED FOR— ,IOe No. m 203 NORTH 93RD AVENUE VICINITY MAP YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98908 PH: 457 -4838 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98902 PH: 575 -8990 DALE TURNER T° SE 1/4, SW 1/4. SEC. 20, T -13 N. R -18 E,WM 1 OS 4 Chapter 16.06 CONSISTENCY WITH DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SEPA INTEGRATION , ., Sections: 16.06.010 Determination of consistency. Consistency analysis. 16.06.030 SEPA integration— Purpose. 16.06.040 Use of existing environmental documents. k 16.06.050 Issuance of SEPA threshold determinations ✓ 16.06.060 Appeals of SEPA determinations. 16.06.010 Determination of consistency. Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations will serve as the foundation for project review. As part of project review, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.030 and RCW 36.70B.040, the decision -maker shall determine if a proposed project is consistent with applicable development regulations, or in the absence of applicable regulations, the adopted comprehensive plan. The determination of consistency is governed by Chapter 36.70B and shall be made according to the process established in YMC 16.06.020 and shall be part of the notice of application, as provided in Chapter 16.05 YMC. (Ord. 98 -66 § 1 (part), 1998). 16.06.020 Consistency analysis. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.040(3), for purposes of this section, the term "consistency" shall include all terms used in Chapter 36.70A RCW and Chapter 36.70B RCW to refer to performance in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW and Chapter 36.70B RCW, including but not limited to compliance, conformity, and consistency. A. Project Considerations. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B 040, whether a proposed project is consistent with applicable development regulations, or, in the absence of applicable regulations, the appropriate elements of the comprehensive plan, shall be determined by considering the following project considerations: 1. The type of land use; 2. The level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density; 3. Infrastructure, including public facilities and services needed to serve the development; and 4. The characteristics of the development, such as development standards. B. Development Regulations /Comprehensive Plan Considerations. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.030(2), during project review, the city, or any subsequent reviewing body shall determine whether the items listed in this subsection are defined in the development regulations applicable to the proposed project or, in the absence of applicable regulations, the adopted comprehensive plan. At a minimum, such Vi) icable regulations http:// www. codepublishing. com/ wa/ Yakima/Yakima16/Yakima1606.html 3/6/2012 or plans shall be determinative of: 1. The type(s) of land use(s) permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed under certain circumstances, such as planned unit developments and conditional and special uses, if the criteria for approval of planned unit developments or conditional or special uses are satisfied; 2. The density of residential development in the urban growth area or the level of development such as units per acre or other measures of density; 3. The availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the adopted comprehensive plan, if the adopted plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW; and C. The project considerations identified in subsection A of this section shall all be considered in relation to the development regulations /comprehensive plan considerations identified in subsection B of this section; D. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.040(2), in determining consistency, the determinations made pursuant to subsection B of this section shall be controlling. / E. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.030(3), during project review, the city of Yakima or any subsequent reviewing body shall not, except for issues of code interpretation, reexamine alternatives to or hear appeals on: / 1. The type(s) of land use(s) permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed under certain circumstances, such as planned unit developments and conditional and special uses, if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied, as determined by the applicable development regulations or, in the absence of applicable regulations, the adopted comprehensive plan; � 2 The density of residential development in urban growth areas, as determined by the applicable development regulations or, in the absence of applicable regulations, e adopted comprehensive plan; and 3. The availability and adequacy of public facilities identified in the comprehensive plan, if the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 98 -66 § 1 (part), 1998). 16.06.030 SEPA integration— Purpose. Environmental review for projects determined not to be categorically exempt under SEPA shall be integrated and shall proceed concurrently with the permit procedures of this title. (Ord. 98 -66 § 1 (part), 1998). 16.06.040 Use of existing environmental documents. The city may determine that adopted comprehensive plans, subarea plan elements of a comprehensive plan, development regulations, or other local, state or federal rules or laws provide adequate environmental analysis and mitigation of some or all specific probable adverse environmental impacts of a proposed action. (Ord. 98 -66 1 (part), 1998). D�lC. http:// www. codepublishing .com/wa/Yakima/Yakima 16/Yakima 1606.html 3/6/2012 16.06.050 Issuance of SEPA threshold determinations. A. Expiration of Notice of Application Comment Period. Except for a determination of significance (DS), the city of Yakima may not issue its SEPA threshold determination or issue a decision or recommendation on a project permit until the expiration of the public comment period on the notice of application as defined in Section 16.05.100 of this title. B. Preliminary SEPA Determination and Notice of Application. To integrate project and environmental review under SEPA and to encourage early public comment on project applications, a preliminary SEPA determination may be included with notice of application if such preliminary SEPA determination has been made at the time the notice of application is issued. This preliminary determination may not substitute for actual SEPA threshold determination. C. SEPA Determination of Significance (DS) and Notice of Application. If the city of Yakima has made a SEPA determination of significance (DS) concurrently with the notice of application, the notice of application shall be combined with the determination of significance and scoping notice. Nothing in the subsection prevents a determination of significance and scoping notice from being issued prior to a notice of application. D. Public Hearing on Project Permit. If an open record predecision hearing is required on the underlying project permit application, the city of Yakima shall issue its threshold determination at least twenty days prior to the open record predecision hearing. E. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the city in its review or mitigation of a project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW. F. The city shall also review the application under Chapter 6.88, the city environmental policy ordinance. (Ord. 98 -66 § 1 (part), 1998). 16.06.060 Appeals of SEPA determinations. Appeals of SEPA determinations are subject to the provisions of Chapter 16.08 of this title. (Ord. 98 -66 § 1 (part), 1998). This page of the Yakima Municipal Code is current through City Website: http / /www ci yakima wa.us/ Ordinance 2011 -66, passed December 13, 2011. City Telephone: (509) 575 -6037 Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Code Publishing Company Yakima Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's eLibrary Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. Click here to link to recently enacted ordinances not vet codified. ®EX http: // www. codepublishing. com /wa/Yakima/Yakima 16[Yakima 1606.html 3/6/2012 930 S.36`'LAfv. .A i . 111 f s _..: 1 i ill , , • i 6411P , - __ . • . . 1 '�" i-71 ' fj 1 i. l . 4 1 -i- 7,. - .1 11.. H__11 ,_ : , - _ - 41114 err .11 .11..gl.2i(I.. ..q..1 ;i -' I I... i i 1 I.... .. I I ,! I I! I I I I i I 1 1 1 1 I f 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I .I 1 -..i. r ,. .e - - ---- - - DOC. INDEX #___L:-.3_,.....,, ._... . , a . 1111 I 111 101...."1"..."' "'".....rrn........i............ ■•••■,..., . . ,....., . . 1 ..... ..., 11 4411ilir • DOC. INDEX 0 El I h _ Ell . I ,__ _, , , i ____ , 1 m • ■ a ■ 2 I I 11 DOC. INDEX 0 * mum " "" REQUIRED ATTACIIMCNT: 1 , . J% . -:, l > • : SITF, PLAN — r_..k s i ' ti1 OW './ Note. Producing the site plan from this template is preferred, however, the template can he substituted li,r your own mediuin. (computer aided Is acceptable ) 1 1 1 1 I I .1 I I z - 1 /6 , — zo . 1 I ,� . -4 I ms 7 1 • — b`` 1 a I — I- . o -- I C — -1 � Q t _ • Q 4 �1 i • , r N S ro -=o i 12 t -i- t60 t- w 15 I - (.° — I (13 S t i I� a -i ..... _42, cp J N 1 OD- , j h -.1 I'' — I ____y_ :) -4_ >I-aM 9Q l S 7Zr,a AV f___ ° I,O'I' covEItA(+h. CAI,C'LJI.A'I'ION LO} & L4 47 PA RKING CALCULATION (Reference Table ti-t of the lll'11a11 Area L Ordinance) a) I'i,otpriiu(s) of Existing Structure(s) ucturr.(s) g 0 SQ FT I,) liuildiug Addition /New Structure(s) Foutprmt(s) 38 6 '9 3CtY SQ FT a ) 7 Z space(s) required r) I'aved rlrca(s) (I)a'iveways, Walkways, patios, etc.) Total SQ FT b) z y pr (I) Proposed Paved Area(s) / 4 t 7(vy SQ FT e) 'Total linpervious Surface (a+b +c+d = e) 532§ f3.249 SQ P1' LOT INFORMATION 2°" ' 8. 21 4C _ S F1' ' Lot Coverage � Parcel #(s -- �,�}�.��„�� � . � I) Lot Sic - --- •- --._._ _.— .._- - --- -- - -- M ) verage (e /f x loo = g) 58 %p ' Site Address - -- p d t^- h¢c 1►t) I- Iv1A l' S(''A I ,I': (Please use the given scale, however, in some circumstance Nou'17! Legal Description (lu iel) _Lo aru. OS' Q F ►J'l • t1i Ly Se sAt tt /'L'y/ , 56G. ? O, a dilli:rent scale may work better) ` ll j _ Tt.wPs tP 1 �, ►4 orir*t •'E�+C._4 _ t$ iGU►1l, ______- _ CIII :('li ONE • I .l I'ivIerrell Scale. 1 Inch the map = feet on the ground �� " BACKGROUND INI'ROMATION I 1 9 L �� a �- A � ,licant Nance � L J;,,. __.. (- I Custom Scale: Iinch = - - - - - -_ / Site Addre t ('�s+}n � 1I - •'1 tie marks are 1 inch apart �- Mailing; Address a� , '113rd. Aut. _ _ Contact Person _. Q — ,jR � - --. __co.. Phone _ � y Z i,49 Produced b (print) Y (I ) -. Tel v---- .--- - - - _- ( wk.. Nurdt Applicant Signature - - - ate: -2--7-18=--2--7-18=-1-2.- -!8 1 ior• 2.--/8-12 Ne / __ (/' 2 II I I / .03- „e/2., 1 / 4. ( "). .,-.Q1._? ii li il • • i to .. , __ Z,Z.. a /2/2,0 if i ! C&e.--/ 0./G'(. .._ .. ___ .,/)__n. ./),(-_._-______ Cr> &-J24, PLANNING DM 11 /,_/2-- .5----- . Tr .fi,.(4.--____ zn./oZ .. e 0, , 0: ,e: /e/ --1- IP V / ____Z/6...../ . o' a , ' / /,„; .., if , , 4 01I,, ,. _1_ , AR 07 2W2 7 RECEIV: , . S I M 17 .---- 27/2 _--------- 1i t ! • ,,,00--- CITTOF , i ■ ! de' LO.._•Z_ ____Ot__ _____ _ _ _ ______ ! I 0 iv I t I L _ 1 : 1 ' ,...) ./ ■ • -./ZA-- ,-Z‘ -„ — i 1 0 . il zyczoz I! 0 to / ■ -/4 i i r / / • i ; _ • _ . ___ _ ___________________ i ! li --L — t 1 i i 1 17 , _e_/2„,_" • a. - 0 I 1 1 I i ■ 7:16 I , C C - 1_ • C?/112., _C.?./..a.4-P--/ ! / / I 1 _ 7 i'‘ / , CY - C. -14: - 2 4 - 0/ 7 . -...„.....=,.. 1- ._ 1 i I is RECEIVED -('3� MAR 07 . .012 �� / �. �,, CITY OF _YA�Iw ' _ ' �� 1 _. . :.''.;.# (<.... ".---.-..). _ .. . - 1.. .. _. _ . . -. 7..._" 4 - '.'„ . so elcZ- L76 --° LeaeZ , .e_7 ." )./2„."_ , 7.-06" / .. ; . . 71.77:t , ,...,,,,,,,.4 . 6?-7''''.1-.---'-../ .. , /'' - . - -a/3 1 / C :'''' " .. - ga„).„:„ /-1,-2,„• _ , ... , ., . _ _.__..... p, 5-- . _. _ ____ . _ _. ,, _ _ _ _. _ _ _ . . /---- / - oe---,- 7-,,,,„ __ __. . _ _.,, ___ , P 41 ,_ ... • � � , ___ ----- ®moo INDEX _2,