HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2006 Adjourned Meeting 2 234
ADJOURNED MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
3:00 P.M. — 5:00 P.M. -- JOINT CITY - COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING
1. Roll CaII
Mayor Edler called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Present:
Council: Mayor Edler, presiding, Council Members Micah Cawley, Norm
Johnson, Bill Lover, Neil McClure and Susan Whitman
Staff: City Manager Zais, Finance and Budget Manager DeBord, and City
Clerk Moore
Absent: Council Member Bonlender (excused)
Also present were County Commissioners Ron Gamache and Mike Leita
2. Joint City- County Public Hearing to consider adoption of:
A. 2006 Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Update
B. Yakima Urban Area Transportation Plan 2005
Doug Maples, Planning and Code Enforcement Manager, described the
Comprehensive Plan. It was originally created in 1997 and took seven years; this
update has taken three years. We are estimating a population of 119,000 by the
year 2025 and the Comprehensive Plan will be the guide used to balance land use
while providing for economic vitality and protecting natural resources.
City Staff supports approving the recommendation from the October 23, 2006
Regional Planning Commission (RPC) meeting with the exception of two
amendments. The amendments are: Table III -11a, the Land Use Compatibility chart
on page 3 -20; and insertion of the word "use" in policy 3.3.2 on pg 3 -23. Table 111-
11 a is problematic because the next task after adoption of this document is to map
the future land use for the city using new future land use designations. It is unclear
how that would be accomplished with the incompatibilities that table would impose.
A letter written to Council and Commissioners from Rockey Marshall, RPC member,
was read into the record. The major points of the letter were:
• Language was added to the plan update by staff after RPC approval
• Remove the sentence "It is understood that any application to change the future
land use map will be allowed to proceed through the review process no matter
what designation is indicated in Table Ill -11a"
• He does not agree with the staff recommendation to remove the Land Use
Compatibility Chart III -11a on page 3 -20. The majority of RPC members believe
this table is needed.
2
ADJOURNED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 14, 2006 — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Mr. Maples reported that after reviewing the entire tape of the 10/23/06 meeting, he
gleaned the following two excerpts: One by Rockey Marshall, "Generally would be
added but still allow the applicant to come to the RPC and state their case" and one
from Ted Marquis, "As a guideline making sure this does not prohibit anyone from
going forward." He commented that those two quotes are what staff used to create
the sentence that Mr. Marshall is now asking to be deleted from the table.
The second exception is the word "use" inserted into 111.3.2 on page 111 -23. It
complicates the process of mapping when moving from future land use to zoning. By
inserting the word, the use now has to be verified for compatibility when mapping the
zoning. Mr. Maples claims that would be problematic.
• Mayor Edler opened the public hearing
Dr. Michael Noble, spoke about the Land Use Compatibility Table, Table 111 -11 a. He
read a five -page document he submitted into the record. He believes retaining the
table is key. Because of their experience with the Wal -Mart issue, they learned that
zoning is the place to begin considering compatibility and that it starts in the
beginning with the future'land use designation. By the time zoning is reached, it is
too late to establish compatibility. Central to any proposed land use designation
change, prior to zoning or a developmental request, is the question of whether the
future land use designation is compatible to the surrounding properties. Dr. Noble
went into great detail and also supported Mr. Marshall's suggestion to delete the
sentence regarding proceeding through the review process. He then spoke about
retaining the word "use" in Goal 3.3. Following Dr. Noble's presentation, Council
Member McClure and Mr. Maples attempted to clarify the questions and foreseen
problems with making Dr. Noble's suggested changes. Because it was taking away
from the opportunity for the public to bring their issues forward, that discussion was
deferred to another time.
Tony Courcy spoke about the status of sidewalks on 16 Avenue. Mayor Edler
advised that, although the subject is not a part of today's hearing, it is part of our
Transportation Plan and we are trying to identify resources to pay for sidewalks.
Walter Niemiec, 11 N. 40 Avenue, spoke about the problems associated with the
Doty project and submitted pictures for the record. John - Schactler, 206 S. 16
Avenue, spoke about the changes over the years to 16 Avenue and associated
problems. Randall Marquis, 214 S. 16 Avenue, expressed concerns about 16
Avenue and suggested the speed limit be lowered. Arnie Krause, 205 S. 16
Avenue, addressed his concerns about the future of 16 Avenue and the potential
impact on property values. James Dunlap, 710 S. 16 Avenue, also had questions
about what is happening with 16 Avenue. Shelley Willson, Traffic and Operations
Manager, clarified that the Transportation Plan recommend 16 be looked at as a
corridor. There will definitely be a public process to involve the community when this
is defined in the future.
Brian McGuire, 6 N. Pear Avenue, speaking for the Associated General Contractors
of Washington, said they are opposed to the 111.3.2 wording change. Incorporating
the word "use" could have the negative effect of maintaining the status quo
regardless of the community's long range mission.
2
236
ADJOURNED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 14, 2006 — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Clarence Barnett, representing the Central Washington Homebuilders Association,
agreed that the word "use" should be deleted from the policy statement. He then
referred to Policy 10.9.6, page X -11, with regard to the requirement of on -site
retention of stormwater. Because the word require is regulatory rather than policy,
they recommend it be deleted from the policy statement and add a new policy that
says ensure compliance with stormwater regulations for onsite retention of
stormwater.
John Hodkinson, a member of the Regional Planning Commission (RPC), clarified
that it is his belief that the RPC is only a recommending body and, therefore, he -sees
no problem with changes Council may make to the document. He noted that he
voted against the word "use" because he felt it is restrictive and will create problems.
Elizabeth Holmes, MacKay & Sposito, submitted a letter into the record supporting
the regional commercial designation on the Future Land Use map. They request that
the compatibility table include a note exempting rezones associated with the maser
plan that are subject to a development agreement.
Bill Hordan, a land use consultant, addressed what he foresees as future problems in
amending Table III-11a, if adopted, and gave examples. He agreed with staff that
the chart should be removed. A detailed discussion followed.
Jack Evans, a Tacoma attorney, referenced a letter submitted by Attorney William
Lynn representing WestTowne, LLC. The letter was added to the record. It is
WestTowne's intent to develop a large convenience center at the intersection of 16
Avenue and SR12.
Jerry Miller, representing the public and the TowneCenter, said he believes some of
these decisions need to be left in the hands of the city officials.
Mike Shinn, an attorney representing Yakima Memorial Hospital, submitted a three
page letter for the record. He discussed their opposition to wording relating to
access to institutions from principal arterials and recommended it read "access to
institutions shall be from a principal arterial and should not unreasonably increase."
Larry Mattson, 2810 Shelton Avenue, spoke about the transportation element of the
update addressing bicycle commuting, arterial collector streets, the grade separation
project, and access management.
Greg Stewart, representing State Fair Park, also was in opposition to incorporating
the word "use" into policy 3.3.2 of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Michael Noble spoke again countering comments others as raised. He pointed out
that if the table is adopted it can be amended every year.
• Mayor Edler closed the public hearing .J
3. Adjournment
3
237
ADJOURNED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 14, 2006 — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
COMMISSIONER LEITA MOVED AND COUNCIL MEMBER LOVER SECONDED
TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO 3:00 P.M. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2006.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vot-, Bon1 nder absent .
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY /9' t j(t.7 ' - 1 2 -a7
1 COi CIL M MBER DATE
11/ \-/T GUI', 13-
COUNCIL MEMBER (./ DATE
ATTEST:
16.12_271:5112-k--0-Cruz..— Al//‘/
CITY CLERK / i ID ED` MAYOR
Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office
•
•
1
4
November 13, 2006
•
To: Yakima City Council
- From: Rockey Marshall, Regional Planning Commissioner
Re: Comp Plan Update
Dear Yakima City Council,
1 regret not being able to be here and share my thoughts on the Comp Plan update. I
would first like to thank the City Council for selecting me three years ago to the Regional
Planning Commission; I have learned a lot about planning.
The RPC spent many hours going over the entire Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive
Plan update. I believe that this is a plan that can guide the Yakima Urban Area in a
positive responsible way with clear vision. However, I have some concerns that
compelled me to write this letter.
I am very concerned and do not think it is right for staff to add language to the Yakima _
Urban Area Comprehensive Plan update after the RPC has approved the Comp Plan and
are recommending to the City and County elected officials its adoption.
•
It is my understanding, that this is not the proper procedure for staff to add language to
the Comp Plan and not give the RPC or the public a chance to debate it merits for _
keeping such language in the Comp Plan update. Would you feel comfortable
recommending something if it had been changed without your knowledge? Also, if my
memory is correct, the Growth Management Act requires public participation in the
development and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Because the added language
was not properly adopted I humbly recommend that the following sentence be removed
from page LLI -19, "It is understood _that any application to change the Future Land
Use Map will be allowed to proceed through the review process no matter what
designation is indicated in Table III-11a."
it has come to my attention from one of the City Council members that staff is
recommending that the Land Use Compatibility Chart III - 11a, on page LLI - 20, be
removed.
The majority of RPC members believe that this table is needed for considering future
land use change requests. This table has been in the Comp Plan since April 1997. It has
been a consistent reference guide for our planners and for applicants wishing to change a
land use. Establishing land use compatibility is critical, since zoning is based on the
particular land use. Chart HI - 1 la does not obstruct the development process. It does
not prevent any applicant from coming before the RPC to ask for a land use change. The
change that the RPC made to the text for Chart Ill - 11a, makes the method of using the
chart more clear cut.
I request that this letter be part of and read into the public record. Thank you for
considering my request.
Respectfully submitted,
Rockey Marshall, RPC member
Submitted by Dr_ Michael Noble, 11/14/06 •
Retaining Table lII -2 /III -lla
In the November 12 Yakima Herald Republic city staff say "Criticism about the proposed construction of a
Wal -Mart store in the West Valley reinforced the need for compatible development ", and "Predictability and
compatibility, that was the theme for the update ". Retaining Table 111 -1 la is a key to this theme.
Fortunately the Wal -Mart issue is now behind us, but it's interesting that staff would tell the public that
criticism about the Wal -Mart debacle reinforced the need for compatibility. 5 '/ years ago when Congdon
requested a Future Land Use designation change, a handful of ignorant concerned citizens told staff we
wanted to impact the process and we were told that Future Land Use was not important, and to wait until a
rezone was requested to speak up. We followed that advice and did not contest the Future Land Use
designation change, only to be told at the time of the rezone that we were too late, that the Future Land Use
allowed the requested new zone, which was subsequently granted. This is now history, but the important
lesson that we the public learned is that, counter to the ongoing claim that zoning is the place to begin
considering compatibility, it•really starts at the very beginning, with the Future Land Use designation.
To briefly review, GMA requires the Comp Plan to contain a map that displays the designated future use of
all land within the city. The Regional Planning Commission, appointees of this municipality, Union Gap and
the county, is charged with considering all pros and cons of requested changes to this Future Land Use Map,
and issuing a recommendation for or against each proposed change, whether or not an accompanying rezone
or development request is anticipated. Central to any proposed Land Use designation change, prior to zoning
or development requests, is the question of whether the requested Future Land Use designation is compatible
with that of the surrounding properties.
Is Future Land Use compatibility actually important? Consider that the Hearing Examiner has used Future
Land Use designation to justify approval of subsequent zoning requests, and demonstrated that a property's
actual eventual allowed use is determined by zoning, and in turn zoning is primarily determined by Future
Land Use designation. This "cascade effect" makes Future Land Use designation essentially an ultimate
determiner of which allowed uses are eventually located next to each other. So of course Future Land Use
designation is important! Compatibility starts at the beginning, with the Future Land Use designation.
Please discard any implication that Table 11I -1 la* is a newly proposed Comp Plan item - it is in fact Table
111 -2 from the current Comp Plan, and has been included since the original Comp Plan was first adopted. As
part of the original Comp Plan the Table helped determine compatibility of adjacent Land Uses. Several
Submitted by Dr. Michael Noble, 11/14/06
`" years ago city staff inexplicably began misconstruing certain imprecise terms and changed the way the table
had been interpreted for many years, neutralizing its original intent * *. Table 111 -1 la is, in essence, simply
Table 111 -2 with its instructions more precisely defined to avoid future misinterpretations.
. Table 111 -1 la is important for many reasons:
• It guides those parties contemplating Future Land Use designation changes to request the best
, . ' :
-,--,:%. ; -- designation to meet their needs.
- • • • It provides a reference for adjacent property owners deciding whether they should be concerned about a
neighbor's proposed Future Land Use designation change.
• It provides consistency over time as various appointees come and go from the RPC, as well as staff and
Council turnover.
- • "• It .provides an important tool for the Regional Planning Commission, a foundation and a standard for
compatibility regarding requested changes to Future Land Use Map designations. In fact, several RPC
members referred to this Table as "critical" in providing them guidance.
In the Herald- Republic's November 3 notice of today's meeting the staff stated, "... the insertion of Figure
111 -2 ... could result in many commercial properties becoming non - conforming, possibly creating a •
condition that would prohibit them from changing or expanding their commercial use or purchasing
additional adjacent property to expand their business ". I say to you unabashedly, nothin g could be further -
from the truth. Table 111 -1 la will not impede development. This notion, and its permutations, was very
thoroughly discussed at great length by the RPC, as some members of the commission had this very concern.
The Table was adjusted at the October 23r RPC study session to ensure to the satisfaction of each RPC
member that it would not impede the land use or development process, whereupon it was passed
unanimously. In fact, this Table may even make the development process more efficient, as it provides a ^
requestor the only ready reference as to which Future Land Use designation the RPC is most likely to
approve.
In summary, compatibility begins at the beginning. Staff stated in the newspaper that "predictability and
compatibility" highlight this Comp Plan update. That theme is underscored in retaining this clear and precise
Land Use compatibility reference for the sake of the Regional Planning Commission, City Council and all
citizens in Yakima.
Submitted by Dr. Michael Noble, 11/14/06
*Table I1, which is identical inform to the current Comp Plan's Table 111 -3, determines which zones are
allowable within in each Future Land Use designation but does not establish which Future Land Uses are
adjacently compatible with each other.
**Intent was to establish a reference for compatibility of proposed adjacent Land Uses, and was used as
such until relatively recently. The current Table Ill -2 does not include the word "adjacent" in conjunction
with "proposed", but from its inception "proposed" was interpreted to mean "proposed adjacent". While
the original interpretation and usage of the Table in addressing compatibility of adjacent land uses makes
sense both intuitively and practically, the current staff's interpretation, wherein the current land use
predicates the proposed use of the same parcel is illogical both intuitively and practically.
•
•
Submitted by Dr. Michael Noble, 11/14/06
If the Council retains Table III Deleting the added staff verbiage for Table III la
The proposal before you is not the proposal the RPC recommended. New language has been added since the
October 23 RPC study session at which this proposal was adopted. The extraneous language is the sentence
which states, "It is understood that any application to change the Future Land Use Map will be allowed to
proceed through the review process no matter what designation is indicated in Table III -IIa."
While the statement is brief, it has multiple interpretations. This verbiage provides a source of certain
confusion in "guaranteeing" the process, regardless of a potential denial to an applicant and could easily
precipitate lawsuits against the city. It is duplicative and unnecessary, and the RPC felt that the proposal
spoke for itself quite sufficiently without the added need for such language.
GMA mandates in RC W 36.70a.140 "early and continuous public participation in the development and
amendment of land use plans ". This new language was never brought before the public for
comment or discussion, neither did the RPC see it or have a chance to comment upon, discuss or debate its
merits. The RPC did not knowingly approve it. I am not certain of its origin but 1 request it be stricken from
this proposal.
•
p v- -- c A 1 r''■ "•_`). uAe
No -11 �� p {I> vc r t c �, r,
, p y F , L Le 4 utx. /Y ti) e . -
P I r� o� S "
Submitted by Dr. Michael Noble, 11/14/06
Retaininz the word "Use"
GOAL 3.3: PRESERVE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.
Policies:
3.3.2 Ensure that new development is compatible in scale, style, density, use and aesthetic quality to an
established neighborhood.
Goal 3.3 is titled "Preserving Existing Neighborhoods ", not "Preserving the Looks of Existing
Neighborhoods ". This conservation should include more than solely the appearance of our neighborhoods,
as espoused in Policy 3.3.2 by the terms "scale, style, density and aesthetic quality ". If "preservation" means
"protecting and safeguarding" as Webster defines it, then our Comp Plan should give some measure of
contemplation to the quality and character of a neighborhood, those attributes deeper than outward
appearances. Consideration should be given to the impact of new development's use upon those traits that
make a neighborhood worth preserving in the first place.
A neighborhood is not composed simply of a collection of boxes people dwell in; it is the product of the
people who live there, and the quality of the lives they spend there. This proposal does not state that new
development must be the same use as the existing neighborhood, but simply recognizes that compatibility
goes beyond form only.
Staff states "... the addition of the word "use" in Policy 3.3.2 ... could result in many commercial properties
becoming non - conforming, possibly creating a condition that would .prohibit them from changing or
expanding their commercial use or purchasing additional adjacent property to expand their business ".
While this claim is unfounded, and the overused intimidation of such is wearisome, staff also states that
"compatibility ... is the theme for the update ". As the title of Goal 3.3 hints, this section is about protecting
existing neighborhoods, not about what's necessarily ideal for those that will potentially change the
neighborhood that is to be preserved.
''"'` ` `: Genera/ Associated
t a
4 s -41''' „ Contractors
of Washington
Bui /ding Your Community from 1 to Z`
November 14, 2006 •
Mr. Chairman, members of the council and commissioners. My name is Brian
McGuire and I am the District Manager for The General Contractors of
Washington. 1 am here today .speaking on behalf of our approximately 500
members statewide in opposition to the proposed modification to Section 3.3.2.
_... The proposed wording in Section 3.3.2 "Ensure that new development is
compatible in scale, style, density, use and aesthetic quality to an established
neighborhood" could well have an operational effect that could create unintended
consequences. Adding the word "use" to this section goes beyond the setting of
mere policy.
The purpose of comprehensive plans is to create a vision of how a community
would like growth and redevelopment to occur. It articulates a forward thinking
plan. However, it does not, nor should it, necessarily maintain the status quo. If -;
the status quo is undesirable, then maintenance of those conditions will only lead
to stagnation and to even further degeneration.
The incorporation of the term "use" into Section 3.3.2 could easily have this
negative effect — maintaining the status quo regardless of present zoning and
regardless of the community's long range vision articulated throughout the rest of
•
the comprehensive plan. For example, focus on current existing uses could well
be exploited to prohibit the incorporation of residential development into the
downtown core. As we all know, this would violate the vision articulated in the
comprehensive plan and would severely impact the downtown core's
redevelopment.
Such a consequence is untenable and violates one of AGC's paramount tenants
— making positive contributions to community. It is incumbent upon you as public _ -
officials to not permit anything that would inhibit the replacing of urban blighted
areas within the Yakima community. For Yakima to continue to grow and
prosper, we need a sound comprehensive plan that is based on broad policy
statements. This allows the community's vision to be articulated but is still
flexible enough to allow the plan to respond to the needs of the citizens and the
marketplace. The comprehensive plan is not the proper place for discussions of
use. This should be left to zoning and development regulations.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Brian McGuire
AGC of Washington
www.agcwa.com
Corporate Office 6 Leg's /et /we Centre / Washington Northern District Southern District Educe/ion
Seett /e District Office Office Oisv /c! Office O/1 /ce Office Foundation
1200 Wesaa.ke Ave. n/ 410 - 7 1;h Ave. S E 3511 River Road 7227 Railroad Ave. 942 Pacific Avenue 7200 Westlake Ave N
Sure 307 Suite 203 Suite 720. Bel /rngnarn, WA 98225 Tacoma. WA 98 ,t
402 -4402 S0e 307
Searle, WO 95709 -3528 Olympia WA 98501 -2377 Yakima. WA 98902 360 -547 -7752 253 - 272-7725 Searle, w4 98109 -3529
206 - 284 -0051 360- 352 -5000 509 -454 -5054 800 -244 -5551 600- 637 -7777 206 -284 -4500
800- 552 -2868 800-590 -2630 800- 574 -507 4 Fax 360- 647 -7865 Fax 253- 272 -7719 800 -562 -2869
Far 206- 255 -45'6 Fax 350-352-4411 - F4 .. 509 - 452.6503 Fax 206 - 254 -4595
412IP Central Washington
Home Builders Association
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Board of County Commissioners
Yakima City Council
FROM: Clarence Barnett
CWHBA
DATE: 14 November 2006
SUBJECT: CWHBA Comments on Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive
Plan, November 2006
• 1. Policy 3.3.2, Page III -23 reads: "Ensure that new development is
compatibile in scale, style, density, use and aesthetic quality to an established
neighborhood." [Underscore added for emphasis.]
Comment: The addition of the word use in this Policy statement would be
contrary to the intent and purpose of any Land Use Compatibility Chart.
Recommendation: Delete the word use in Policy 3.3.2.
2. Policy 10.9.6, Page X -11 reads: "Require on -site retention of storm
water." [Underscore added for emphasis.]
Comment: The word require is regulatory rather than policy.
• Recommendation: Delete Policy Statement 10.9.6 and add a new Policy
• statement to read: "Ensure compliance with stormwater regulations for on -site
retention of storm water. "
3. In the interest of enhancing the natural environment, the CWHBA
supports the Policies in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan that
encourage Low Impact Development [LID] practices; e.g. Policies 3.1.1.7, 3.2.3,
10.7.11.
330( W. Nob Hill Blvd. • Yakima. WA 98902
509.454.4006 • 800.492.9422 • Fax 509.454.4008
www.cwhba.org
The vision of CWHBA is an environment conducive to the success of its Members.
•
•T. "". - '. �;r;�� t ry - ns• . 8",;, :cni ���- rugs x' s . .a y ,
�. � �' s <"'w ,»•'{? rt G,a s � ° tin �_, 0'4 : �i� 1 - � a `�i � # �'; ti � .�• r - .
a�e Ml & Spog tall air, y�} .
gG �•� �' a C. +� �' ���� = ATe�arn Oeclrcated�To Our'Chenis`aSucce s� "'
' �.. »td= � ,�,_,sJ tY� b�r�s,,,a_t r: rc v .E � E
.c.,,t+t,
ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
g S
November 14, 2006
Yakima City Council
Yakima County Board of Commissioners •
C/O City of Yakima
129 N. Second Street
Yakima, WA. 98901
•
RE: Yakima Comprehensive Plan Update Comments
Dear Members of the County Commission and City Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the 2006 Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan Update and the City of Yakima's Transportation Plan Update. Our
firm represents the land use and development interests of Yakima Resources, the owners
of the mill site, which is identified for redevelopment as a mixed -use center.
We have worked with city staff to incorporate innovative regulatory tools into the
updated comprehensive plan that reflect the changing land use environment and the
economy of the Yakima Valley. We submitted comments on the proposed
comprehensive plan language on October 10 during the planning commission process.
Our comments today will reiterate our previous comments and request additional
clarifications.
We are supportive of the creation of the regional commercial designation and its
application to the Yakima Resources site, as shown on the Future Land Use Map (Map III
— 2). We request that the "Action Steps" identified in Chapter II be prioritized to reflect
the immediate need to rezone the site to match the FLUM designation. We also ask for
clarification on the action step related to analyzing the need and the specific process for
required rezones. In addition, we recommend that the action step referencing the
amendment of the regulations related to development plans for regional commercial
projects be given a priority. We encourage the city to maintain maximum flexibility of
uses within the regional commercial designation during ordinance development and look
forward to participating in the process. We believe the proposed mixed use planned
development is an appropriate planning tool for application to the Yakima Resources site.
We request clarification if this is a designation or an entitlement process.
As noted in our earlier correspondence, we are anxious to initiate a conceptual land use
plan for the project site and are hopeful that the creation of a zoning code ordinance
allowing the development of this type of master planned project will be a high priority for
the city. If there is any assistance we can provide to city staff in order to expedite
ordinance development for these issues, we would be willing to do so.
•
1325 SE Tech Center Drive, Suite 140 Other Office Locations:
Vancouver, WA 98683 (3601695 -3411 Fax: (360) 695-0833 Kennewick, WA and Wilsonville, OR
Yakima County Board of Commissioners
November 14, 2006
Page 2
During the RPC hearings on the proposed comprehensive plan update, a compatibility
matrix was. introduced and recommended for inclusion. Our concern with the adoption of
the matrix as proposed is that the general policies reflected in the matrix could preclude
the redevelopment of the Yakima Resources site into the type of mixed -use center
currently contemplated. We also feel that a rezone from the current industrial designation
to a commercial designation would result in lessening the incompatible land uses and
there are no provisions included for this kind of change.
We request that, should the council and commission choose to include a compatibility
matrix in the updated plan, that a note be added providing an exemption for rezones
associated with projects subject to a master plan process. This would allow for the
master plan for the Yakima Resources site to incorporate land use patterns, enhanced
green spaces, or other features that would provide for compatibility between existing and
proposed uses.
The transportation element reflects the identified need to the east -west transportation
corridor that will bisect the site. We appreciate the language of Goal 6.20 supporting the
regional approach to transportation planning and improvements, and look forward to
continuing to work with staff at the state, regional and local level on resolving
transportation issues relevant to the Yakima Resources site.
We are also very supportive of the language found in the economic development element.
The proactive approach to facilitating economic development for the Yakima Valley set
forth in the ED Element policies sets the city apart from other jurisdictions in the state
struggling with the same issues.
We have appreciated staff's willingness to work with us and hear our concerns during
this update process. We look forward to continuing to work with the city and county to
implement the vision of the updated comprehensive plan.
Sincerely,
E. zabeth Holmes
Project Resources Manager
EH /dep
■ i � �
9 N 'fF r 2
11 /14 /4UVo
• CORDON. THOMAS. HONEYWELL
MALANCA, PETERSON b DAHEIM LLP
November 14, 2006 •
Page 2
This chart could have significant real practical implications for the City. Most of the
City's Industrial areas have commercial or residential neighbors, and many of the Arterial
Coznrnercial parcels adjoin residential land. The simplistic application of the chart could greatly
limit new uses or expansion opportunities and have broad implications for the successful, long-
. term implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
More importantly, the chart is in direct conflict with other, more specific elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. For example, the chart states that Large Convenience Centers are
incompatible with industrial and residential uses. This contradicts the Plan which identifies
several existing and proposed sitesfor Large Convenience Centers, and each of those is adjacent ..
to either industrial uses, residential uses or both. This is a direct internal conflict within the
Comprehensive Plan and is not permitted by the Growth Management Act. RCW 36.70A.070.
The second change proposed by Mr. Noble is less clear but appears to add policy
language that may require review of use compatibility with individual land use decisions. It is
unclear how this language is intended to operate in the common situation where the proposed use
is expressly permitted by the underlying zoning. This language, at the very least, has the
potential to confuse if not directly contradict other language in the Comprehensive Plan.
We recommend that the Council simply disapprove these two amendments for the
reasons set forth above. Alternatively, the Council could do one of two things. It could change
the chart to state that Large Convenience Centers are compatible or at least potentially •
compatible with industrial uses. The Council could take that step by amending the chart to put
-- either an A or a B in the column where Large Convenience Centers adjoin existing industrial
uses. This would address West Iowne's immediate concerns. Alternatively, the Council could
table this matter for a week or two to allow this important issue to be addressed by the City's
planning and legal staff. This is an important issue and we believe the amendments create a -
fundamental flaw in the Comprehensive Plan. It would certainly be worth a week or two of
delay in order to avoid a much more lengthy and complex appeal process.
Thank you for reviewing these comments. Representatives of WestTowne will be
present at the public hearing to discuss these matters.
Very truly yours,
William T. •
WTL: fto
cc: Bill Cook, Plan.niog Director (via fax 509 - 575 - 6105)
Jerry Molitor
Jack EvaPs
Mike Blumcn
• Tim Holderman
[1366333 v31
LAW OFFICES
CORDON. THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA. PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP
TACOMA OFFICE yL'ATTLL OF1 -`ICE
I ?f?, PACIFIC: AVENUE, SUITE a100 ONE UNION 50O4RE
POST O F F I C E BOX I 1 6. 7 600 UNIVERSITY, SUITE e 1 c0
TACOMA, wAz7..H IN <: ?ON aeia0l - II.7 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 96101 -41 5 5
(.411 6t0 -6500 frOr) C.>r..>C0p
FACSIMILE l2 G 31 - 20 Cr.CG FACSIMILE 120e1 676.757 5
REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE
WILLIAM T. LYNN
...T7c RNEY AY LAW
DIRECT (9531 620 -9416
%O , 07'-F141c
EMAIL lynnweptn- Irw.com
November 14, 2006
Sent by e -mail and fax (509 - 576 - 6335)
Mayor Dave Edler
and the Members of the City Council
City of Yakima
129 N. 2 Street
Yakima, WA 98901
RE: 2006. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Dear Mayor Edler and Coun.cil Members:
We are writing on behalf of WestTowne, LLC concerning the 2006 Comprehensive Plan
Amendments that the Council will be reviewing on November l4` WestTowne,'LLC is the
owner of property on North l6` Avenue southeast of its intersection with S.R12, and proposes to
develop on that site a regional commercial center. A portion of this property is presently
designated Large Convenience Center and additional property owned or controlled by
WestTowne would be given a similar designation under proposals recommended to the City
Council.
We are writing to express opposition to two amendments narrowly approved by the
Planning Commission at the request of Michael Noble, who apparently has concems about some
other commercial development in the City. While Mr. Noble's proposed amendments were
apparently suggested to give the, Plan more certainty, we believe they will actually create
confusion and uncertainty. In fact, these provisions are in conflict with other . rmore specific
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and thus are contrary to the Growth Management Act
which requires internal consistency.
One of the changes would create a new chart that purports to show in a single few lines
what uses can compatibly adjoin other uses. This greatly oversimplifies the comprehensive
planning process which must take into account many other factors such as existing development,
arterial and freeway networks, utilities, topography, natural features and so on. The amendment
condenses this complex planning process into a one - dimensional chart, and that is simply not
workable. It also fails to recognize that compatibility is generally achieved through a variety of
design standards such as buffering, landscaping, and height and bulk standards. These
performance standards can be used to achieve compatibility between even quite different uses.
11366333 v3J
law OFFICES OF
HALVERSON APPLEGATE P.S
P.O. Box 22730
-�„ Lawyers for
*M ini YAKIMA WASHINGTON � ' � ; fi 1 i [{ •. � , i�l _,�; , p "x a +,, ., , Central Washington
98907 -2715 I'I az s e+ S f' h.� i P 6t
h cHALN:mw..IV 4 A111,MGATE S
TELEPHONE: _ - •.. • . MICHAEL F. SHINN
509. 575.6611 ATTORNEYS AT LAW
E-MAIL: MSHINN@HALVERSONLAW . COM
FACSI.m-E:
509 - 457.2419
November 14, 2006 c\-\-\? OF YP1 T\"
Mr. Doug Maples c F 14 10 06
�Q
PO (EC)
Code Administration and Planning Manager O
Office of Administration E �'kC'
129 N. 2nd Street P PF!�
Yakima, WA 98901
RE: Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Update
Dear Doug:
I write on behalf of our client, Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital ( "Hospital "). I
would appreciate it if you could make these comments available to the City Council
in conjunction with the hearing on November 14 and its consideration of staff and
the Regional Planning Commission's ( "RPC ") recommendations. Incidentally, I
picked -up a copy of the latest revised Comprehensive Plan, dated November 2006,
and I'll reference sections and pages from this most recent publication.
1. I know that my predecessor, Kirsten Pederson, pointed this out in her letter
to the RPC dated September 25, 2006, but iri Chapter III, Map III -2, the
Future Land Use Map continues to show the 'Hospital's property as having a _
Future Land Use designation of "Professional Office ". It was my
understanding that the new "Institutions" designation would be shown on the
Future Land Use Map, just as Regional Commercial has been added where it
is contemplated. The two hospitals and Yakima Valley Community College
for whom the "Institutional" designation is created should have that
designation on the map.
2. In June 2006, Ms. Pederson proposed three policies for addition concerning
Institutions, under Goal 3.14. The proposed policies were as follows:
Policy 1: Establish boundaries for institutions to
reasonably protect established residential neighborhoods
from further encroachments by institutions and allow the
institutions to plan for future growth.
Policy 2: Require development and expansion of
institutions to be reasonably compatible with the adjacent
1433 LAKESIDE COURT SUITE 100 • YAKIMA, WA 98902
www.halversonlaw.com • haps @halversonlaw.com
Mr. Doug Maples
November 14, 2006
Page 2
residential neighborhoods, and to reasonably minimize
the parking and traffic impacts on the adjacent
residential neighborhoods.
Policy 3: Encourage institutions to develop master
plans for their future development to ensure that future
growth is planned and coordinated specific to the needs of
the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Master plans may
allow institutions to develop more intensively to reduce
the amount of property for their future growth.
At the Regional Planning Commission meeting on October 23, my recollection is
that the first two of these policies were recommended for adoption, with the word
"reasonably" stricken. The last policy was recommended for adoption without
change. However, under Goal 3.14, none of these appear in the November 2006
Comprehensive Plan Update as having been added. We respectfully request that
these policies be added to the final Comprehensive Plan, and that at least in Policy
2, the first use of the word "reasonably" remain. In other words, "require
development and expansion of institutions to be reasonably compatible with the
adjacent residential neighborhoods ..." striking the word "reasonably" in that policy
sets up an unanswerable debate over what `absolute' compatibility is. The Hospital
wants the opportunity to work with its neighbors and craft reasonable
accommodations, mitigations through the public participation and hearing
processes.
3. Finally, Policy 3.14.2 presently reads: "Access to institutions shall be from a
principal arterial and should not increase traffic on local residential streets."
My predecessor recommended that the word "unreasonably" be inserted
between "should not" and "increase" and staff agreed that was appropriate. In
other words, "Access to institutions shall be from a principal arterial and
should not unreasonably increase traffic on local residential streets."
The neighbors with whom the Hospital has been working closely to try and develop
mutually acceptable mitigations argued before the Regional Planning Commission
that the word "unreasonably" left too much discretion in the hands of the ultimate
decision makers on what was and wasn't appropriate in terms of additional traffic.
It was recognized by the Hospital's neighbors, however, that some increase would
occur. The Hospital's neighbors nevertheless argued that use of the word "should"
was not the same as "shall" and that, therefore, there was still some flexibility in
the language. The concern that counsel for the Hospital has is that "should not
•
Mr. Doug Maples
November 14, 2006
Page 3
increase traffic" could easily be interpreted by others as obligatory language despite
the Hospital's attempt to deal responsibly with its neighbors about traffic. In fact,
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., defines "should" as "the past tense of shall;
ordinarily implying duty or obligation." An implied duty or obligation to maintain
. an absolute restriction on any increase in traffic along local residential streets when
the actual impact is de minimis could be urged by some as a means of derailing
responsible Hospital development. That "should" not be the function of the
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the Hospital respectfully request that
"unreasonably" be re- inserted in Policy 3.14. -
Sincerely,
. / APAIP . . ,-
Mic ' ael F. Shin
FS:bw
• Cc: Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital •
f \clients\fnh \yalrima valley memorial hsp- 14974\land use -comp plan amend- 021 \06 city comp plan\maples Itr.doc
11/13/2006 4:08 pmbw
•
•
•
.237
ADJOURNED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 14, 2006 — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
COMMISSIONER LEITA MOVED AND COUNCIL MEMBER LOVER SECONDED
TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO 3:00 P.M. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2006.
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote, Bon1 nder absent.
READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY GV .----). /Z-o7
CO CIL M BER DATE
VihkeAVks Clitik&d t il-- j
COUNCIL MEMBER DATE
ATTEST:
It /I/
A 2-271:511:2-/—) 001-e...— .4 ./,/ /4.01.
CITY CLERK f 4116 £ VID ED R, MAYOR
Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office
4