HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/1994 Business Meeting 335
iom
CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
JULY 5, 1994
BUSINESS MEETING
1. ROLL CALL
The City Council met in session on this date at 2:00 p.m.,
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Mayor Pat Berndt,
presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett, Henry
Beauchamp, Ernie Berger, Lynn Buchanan, and Bernard Sims
present on roll call. Council Member Bill Brado absent and
excused. Assistant City Manager Rice, City Attorney
Paolella, and Deputy City Clerk Skovald also present.
2. INVOCATION /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Barnett.
3. OPEN DISCUSSION FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
Irene Gutierrez, Rebound Manager, presented certificates of
appreciation to Key Bank of Washington and to Household
Finance Company for their $1,000 contributions to the Yakima
Alley Cats. Espinoza's Mexican Restaurant and the Pizza Hut
were also recognized for their contributions.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Berndt referred to the items placed on the Consent
Agenda, questioning whether there were any additions or
deletions from either Council members or citizens present.
It was the general consensus of the Council to add Item
No. 12 to the Consent Agenda. The Deputy City Clerk then
1/ read the Consent Agenda items, including resolutions and
ordinances by title. It was MOVED BY SIMS, SECONDED BY
BUCHANAN, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA, AS AMENDED, BE
ADOPTED. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote.
Brado absent. (Subsequent paragraphs preceded by an
asterisk ( *) indicate items on the Consent Agenda handled
under one motion without further discussion.)
336
JULY 5, 1994
*5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7, 1994 BUSINESS MEETING
AND JUNE 21, 1994 SPECIAL AND BUSINESS MEETINGS
The minutes of the June 7, 1994 Business Meeting and the
June 21, 1994 Special and Business Meetings were approved,
having been duly certified accurate by two Council members
and no one present wishing to have said minutes read
publicly.
6. ALL AMERICA CITIES PRESENTATION BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Curtis King, Chairman of the All America Cities Committee,
formally announced that Yakima has been named one of ten All
America City award winners for 1994. He introduced and
recognized the hard work of the delegation and others who
participated in this competition. After a video of the award
ceremony that took place in Oakland, California Mayor Berndt
accepted a plaque in recognition of this achievement. Being
an inspiration to the community, the youth who participated
in this program were also honored for their special
contribution to the All - America City award winning effort,
and certificates of appreciation were also given to others
who participated.
John Van Belle accepted the proclamation read by Mayor Berndt
declaring July 10 -16, 1994 as Habitat for Humanity Week.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON CASCADE VILLA ANNEXATION (SEE ORDINANCE
ANNEXING PROPERTY)
This being the time set for the public hearing, Bruce Benson,
Associate Planner, briefly summarized the staff report
concerning this annexation request. Mayor Berndt opened the
public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. There
being no one, she closed the public hearing. Ordinance No.
94 -32 having been read by title, it was MOVED BY BUCHANAN,
SECONDED BY SIMS, TO PASS THE ORDINANCE. The motion
carried by a unanimous roll call vote; Brado absent.
ORDINANCE NO. 94 - 32, AN ORDINANCE annexing property to
the City of Yakima and zoning said property. (Cascade Villa
Annexation)
8. PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION ON
1/
REZONE OF PROPERTY IN VICINITY OF NORTH 61ST AVENUE THROUGH
NORTH 64TH AVENUE AND SUMMITVIEW, REQUESTED BY D. HUNTER
This being the time set for a public meeting, Bruce Benson,
Associate Planner, reported the applicant, D. Loyd Hunter,
has submitted a request to rezone approximately 6.1 acres of
2
337: •
JULY " ,5, 1994
vacant land located., north of,•,..S.ummitview Avenue, west of
Westminster Presbyterian Church: and east of North 63rd
Avenue. The southernmost 3.1 acres, fronting along
Summitview Avenue, would be rezoned B -2, Local Business, and
the remaining three acres would be rezoned R -2, Two - Family
Residential. There was a public hearing held before the
I/ Hearing Examiner on March 24, 1994 where he recommended
denial of the project. Mr. Benson stated the staff
recommendation includes approval of the rezone and suggests
Council set a date to hold its own public hearing on this
matter.
At Council Member Barnett's request, Mr. Benson explained
there is a 60 -foot right -of -way presently available at this
Summitview Avenue location. Currently, the street is
constructed as four equal -lane widths of 12.5 feet; however,
the proposal includes two outside lanes being 12.25 feet, two
interior lanes being 10 feet, and would add a 10 -foot center
turn lane. If the proposal was accepted and implemented, the
street would be wider than it is now and well within the
existing right -of -way.
Mayor Berndt explained no new testimony may be entered since
this is a public meeting, as opposed to a public hearing.
Mr. Paolella further outlined the parameters of allowable
evidence pursuant to City ordinance as it relates to this
public meeting. He explained Council will have to decide
whether to affirm or reject the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation. If their decision is to reject it, then a
public hearing would need to be scheduled in the future. To
avoid potentially duplicating evidence and information that
might come if Council does decide to hold its own public
hearing, Mr. Paolella suggested Council first consider the
issue of whether or not to even hold a public hearing. If
Council decides to hold one, any new information, facts, or
evidence that was not presented to the Hearing Examiner could
then be submitted at that public hearing. Since staff and
the proponents have requested a public hearing be held, they
will be provided opportunity during this public meeting to
present arguments specifying reasons why a public hearing
should be held and why there was not ample opportunity to
present evidence earlier before the Hearing Examiner. Then
anyone else will be provided the same opportunity to present
their arguments. All arguments must be based on existing
I/ evidence of record; no new facts will be allowed.
Additionally, if the argument is given that there is new
evidence, only a statement of what the general nature is of
that evidence should be made and not the detail of that
evidence.
There was a consensus among Council members to proceed with
arguments as to whether Council should schedule a public
hearing. Mayor Berndt asked Glenn Valenzuela, Director of
3
338
JULY 5, 1994
Community and Economic Development, to present staff's
reasons for their recommendation.
Mr. Valenzuela explained this application represents a public
policy issue of whether commercial development should be
limited to one area or allowed to encroach further west and
further east into neighborhoods and community areas. He
suggested Council listen to City residents and the applicant,
weigh the issues they hear and verbally indicate their
1/
decision, which would not only provide a clearer direction to
staff, but would also provide an indication to the citizens
of this community as to how they see their neighborhood
growing. Council Member Barnett pointed out the policy
issues that Mr. Valenzuela referenced are defined in the
Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO) in the Optimum Land
Use section. Mr. Valenzuela acknowledged the fact that they
are defined, but explained there are more and more
applications from the community asking for rezones. There
was continued discussion concerning definitive issues
relating to this rezone request as included in the
Metropolitan Yakima Comprehensive Urban Area Plan, which is
currently being developed.
At this time Mayor Berndt provided opportunity for the
applicant to explain why a public hearing would be more
appropriate.
D. Loyd Hunter, applicant, explained he has found many errors
in the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, who established
reasons for approval, but still denied the request.
Mr. Hunter then submitted a brief to Council
specifically addressing the issue of proving public need for
additional B -2 zoned property. Again he stated the Hearing
Examiner's conclusion is in error and does not make
appropriate findings from the evidence. The decision seems
to try to force a policy decision, particularly where all
commercial development needs to be planned at busy
intersections. Mr. Paolella provided explanation to Council
Member Beauchamp's question regarding whether Council's
determination would be final, subject to court appeal. It
was MOVED BY BEAUCHAMP, SECONDED BY BERGER, TO SET A
PUBLIC HEARING FOR AUGUST 9, 1994. Assistant City
Manager Rice explained August 9, 1994 would be the earliest
date for a hearing and still meet all the notice
requirements.
Mayor Berndt asked if anyone else would like to speak to the
issue of whether or not to hold a public hearing.
Linda Martin, 212 North 63rd Avenue, felt there has already
been ample time and energy and money spent on this issue with
two public hearings already held. She felt Mr. Lamb was fair
and diligently considered all facts presented.
4
JULY 5; 3 3 9
Russell Thomas, 214 North Lisa Lane, asked if the signed
petitions would still'be valid'` i'f''a public hearing is held.
City Attorney Paolella indicated the hearing would be
de novo; however, all existing evidence could be re- submitted
at the public hearing.
I/ Bill Huibregtse, 2800 Summitview Avenue, explained the three
areas where they believe the Hearing Examiner's decision is
in error and should be addressed at a public hearing. One of
those areas is where the developer must prove a public need
for the development. During the public hearing before the
Hearing Examiner, Mr. Hunter submitted several letters from
knowledgeable professional real estate people in the Yakima
area; several of those professionals testified at the
hearings, but their testimony was considered not sufficient
by the Hearing Examiner to show public need. Mr. Huibregtse
compared another recent development rezone hearing, that
being the Yakima Federal at 72nd and Tieton, where the
Hearing Examiner's decision specifically points to
professional testimony in favor of public need and was
determined to be sufficient in that case. That same real
estate developer testified and submitted a letter on behalf
of Mr. Hunter's development. Mr. Huibregtse stated he
disagreed where one opinion is sufficient for one rezone, yet
several opinions of knowledgeable real estate professionals
were determined not to be a significant showing of public
need. He believes the Hearing Examiner also erred in his
decision regarding the issue of neighborhood opposition.
There certainly is neighborhood opposition and the Hearing
record shows that, but the Hearing Examiner's record does not
show clearly that many of the adjacent property owners to
this development were at the hearing or submitted letters in
favor of the development proposal. The Hearing Examiner's
decision characterizes neighborhood opinion as being nearly
totally against the proposal and that's not the case.
Council Member Berger asked if this information would be more
appropriate to the hearing itself. Mayor Berndt asked
Mr. Huibregtse why he thought there is a need for a public
hearing and whether he had any new information.
Mr. Huibregtse stated they did. The other issue is one of
traffic. There was a lot of discussion at both public
hearings regarding traffic and the impacts of this
development proposal on Summitview Avenue. Specifically, the
issue of lane width was discussed at some length. One of the
1/ items that was requested by the Hearing Examiner of staff was
to measure other street locations in Yakima and arterials
that may have similar widths. His decision does not indicate
that was done and does not include that information.
Council Barnett explained he has observed that the proponents
of the project appear to live quite some distance from the
project. He asked if the applicant has more names than what
was already submitted. Mr. Huibregtse stated they think
5
340
JULY 5, 1994
during a public hearing that there could be new evidence
submitted both for and against the development proposal.
They think the Hearing Examiner's decision does not outline
clearly where that opposition is from and where the support
is from. Mr. Huibregtse explained they have exhibits that
would clearly show the location of those. Council Member
Barnett asked Mr. Huibregtse if one of the areas of new
evidence relates to the opposition or non - opposition of the
neighborhood. Mr. Huibregtse explained they are trying to
I/
make the point that the Hearing Examiner's characterization
of neighborhood support or opposition is not clearly
reflected in his decision. Council Member Barnett stated the
Hearing Examiner may have written a sentence in the way
described, but he emphasized that all the evidence will be
considered. New evidence doesn't necessarily mean that the
Hearing Examiner wrote a sentence; new evidence means the
applicant is going to be able to submit more people who are
in favor of this project.
Mayor Berndt asked if anyone else wanted to speak regarding
the public hearing versus the public meeting process.
Bill Hordan, Hordan Planning Services, stated the Hearing
Examiner has erred because he wrote his decision for denial
by selectively choosing seven items out of the 50 -page
Comprehensive Plan to base his decision on. Although the
Hearing Examiner states in his conclusion that the project
does not meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, he doesn't
address the criteria as listed in the UAZO.
Council Member Barnett asked Mr. Hordan to enumerate the list
of criteria. Mr. Hordan explained some of those would be to
encourage development in areas where adequate public
services, including water and sewer, police and fire
protection, roads and schools, can be provided; limiting
development in areas where those facilities are not provided;
encouraging innovative site design; providing for adequate
privacy, light, air and view; promoting development within
the Yakima Urban Area that is cost effective to build and
maintain; protecting existing land uses and property values
from adverse impacts on adjoining developments; and reducing
traffic danger and congestion on roads and highways. He
again stated that those were not taken into consideration
when the Hearing Examiner wrote his decision. Mr. Hordan
referenced the brief that specifically explains the
1/
neighbors' concerns and the mitigating measures taken to deal
with their concerns; Mr. Hordan further explained all this
information was provided to the Hearing Examiner. It is not
new information; however, the Hearing Examiner did not
consider them in his recommendation. Council Member Barnett
asked where Criteria No. 4 is located. Mr. Hordan explained
it is in the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. There are seven
criteria.
6
341
JULY 5,. 1994
Ow
Mayor Berndt again stated the is on whether there is
reason to have or not'have a pibli`c hearing.
Frank Devine, Shamrock Drive, felt there should be a public
I/ hearing scheduled due to the amount of controversy.
Mrs. Duane Dozier, 104 Shamrock Drive, stated her opposition
to scheduling a public hearing because there have been two
previous hearings, and there has been a huge turnout by
people in opposition to this rezone. The Business Zone
should stop at the church property. She feels the Hearing
Examiner made a correct decision and urged Council to vote
against the rezone. ,
Larry Mathews, 805 South 17th Avenue, referred to the
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) document
which sets forth certain policies and is used when the City
applies for block grants. It is time to make a decision
based on established policies, and it should show where
diversity and the things Mr. Hunter is proposing fit into
those established comprehensive strategies.
John Tim, a real estate appraiser, stated a decision should
be made by more than the Hearing Examiner. This issue needs
the perspective of the City Council to decide the issue. It
would be better for the City of Yakima; a public hearing is
necessary.
Larry Byrne, 109 Shamrock Drive, stated enough time has been
spent on public hearings, and the Council should be able to
decide with the evidence presently available. The City
should be for the citizens not just for the developers.
Mayor Berndt asked if there was any further debate among
Council members. Council Member Barnett stated he was going
to vote against the motion. Understanding the arguments on
both sides, he explained the fact is, a group of citizens
have testified; there is adequate information in the file to
I/ show those who are in favor and those who are opposed to the
project. The citizens have a limited time that they are able
to attend another hearing; there have been at least
two public hearings on this issue. The policy issues have
been established by the City Council and the Yakima Urban
Area Zoning Ordinance and Urban Area Plan. The Council
should be able to make a determination from available
evidence. They don't necessarily have to follow the actual
verbiage of the Hearing Examiner to make a decision.
7
342
JULY 5, 1994
Council Member Beauchamp stated there may be additional,
pertinent evidence to come; it is not out of the question to
hold a public hearing before the Council as proposed. The
question was called for a vote on the motion. The
motion failed by a 3 -3 voice vote; Buchanan, Sims, and
Barnett voting nay; Brado absent. The public meeting
continued.
Council Member Barnett questioned whether the brief
Mr. Hunter referred to earlier would be proper to admit.
I/
City Attorney Paolella stated that determination could not be
made until he reviewed it. There was a consensus among
Council members to recess for a short time for the purpose of
enabling Mr. Paolella to review the document. Mr. Paolella
also explained that no new evidence can be submitted during
the remainder of this public meeting.
The meeting recessed at 3:20 p.m. The public meeting resumed at
3:35 p.m.
Mayor Berndt announced that Agenda Items Nos. 10 and 11 are
postponed until the July 19, 1994 Business Meeting, unless anyone
has any objection. There was no objection made.
Bruce Benson again presented a brief overview of the rezone
request of this westside, six -acre project. The rear three
acres are proposed as an R -2 development with 13. new lots.
The front of the property is proposed to go B -2 with three
businesses proposed. With the aid of a site plan map,
Mr. Benson indicated the type of business is conjectural as
being a restaurant, a bank, and perhaps a fast food outlet,
but as to what the use would be, it has not been specified.
All of the land uses would be exiting directly onto
Summitview Avenue from one point and a new center turn lane
would be established, similar to the existing turn lane at
56th Avenue through to the end of the Shopko project.
With regard to the applicant's statements concerning the
method of computing the carrying capacity on Summitview
Avenue by adding a center turn lane, Council Member Barnett
asked if this issue was reviewed by Traffic Engineering.
Mr. Benson recalled the discussion at the time of the staff
report. Staff did not concur with the traffic figures that
were submitted by the applicant, but developed an independent
formula based upon proposed uses. It was found that all of
the uses, including the addition of this project, would not
overtax Summitview Avenue; it is not yet at its carrying
capacity. Council Member Barnett requested a City of Yakima
Transportation Plan to reference. He questioned how a new
center lane on Summitview Avenue could increase the carrying
capacity from 24,000 cars a day to 30,000.
8
343
JULY 5, 1994
Mayor Berndt opened the public meeting and requested any
proponents of the proposed project who wished to argue why
they agree or disagree with the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation, the staff recommendation, or any information
I/ already submitted. As previously stated, there will be no
new information allowed.
Mr. Hunter explained his position and asked if his brief
could be submitted at this time. Mr. Paolella explained the
information contained in Mr. Hunter's brief appears to be a
summary of evidence that was already presented and is a legal
argument providing reasons why the Hearing Examiner was in
error. From that standpoint, the brief would seem to be
appropriate to accept. Referring to Exhibits 5 and 6,
letters dated late June, 1994, and other letters provided
Council, City Attorney Paolella explained the appropriateness
of the correspondence because they essentially argue either
in favor or against the rezone based upon existing
information earlier presented to the Hearing Examiner.
Mr. Paolella questioned whether the letters from experienced
commercial realtors are new information. Mr. Hunter
explained the information within those letters were there
previously. Since there is not enough time to analyze it,
Mr. Paolella suggested Council conditionally admit borderline
new information subject to the possibility that it may be
determined not allowable once it is reviewed. Council Member
Barnett stated he would like to see it conditionally
admitted. Assistant City Manager Rice referred to additional
correspondence received in the last couple days that Council
has not seen either, but will also be conditionally admitted.
From a fairness standpoint, Mr. Hunter explained he has not
contacted any Council member with regard to this issue.
After providing personal background information regarding his
career as a registered professional engineer and retirement
goals to accomplish the development of this project,
Mr. Hunter encouraged Council to approve his request based on
the facts of the hearing, the Zoning Ordinance, and the
Comprehensive Plan along with their analysis.
Mayor Berndt explained the format to be followed during this
meeting -- proponents first, opponents second, and then
rebuttal from both sides.
I/ Mr. Hunter referred to the site plan, as displayed with
charts, to visualize and address some of the features of the
project. He explained over eight generations of revisions
have evolved, and he has provided information to neighbors to
help them understand the project. The plan incorporates
their ideas and recognizes and mitigates their concerns.
There will be a single entrance and exit from the project
onto Summitview Avenue which will be improved to three lanes.
Mr. Hunter then explained various other changes incorporated
into the design to alleviate neighborhood concerns.
9
34
JULY 5, 1994
Mr. Hunter emphasized the issue that he had received no
inquiries from anyone who wanted a family home built at this
location. He distributed a small -scale plan of the proposed
development to Council and described the design layout. He
stated the Westminster Presbyterian Church has approved the
plan. In the proposed R -2 zone, they are proposing a senior
citizen development. The proposed B -2 zone does not include
a service station, a carwash, or a convenience store because
those uses would not be compatible with the neighborhood.
Council Member Berger stated that a convenience store has
been mentioned as not being compatible, but is not any less
compatible than a fast food outlet.
Council Member Barnett described this as a crucial area and
stated that once the property is zoned B -2, there are many
uses that a future landowner could put into the area other
than those Mr. Hunter excluded.
Responding to a question from Mayor Berndt about limiting
future uses, City Attorney Paolella explained that would
depend on how the ultimate decision is written and presented.
Generally speaking, once the property is rezoned anything
that would be allowed in that zoning is permissible.
Mr. Hunter stated that Council Member Barnett's point was a
good one, and he has had quite a few inquiries on
restaurants; however, fast food is not being considered and
he absolutely does not intend to put in a fast food
establishment. Mr. Hunter referred to the possibility of
drawing up a concomitant agreement or other document to make
sure the uses are limited. Referencing exhibits contained in
the brief, Mr. Hunter also stated he has talked with various
real estate experts to determine what is the best use of this
land; they said the front part of the land is not desirable
residential land.
Beginning with Exhibit #1, Mr. Hunter presented a summary of
his brief and answered questions from Council members. He
explained he has been before the Hearing Examiner on two
occasions, submitting new applications each time, each
resulting in a denial. Mr. Hunter stated the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation appears to try to force policy
decisions rather than to render a fair recommendation, and he
feels he is caught in the middle.
Council Member Barnett questioned Mr. Hunter regarding the
meaning of the term convenience center mentioned in his
application as it relates to public need. This is a B -2 type
I/
issue and convenience centers are considered mall -type
developments, similar to the Chalet Mall or the Lincoln
Plaza. Explaining the correlation, Mr. Hunter indicated the
activities are very similar to those of large convenience
centers. Although it is a nonconforming area, the activity
isn't adverse, but is compatible.
10
345
JULY .. 5, 1994
Mr. Hunter introduced Mr. Huibregtse who then presented
information regarding traffic. The important issues and the
merits of this development, public need and land use
compatibility issues, have been clouded by the traffic issues
in both of the previous public hearings. For a point of
clarification, Mr. Huibregtse explained the various traffic
projections that would be generated by the B -2 and R -2
proposal, necessitating a left turn lane on Summitview Avenue
across the frontage of the property. The projections are
anywhere from 500 trips per day up to 7,000 trips per day.
There was discussion concerning mitigating the neighbor's
traffic concerns on Summitview Avenue and both the current
capacity and future projections are well within the street's
capacity to handle the amount of traffic. Then there was
discussion concerning the concept of lane width. This
development's proposal would widen Summitview Avenue across
the frontage of the property to accommodate five lanes of
traffic. Currently, Summitview Avenue is 50 feet wide, curb
to curb. The proposal is to widen it to 54 1/2 feet. This
is essentially the same widening that occurred in front of
the Shopko development just immediately to the east.
Mr. Huibregtse explained testimony previously provided at the
public hearing included the width to be provided by this
development proposal being comparable to what's in front of
Shopko and at several other locations in Yakima. He
concluded his presentation by emphasizing that traffic
related issues have been mitigated by the development
proposal and he stressed the importance of land use
compatibility at this. location..
Mr. Hunter continued to summarize his brief. He disagreed
with the Hearing Examiner's indication that the best way to
lay out commercial development is to establish it around
major intersections. His project planning experience has
been that there is more than one satisfactory solution to a
layout problem and there is seldom exactly the same factors
to consider in each case. The factors must be considered and
he doesn't believe the City should have a definite policy.
Commercial development along major arterials and how it's
developed is an issue that should be dealt with on the merits
of a case by case basis. The issue in this case is whether
to allow an existing LCC zone to expand with compatible
commercial facilities in a B -2 zone located along a busy
arterial highway when the commercial center is at capacity
and all of the utilities and facilities needed are there and
the traffic concerns have been mitigated. The proposed R -2
zoning, the Senior Citizen Housing, would act as a buffer
between the proposed commercial development and the
residential area and would be a good place for Senior
Citizens to live because the property is close to shopping
and is along a bus route. The proposed B -2 property is not
desirable residential property because most people don't want
to live next to a major arterial: when there are other more
11
3 4
JULY 5, 1994
desirable areas available. Another factor to consider is
that the amount of traffic will substantially increase in the
future. The builders and realtors who testified in their
letters have stated the property isn't desirable residential
land. This proposed development will be beneficial to the
City and to the community. Mr. Hunter stated he believes
this project will increase the value of the surrounding
property. Also, business and development- oriented
individuals have expressed substantial support for the
project. It appears this testimony has been given very
little consideration. Mr. Hunter explained more merit should
be given to the testimony of those who are the most qualified
to explain what drives the market and this deserves more
analysis than what it received in the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation. The existing planning policy is of a
theoretical nature and this issue should be further
considered.
Council Member Barnett stated Council is still faced with ..a
major policy issue which is related to commercial development
along arterials and whether or not it should be limited to
controlled access points. The idea of the possibility of
introducing strip developments has become a major issue. It
is addressed more fully in the draft Metropolitan Plan and is
far more restrictive than the present plan. Council
Member Barnett explained the way he reads the policy is that
commercial development along arterials should provide access
from controlled access points, and the problems come in when
we start deviating from policy. Mr. Hunter responded by
explaining things change and every situation is not the same.
The proposed development has been determined to not be a
strip zone and would add continuity. Mayor Berndt explained
the Hearing Examiner refers to the fact that it is not strip
zoning because of the depth of the property. She questioned
whether the business portion, in a sense, is not really a
strip zone.
At the request of Council Member Beauchamp, there was
discussion as to the location, proximity, and the type of
development surrounding the proposed project. Mr. Hunter
added that the property is physically suited for both
commercial and residential uses.
Mr. Hunter introduced Bill Hordan who enumerated policies and
goals included in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan in
1/
support of the rezone request. He stated the Hearing
Examiner's findings actually support the proposal instead of
his recommendation for denial. Mr. Hordan explained this
proposal: (1) encourages development, and the addition of
new B -2 property will provide employment opportunities and
convenient shopping for those in the surrounding area; (2)
promotes the use of public transit particularly for senior
citizens; (3) is within walking distance to a major shopping
center; (4) helps extend public water and sewer through the
12
347
JULY 5, 1994
area; (5) incorporates a mixture of housing types and
densities; and (6)' proposes ''tb extend into an existing
regional center instead of establishing a need for a new
center. The appropriate infrastructure is in place to
construct this project. If approved, this project would
reasonably place both housing and commercial activities in
the community. In response to Council Member Barnett's
question, Mr. Hordan explained controlled access is a very
good idea. Currently there are two lanes going east and two
lanes going west. The developer is proposing to put in a
center turn lane which would facilitate traffic flow. It
will be beneficial to those residents of Shamrock Lane
because they will be able to utilize the turn lane to turn
onto their street. Even with the exclusion of the three
types of businesses, Council Member Barnett expressed concern
that if the property is rezoned B -2, there is still a wide
range of businesses that could go in there that could be
detrimental to the neighborhood. When one looks at the Table
of Land Uses in the UAZO, the concern might not be so much
with what Mr. Hunter is proposing, but rather what some
future land owner could put in. Mr. Hordan recognized the
issues raised by Council Member Barnett, but explained many
are not permitted uses. Mr. Hordan stated the developer
indicated he would agree to a concomitant agreement that
could include a list of compatible uses to ensure some
stability. There was continued discussion concerning
anticipated signage for the project. Mr. Hordan concluded
his presentation by explaining the proposal is a logical
extension of an existing commercial center by incorporating
undeveloped land and using the church as a buffer. He
expressed concern because more commercial property is needed.
Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan is the means for making
sound land use decisions; the intent of the plan is to define
the process, not the end product. There was continued
discussion concerning GMA compliance as it relates to this
rezone application. There was additional discussion
concerning restrictive covenants, concomitant agreements, and
their enforceability. Mr. Hunter stated he would be willing
to exclude all the uses previously discussed and would
restrict development to a restaurant.
At this time Mayor Berndt asked if there was anyone present
wishing to speak to the issue.
Don Holloway, 112 North Shamrock Drive West which is directly
across the street from the proposed development, spoke
against the project because he believes his property value
will decrease. He agreed with the Hearing Examiner's
decision. He requested the letters he had sent in and the
petitions already submitted be part of the record. Perhaps
B -1 zoning would work better or perhaps R -2, but he
definitely is opposed to B -2 zoning.
13
343
JULY 5, 1994
Mary Jane Hovis, 6212 Summitview, stated the entrance to the
proposed development will be directly across the street from
her driveway. It will definitely affect her entrance and
exit from her residence. Addressing the statement that no
one would be interested in building on that land with an R -1
use, Ms. Hovis referred to a new home recently built and also
stated that at least five people inquired about vacant
property adjacent to her property to build on. She
1/
questioned whether the unavailability of Mr. Hunter's
property for residential development could be why he has
received no inquiries. Pertaining to whether R -2 would be
acceptable development on the whole lot, Ms. Hovis indicated
that would be more acceptable than even a B -1; however, R -1
would be her preference. She expressed concern about the
proposed lane widths on Summitview Avenue. Summitview School
students primarily walk to school and there is already a
problem with traffic and pedestrians crossing. Narrowing
those lanes by two feet will cause an even bigger problem.
She explained her children have experienced being blown by
the sidewind of large trucks and narrowing the lane width
will only put traffic closer to the sidewalks. She asked
Mr. Hunter if he were to develop this and put a restaurant on
it, what kind of restaurant would it be. If the proposed
restaurant is open 24 hours a day, she didn't feel that would
be a compatible land use with a residential neighborhood.
She also expressed concern about future development if the
property is rezoned B -2. She didn't think the Westminster
Presbyterian Church should be considered part of an existing
commercial development and therefore saying it would be
extending a commercial development. The church and the
Chalet Dental Clinic have traditionally been used as a buffer
zone between the existing commercial development and the
residential area. The subject property is bordered on every
side, except the church side, by residential homes.
Russell Thomas, 214 N. Lisa Lane, stated the subject property
used to have houses on it. They were removed after
Mr. Hunter bought it. He read a letter from Maurice and
Sandy Block, who are neighbors at 208 North 63rd Avenue, in
opposition to the proposed rezone. They requested the
property remain R -1 and requested an objective decision be
made based on the merits and facts of the negative issues and
concerns of traffic, noise, odor, lights, airborne trash,
light, compatibility, and safety. Compatibility and public
need for this proposed zoning change have not been
1/
demonstrated. Referencing the Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance as it directs
planning and land use, this rezone fails to maintain those
objectives. They believe 63rd Avenue would be degraded. The
traffic patterns will follow the path of least resistance,
which will create more traffic on 63rd Avenue. The left hand
turn lane will not solve the problem. This landuse is not
compatible with existing landuses. They suggested the R -1
zoning remain because it serves as a buffer, but if it
14
349
JULY 5, 1994
must be rezoned they would consider R -2. Residential houses
have been built along Summitview Avenue. The needs of the
existing, well established neighborhood should be considered
instead of the needs of a limited few. After two public
hearings on this issue, they urged Council to adopt the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny the rezone.
Mr. Thomas commented about noise that would be generated.
Lights from the development would throw an aura of lighting,
especially on those who live on Shamrock. The developer's
commitment is lacking and once the property is rezoned, the
new owners could bring in any B -2 use they wanted.
Bob Martin, 212 North 63rd Avenue, pointed out general
geographic areas on the map. He explained he bought his
house to raise his family and opposes the rezone. He read a
letter urging the property retain its R -1 zoning because the
proposed development is not compatible with the neighborhood,
the vast majority being single family dwellings.
Linda Martin, 212 North 63rd Avenue, stated she is opposed to
the rezone. The increased traffic will use 63rd Avenue as an
alternate route. She expressed concern about the safety at
the school crosswalk at the bottom of the hill at 65th and
Summitview Avenue since the neighborhood is not set up to
handle this. She also explained that as a neighborhood they
feel extremely uncomfortable with the lack of binding
commitment regarding the specific proposed use of
Mr. Hunter's land and requested this issue be addressed.
Larry Byrne, 109 North : ,Shamrock , Drive West, expressed concern
that litter will increase with this type of development. He
urged it be left R -1 and expressed concern about the proposed
lane widths.
Roberta Byrne, 109 North Shamrock Drive West, spoke against
the rezone. She would prefer the property remain R -1. Her
main concern is traffic safety and the problem will increase
even more with the proposed development.
Lorna Walker, 306 North 61st Avenue, described the key issue
for Council to consider is what is the desired nature of the
neighborhood and how will it be 20 or 30 years from now.
Studies should be done to make sure this community remains
sound and healthy on a long term basis. She expressed
concern about traffic that will increase as the area grows,
particularly with this project. The project should be
aesthetically pleasing because the ones that aren't are the
ones that don't last long. It should be a healthy community
and if it is going to be a business community, it should be
an attractive, sound, healthy business community and if it is
going to be a residential community, it should be attractive
and healthy. She asked if there is a provision for a traffic
signal along with the left turn lane. As a community she
emphasized the need to look very carefully at safety, sound
15
350
JULY 5, 1994
economics, clean air, and whether the needs of the community
are being met. She asked who enforces a conditional rezone.
Ray Paolella explained a conditional rezone is self enforcing
because the rezone is not operative until all conditions are
satisfied. This type of rezone will not work in this
situation. Mayor Berndt commented that if the property were
to remain R - 1, there would be a possibility of more than 24
housing units in there. There would still be a traffic
issue; it is because of the rapid growth.
Bob Nehl, 115 Shamrock Drive, spoke against the project and
commented that a public need must be shown for this project.
He also expressed concern about the amount of traffic
especially during peak hours.
Bob McAdam, 214 North 63rd, spoke in opposition to the B -2
zoning request because it cannot be guaranteed that other B -2
uses can be limited. It should remain R -1. The traffic will
continue to increase, and he expressed concern about traffic
safety, particularly on the corner on 63rd; there is a need
to consider improvements to 63rd Avenue.
Bill Koontz, 104 North 77th Avenue, spoke in favor of the
rezone and requested Council reconsider the Hearing
Examiner's decision. There is a need for this development
because the area is growing. He referred to a letter
indicating a tremendous amount of people in favor of this
development. Council Member Barnett stated there is a
petition that was received indicating people in favor of the
project, but they are not in the immediate area impacted by
this development. Mr. Koontz stated that 77th is only half a
mile from the proposed project, and he considers this area
his neighborhood.
Jim Bennett, 302 North 61st Avenue, stated he is in favor of
the project. Mr. Hunter revised his site plan to alleviate
his concern that people could look into his backyard. The
traffic safety issues will be there no matter what type of
development goes,in at this location.
Martin Waarvick, 6315 Summitview Avenue, spoke in favor of
the project. He thought the project would be a good one,
particularly the Senior Citizen housing. The excess traffic
concerns expressed by neighbors are real; however, that will
keep increasing due to expansion to the west. A restaurant
and a bank are needed in this area. Council Member Beauchamp
expressed concern about the difficulty the people who will be
I/
entering or leaving the proposed project will experience.
Assistant City Manager Rice read a letter from William B.
Sheppard, 221 North 63rd Avenue, opposing the rezone request
because the proposed development is not needed or wanted; the
proposed businesses for the development is poorly thought
out; the traffic is very congested; and his view would be
16
351
JULY 5, 1994
ruined. The area would be unsafe for children to play and
there would be increased noise and litter.
Mayor Berndt asked staff whether a traffic light will be
installed at 65th Avenue and Summitview Avenue. David
Russell, Street and Traffic Operations Manager, stated there
isn't one currently proposed.
The meeting recessed at 6:25 p.m. and resumed at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Berndt stated that a number of Council members had dinner
together with the City Attorney. They did not discuss anything of
consequence regarding this request.
Mayor Berndt asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Frank Devine, 3 North Shamrock Drive, explained he is in
favor of the project, especially since there is a provision
for a turn lane on Summitview onto Shamrock Drive. He would
rather see this project than another not -so- favorable
project. The traffic will increase whether this project goes
in or not. Mr. Devine stated he liked the types of
businesses proposed for this project, the landscaping that is
planned, along with other features of the proposal. The
issue at hand is growth and it is something we all have to
live with. Mr. Hunter's project seems feasible and he
suggested a concomitant agreement be made.
Dave Alberts, 112 East Shamrock, spoke in opposition to the
project because he doesn't feel there is a need for the
businesses. He also expressed concern about traffic and
safety.
Duane Dozier, 104 Shamrock Drive, spoke against the project
because he feels there is no public need for another complex.
He stated there are a variety of restaurants and there should
be a buffer zone between R -1 and B -2 zoning.
Lorna Walker disagreed that the church and its parking lot
has been suggested to be considered an extension of the
existing commercial development. Because the neighbors value
the church in their neighborhood, she expressed concern that
an attempt would be considered to incorporate it into a
commercial situation. She also expressed concern for traffic
safety.
Mayor Berndt asked if the proponent had anything further to
say.
Mr. Hordan referred to page 10 of the brief concerning the
adequacy of public facilities. Referencing the compatibility
of the proposed zone change and associated uses with
neighboring land uses, Mr. Hunter, with the use of charts,
responded to the Hearing Examiner's statement concerning the
universal opposition to the B -2 proposed zone change. To
17
352
JULY 5, 1994
provide a sense of perspective, he explained those closest to
the proposed development actually support the project. There
are signed petitions and letters sent in representing those
who are not objecting to the proposal. There are R -3, B -1,
and R -2 zoning prevalent in this area that seem compatible.
He feels those people's opinions who live outside the one
block radius should also be included because they have a
common need. The concerns of odors, trash, or noise can't be
blamed on this proposal. There hasn't been a fast food
business proposed for this property for quite some time, or
any use with a drive through window. Mr. Hunter addressed
the issue of lights. The lighting presently there are high -
pressure sodium lights and are much brighter than any lights
that would be installed in the proposal. Mr. Hunter stated
that traffic is a real concern, but his proposal didn't
create that. Mr. Hordan again reviewed the compatibility and
zone change issue. It appears from testimony that
compatibility is one of the major issues. What is compatible
for one person may not be compatible for another, and this is
definitely the case with this proposal. He requested Council
consider the overall compatibility of this project with the
neighborhood. Mr. Hordan started to read the definition of
neighbors and neighborhoods. City Attorney Paolella
determined it to be new information and stated it is not
admissible. Mr. Hordan continued his argument by pointing
out the differences in neighbors and neighborhoods. However,
once neighbors' concerns have been mitigated, then the
neighborhood needs have to take precedent, which may outweigh
the needs of neighbors. Larger neighborhoods is what the
Comprehensive Plan takes into consideration when it deals
with compatibility. Mr. Hordan further stated that the
developer has listened to the immediate neighbors, mitigated
their concerns, and now seeks approval by the neighborhood as
a whole. Mr. Hordan indicated this proposal would be a
logical extension of the LCC because Mr. Hunter has followed
the criteria for establishing compatibility with the
neighbors and the neighborhood, and he has taken the
neighbors suggestions and incorporated them into the project
proposal. To mitigate traffic concerns, he has agreed to
install the center turn lane and has agreed to a single
approach onto Summitview Avenue. To limit uses to those that
are compatible with surrounding neighbors, he has agreed to
establish residential uses along the northern portions of the
property. To buffer the commercial uses from the residential
uses to the south, he has agreed to make landscaping changes,
has eliminated some double - fronted lots from the original
proposal, and has agreed to build single story duplexes on
the perimeter of the R -2. Mr. Hunter has added mutually
acceptable gate locations along the east boundary thereby
providing an emergency entrance to the property and has added
pedestrian and bicycles entrances. He has also modified the
R -2 to a Senior Citizen development project.
18
353
JULY ; 5 1 1994
Bill Huibregtse addressed some of the comments concerning
traffic. Most of 'those concerns are emotionally driven
perceptions of traffic as they relate to this development.
There hasn't been any professional testimony from opponents
to the project with regard to numbers of cars or traffic
movements other than perceptions that might occur with the
development. Everyone realizes the traffic concerns on
Summitview Avenue are a problem to many of the residents
today. These are just frustrations with today's conditions,
and they are not particular to the development proposal.
Another concern voiced from 63rd Avenue residents about
additional traffic coming through, 63rd is a public street
and other traffic using the area is also entitled to use this
street. If it is such an extreme problem as has been
suggested by some, perhaps a cul de sac proposal should be
considered so it doesn't access Summitview Avenue any longer
and would eliminate the problem. Council Member Berger
questioned the proposed joint access by residents and
businesses causing a bottleneck. Mr. Huibregtse responded by
referencing the perception of time when people say they wait
five and ten minutes when it is actually much less than that.
Specifically addressing the mixing of the business and
residential access, he commented that it is really an
outgrowth of the hearing process because the residents
thought none of the traffic should use 61st or 63rd to access
or exit the development. Council Member Beauchamp asked
since many have spoken about traffic safety, has there been
any discussion about a stop light as a mitigated circumstance
that would be activated by use. Mr. Huibregtse stated none
is planned. However, he believes there are some traffic
lights proposed by the County to help the situation west of
the development. Mayor Berndt stated a light is needed at
65th more than at this particular project because of the
school crossing; it is on the city /county border and 66th may
be a potential location as well.
Mr. Hunter stated he had offered to put in a caution light if
that would help and would be receptive to any comments.
There was additional discussion concerning the proposed
center turn lane which would help the flow of traffic and be
beneficial for Shamrock residents.
Mr. Hunter explained that after discussion with the Assistant
City Attorney during the second hearing who indicated the
possibility of drawing up a concomitant agreement to address
any conditions for a approval, he asked for a delay in the
decision until that issue can be resolved. At this time
Mr. Hunter again elaborated on the public need issue as
indicated in his brief. He asked why the citizens of Yakima
have a higher burden of proof than any other city in
Washington. If that is the case it will affect all future
commercial development. He also commented about the public
benefit derived from the project that will provide not only
homes for 24 families in the R -2 zone, but will provide 20
19
354
JULY 5, 1994
full time jobs in the proposed businesses. Also, this
facility will extend the sewer so that people on 63rd can
have access to it when they form their proper district. The
R -2 zone will provide housing for senior citizens in one of
the most convenient locations in the city. However, the
front part of the property, proposed for B -2, is really not
desirable. Ms. Hovis mentioned a very good point, but her
location has a nice view and the man she mentioned is a
couple hundred feet back with an uninhibited beautiful view
of the valley and there are other lots back there that do
too. It is not the same on this lot because there is no view
and marketwise, the front part of the property will not sell
for residential. That is the difficult part.
Bob Wardell, Wardell Architects, gave an overview of the
landscaping planned for the development, including a berm
along Summitview Avenue to hide the parked cars and the
landscaping proposed throughout the project that would
transition the busy street and the R -2 development in the
back. Although the residents will be driving through a
commercial area, the plan is designed to be a pleasant,
easily defined area. The retail area would probably be a
connected building with a courtyard in the center with some
plantings, and parking around the building depending on what
the actual business parking requirements are. There will be
a planted hedge buffer between and around the R -2 and the B -2
areas. There will be low buildings that are compatible in
scale with the residential environment. He encouraged
Council to work out some kind of a legal arrangement and to
approve the rezone request. There was additional discussion
about how the property could be developed if left R -1.
Mr. Hunter again requested a postponement of the decision
until the attorneys discuss the matter of what might be
developed there to offset some of the adverse B -2 uses.
Larry Berndt, 109 Shamrock Drive West, addressing the comment
from Mr. Hunter that the property is not desirable
residential property, described previous development of the
property and explained there used to be a view at the
property. He also asked whether there is any possibility
that the road could be developed on 61st at some point in the
future.
Mr. Huibregtse suggested the concomitant agreement list
allowable uses as opposed to nonpermitted uses. Council
1/
Member Buchanan commented about the City's reluctance to
enter into a concomitant agreement because it is burdensome
for the City and requires the City to be responsible for
its enforcement. Council Member Sims asked if there was a
way to take a site and make it specific for only one or
two uses. City Attorney Paolella explained it could
20
355
JULY .,5, 1994
specifically be outlined in a. concomitant agreement, since
they are valid documents.
Mary Hovis stated that she recognizes the fact that
Mr. Hunter doesn't want to build R -1 and she doesn't want B -2
across the street from her home. She suggested the entire
development be zoned R -2.
Regarding the amount of time it took to receive a
recommendation from the Hearing Examiner, Mayor Berndt
commented about the eight -week time frame being excessive in
this particular instance. She suggested the process be
expedited and this message be conveyed to the Hearing
Examiner. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor
Berndt closed the public meeting.
There was a considerable amount of discussion among Council
members concerning their options to decide this issue. City
Attorney Paolella stated, by ordinance, the Council may
either affirm or reject the Hearing Examiner's decision and
the Council shall conduct its own public hearing if it
rejects the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. He also
stated the purpose of holding a public hearing, if the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation is rejected, would be to
more fully develop the facts and evidence in support of the
ultimate determination. Again, there was discussion among
Council members concerning options to consider. It was
MOVED BY BUCHANAN, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
RECOMMENDATION. The motion died for lack of a second.
There was continued: discussion about the public hearing
process relating to this issue. It was MOVED BY
BEAUCHAMP, SECONDED BY SIMS, TO REJECT THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION. Again, Council discussed the
public hearing process, which will allow new information to
be presented. Mayor Berndt stated the possibility of adding
a stop light; regardless of how this project goes, that light
is needed at 66th and if Mr. Hunter was previously willing to
add a caution light, perhaps a portion of that money could go
towards helping pay for the light at 66th that is in the
County. The question was called for a vote on the
motion. The motion failed on a 3 -3 tie vote; Berndt,
Beauchamp, and Sims voting aye; Brado absent.
9. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
None
10. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR REDUCTIONS IN GAMBLING TAXES ON
CARD ROOM OPERATIONS BY CARD ROOM OPERATORS
This item was rescheduled to July 19, 1994.
21
356
JULY 5, 1994
11. REPORT FROM LEGAL DEPARTMENT REGARDING REQUEST TO AMEND
TATTOO ORDINANCE
This Item was rescheduled to July 19, 1994.
*12. REPORT FROM ENGINEERING DIVISION REGARDING REQUEST FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATING TO IMPROVEMENTS TO CHALMERS, RIVERSIDE AND 18TH
STREET
The report from the Engineering Division relating to
improvements to Chalmers, Riverside and 18th Streets was
accepted and the request was approved.
13. REQUEST FROM YAKIMA CABLE TELEVISION DIVISION TO AUTHORIZE
EXEMPTION FROM HIRING FREEZE
This item was removed from the Agenda.
*14. SET DATE OF PUBLIC MEETING FOR JULY 19, 1994 TO CONSIDER
HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON SHORELINE PERMIT FOR THE
GREENWAY PATHWAY WEST
July 19, 1994 was set as the date of the public meeting to
consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for the
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit submitted by the
Yakima Greenway Foundation for the pathway west expansion.
*15. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATIONS (ADOPT STANDARD
MOTIONS A & B):
A. PERRY STREET /BROADWAY
July 5, 1994 was set as the time of a meeting with the
initiating parties who have signed a Notice of Intent to
Commence Annexation Proceedings, the initiating parties being
Stan and Patricia Drake and Ray and Camille Getsinger.
The annexation proposed by the initiating parties was
accepted by the City of Yakima and the area to be annexed was
required to assume its share of the City's existing
indebtedness and staff was directed to file a Notice of
Intent to Annex with the Yakima County Boundary Review Board.
B. PIERCE STREET /10TH AVENUE
July 5, 1994 was set as the time of a meeting with the
initiating parties who have signed a Notice of Intent to
Commence Annexation Proceedings, the initiating parties being
Rod Schultz, etal.
22
357
JULY 5, 1994
The annexation proposed by the initiating parties was
accepted by the City of Yakima and the area to be annexed was
required to assume its share of the City's existing
indebtedness and staff was directed to file a Notice of
Intent to Annex with the Yakima County Boundary Review Board.
*16. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
AND BUDGET TO RESPOND TO PROPOSED CHANGES IN SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) RULE 15(C)2 -12 PERTAINING TO
MUNICIPAL BOND ISSUES
RESOLUTION NO. R 94 - 89, A RESOLUTION of the City of
YAKIMA, Washington commenting on proposed Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15c2 -12.
*17. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NAMING PUBLIC WORKS ANNEX AS THE
DEL KARY ANNEX
RESOLUTION NO. R 94 - 90, A RESOLUTION naming the new
Public Works administration building as the "Del Kary Annex."
*18. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO CREATE WILLOW
AREA WATER LID NO. 1052 (SETS DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
AUGUST 9, 1994)
RESOLUTION NO. R 94 - 91, A RESOLUTION of intention to
create a local improvement district.
August 9, 1994 was set as the date of hearing on the proposed
improvement or objections thereto, and for determining the
method of payment of said improvement.
*19. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
INTERLOCAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF ISSAQUAH
RESOLUTION NO. R- 94 -92, A RESOLUTION authorizing the
execution of an Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing
Agreement with the City of Issaquah.
*20. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REQUESTING LEGISLATION TO CLARIFY
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTAL STATUS PERTAINING TO STATE HEALTH CARE
REFORM ACT
RESOLUTION NO. R 94 - 93, A RESOLUTION regarding self -
insurance and the local government option to self -fund health
care benefits.
*21. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF SURPLUS
POLICE CAR TO THE CITY OF TIETON
RESOLUTION NO. R 94 - 94, A RESOLUTION authorizing the
sale of a surplus police car to the City of Tieton.
23
353
JULY 5, 1994
*22. ACCEPT FIRST QUARTER 1994 VEHICLE INCIDENT REPORT
The First Quarter 1994 Vehicle Incident Report was accepted.
*23. ACCEPT 1993 PARKS & RECREATION ANNUAL REPORT
The 1993 Parks & Recreation Annual Report was accepted.
*24. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES CALLING FOR A SPECIAL
NOVEMBER 8, 1994 ELECTION AND BALLOT PROPOSITION ON THREE
SEPARATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS
A. PARKS - A PROPOSITION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY SHOULD
ISSUE ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $5,000,000, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES OF THE
CITY
ORDINANCE NO. 94 -33, AN ORDINANCE of the City of Yakima,
Washington, providing for the submission to the qualified
electors of the City at a special election to be held therein
on November 8, 1994 of the proposition of whether or not the
City should issue its general obligation bonds in the
aggregate principal amount of $5,000,000, for the purposes of
making certain improvements to the parks and recreation
facilities of the City.
B. STREETS - A PROPOSITION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY SHOULD
ISSUE ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $9,800,000, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY STREETS
ORDINANCE NO. 94 -34, AN ORDINANCE of the City of Yakima,
Washington, providing for the submission to the qualified
electors of the City at a special election to be held therein
on November 8, 1994 of the proposition of whether or not the
City should issue its general obligation bonds in the
aggregate principal amount of $9,800,000, for the purposes of
making certain improvements to City streets.
C. FIRE - A PROPOSITION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY SHOULD
ISSUE ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $3,700,000, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FACILITIES OF THE YAKIMA FIRE DEPARTMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 94 -35, AN ORDINANCE of the City of Yakima,
1/
Washington, providing for the submission to the qualified
electors of the City at a special election to be held therein
on November 8, 1994 of the proposition of whether or not the
City should issue its general obligation bonds in the
aggregate principal amount of $3,700,000, for the purposes of
making certain improvements to the facilities of the Yakima
Fire Department.
24
359
JULY 5 1994
*25. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1994 BUDGET AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS PARKS SUMMER WEEKEND RECREATIONAL
PROGRAMS /SPECIAL EVENTS (NO ACTION REQUIRED THIS MEETING)
An Ordinance amending the 1994 budget for the City of Yakima;
and making an appropriation of $18,959 in the Parks and
Recreation Fund for expenditure during 1994 for Summer
Weekend Recreation Programs and Community Special Events,
having been read by title only, was laid on the table for two
weeks, until July 19, 1994.
26. OTHER BUSINESS
None
Information Items:
Items of information supplied to Council were: News Release
regarding YAKIMA transit free shuttlebus service to 4th of
July celebration. 6/27/94; Preliminary Schedule of Events
for 1994 Agricultural Showcase, August 17 -18, 1994; DARC
Agenda for July 7, 1994 and Minutes of June 2, 1994; NEYNA
Newsletter regarding Annual Evaluation. 6/28/94; KiYak
Memorandum to Central Washington Foreign Trade Zone Advisory
Committee regarding Selection Process of FTZ Advisor.
6/27/94; YVCOG letter and Activity Report, Yakima Commute
Trip Reduction Program. 6/28/94; Engineering & Utilities
Monthly Project Progress Report for June 1994; Monthly
Annexation Status Report for June. 7/5/94 ; Rebound Plus
Monthly Report for .June 1994; OHNC Monthly Report for June
1994; Legal Department Monthly Report for May, 1994; Minutes
of Special Board Meeting of Yakima County Clean Air
Authority. 6/22/94; Minutes of Yakima Youth Commission of
June 6, 1994; Washington State Tourism Bulletin. June,
1994; Nation's Cities Weekly publication. June 20, 1994;
The Changing Northwest publication, June 1994; Reinventing
Federal Procurement Practices from Urban Land publication,
June 1994; Memorandum from Marketa Oliver regarding
Community Networks - Omnibus Youth Violence Legislation.
June 24, 1994; Article titled The Analytical Economist from
Scientific American, July 1994; Yakima County Substance
Abuse Coalition Board Meeting Minutes from June 7, 1994;
Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition letter regarding
National Night Out scheduled for August 2, 1994.
27. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY (POLICE
STATION, ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES)
No executive session held.
25
360
JULY 5, 1994
28. ADJOURNMENT AT 9:30 P.M. JUNE 12, 1994, 7:00 A.M., YAKIMA
CENTER, FOR INFORMAL DISCUSSION; THEN TO JULY 19, 1994, 7:30
A.M., YAKIMA SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM B,
FOR JOINT CITY /COUNTY MEETING
Mayor Berndt adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: ■ i / 7 I II / ` 0 -/
COUNCIL �i�:ER ' DATE
� /ice G .r %�. �. i
CO' IL MEMBER DATE
ATTEST:
EPUTY CITY CLERK MAYOR -e
Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audio and video tape of this meeting are
available in the City Clerk's Office
26