Loading...
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