HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/1970 Business Meeting • 65'
JUNE 15, 1970 •
The City Council'met regular session, Mayor Larson presiding, Councilmen Brown,. Keith,
-Lambert,. Larson,.Lust,.McNeice and. Robinson, City'Manager. McMicken and City Attorney
Andrews present on roll call. .
The Invocation was given by Councilman Brown.
The minutes of the regular meeting of.June 8, 1970,.having been duly certified accurate by
two Councilmen, and.no one present wishing to have said minutes read. publicly, Mayor Larson
declared s.aid.minutes approved as recorded. .
Mayor*Larson st•ated_that many persons are present regarding Item 9 on the.Agenda, Audience
•Participation, and brought on for discussion the matter of a•presentation by business and
professional men of Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce,. re raise iri business license fees.
Mr. Jim•Wood, representing the business community, stated that since the 1/2 % sales tax
has been acquired, it.would seem there should be some relief regarding the raise in busi-
ness license fees and asked if this matter could again be reviewed. Others present, ask -.
ing questions, and indicating that they feel the business license fees have been raised
too much, especially in the case of the small business operator, were:-Miss Bernice Bol'len-
bach,,President of the Music Teachers Association; Mr. Cody; small businessman; Mr. Draper,
speaking..on of the small businessman; Mr...Eric'Cameran; Mr. :Ziegler; Mr.. Don Tun -.•
stall; Mr..Chet Hatfield,.Mr:•Bob Deccio, Grace Peterson, Mr.. Dick:Cash;•Mr.- Steve Sin-
( Clair; and -Mr. John DeGrasse. Councilman Robinson explained that the City business license
fee is based on the number of employees. He stated that this is the only money that the
'businesses pay directly•to the C.ity.• 'City Manager.McMickenreferred to.a letter received
from Mr. Richard'L. Hurd, and to his Draft of a letter answering Mr. Hurd and explaining
the reasons for the business. license fee increase. He stated that when the Preliminary
• Budget was filed and there was a need to obtain more money to balance it,.the 1/2 %sales '
tax had•not :yet been.acquired, so the business license fees were increased. He further
explained that although this 1/2% sales tax was.authorized by the State to be paid start-
ing on April 1,. :.1970, we have.yet- •to.see the first return from the State Treasurer. Mr. '
. McMicken stated that State Aid to cities,has been cut off. He further stated that when
the tax money comes in `and should it the expenses of the budget and other designated
expenses, the City_Council has the option of changing any locally collected'tax. Council-
man-tambert :stated; that there has _not:been _an:increas.e3in - the business license: ;fee •sirics.
1957 .. _ Co.. uncilmanLKeithexplained._.that_at -:the 1970 Budget hearings, the 'few businessmen •
and others that :were.present•indicated that they felt more police and fire protection is
needed and the. City Council decided that this increase was one way to get it and balance
• the budget. He.stated that there mill be.Budget hearings for 1971, and the.Ci•ty Council
needs the helpof.the businessmen in preparing.this...Budget, and will be.glad to hear.all
suggestions in - making :cuts, or deferring-capital improvement s,.l and how funds may, be raised
to balance the. :1971. Budget..: 'Mr._ Del Pearson, .Government Affairs.-Committee ,of the Chamber
of Commerce, stated that they will - be glad to make a study of.the Budget -for 1971 and. .
make recommendations.., • ,. , . .
This ,being ,the time , fixed - for ,the ,continuation ,of :the Hearing.'on. amending .the General Plan
by adding the.•College and. Vicinity-Land.Use..Plan. and the Nob.Hill Land Use.Plan,. City, ,
' suggested that this could be divided into separate hearings, stating that
at the previous hearing, no complaints were received regarding the College and Vicinity
- Land ,Use ,Plan. ; 'Mayor..;Larson,called .for scussion,and the • following .people ; spoke to,both
matters :• Mr. ,C . W.. Halverson,, Attorney._, representing .Will ..and Marguerite .Hackett,- owners •
of property`on_17th and 18th Avenues, - and property adjoining the
Southgate property; Mr. -Fred Velikanj Attor.ney,._representing Mr.; Ed cash and Mr. Dave
Long; .Mr. Perry, Robinson,.'Attorney, represent Dale York; - Mr.; Howard _Elofson, Attorney,
representing property owners onthis street, and Mr..Bill Dye, - owner of property /2 - acre
west.9: the_Hackett Mr. Halverson. stated that the B- 2_ for the Hackett
property does not extend to the..same depth.on all,lots and suggested that the
increased to make the lots uniform. Haalso : referred to the Hackett property immediately
adjoining the Dale York property - and suggested that Planning Commission rezone the : •
. .property gn,,both sides of Nob Hill Boulevard in'order - to have a uniform business develop-
ment. Mr Velikan7e, spoke regarding the,Nob Hill Traffic Study - and the Nob Hill Land
Use Plan and_the College Vicinity,Plan, and asked if the_small businesses of Mr. Cash
- and Mr.- Long.have been considered, or 'if they will be put out of business. He further
stated that these people are entitled to.know whether they are going to . exist, and sugges-
ted that there to more study on this plan...Mr._Robinson, Attorney; for Dale York,
stated_ that they_ area should be as a business area,_and requested that
this matter : be re- submitted to the Commission and re-examined. Mr. Dye stated
that he is also in favor of this area designatedas business. .After due discussion,
it- was by Robinson, seconded_by: that the matter of amending the General Plan
adding.the Nob,Hill.Land Use Plan, be referred,back to the Planning Commission for further
study and:recommendation, and the,matter.of amending,the General Plan by College
and Vicinity Land.Use be- continued until -.such time as the Planning,Commission reports
on the : Nob Hill Land Us_,e •Plan: Brown,- Keith,.. Lambert, * Larson,_. Lust, McNeice and
Robinson voting :aye by voice _vote.. E : • --
•
r
This being- the;time fixed for the continuation,.of the.Hearing on theNob Boulevard
Traffic Study,.Roc- k.Avenue to 16th Avenue,.having been continued from May 18, 1970, Public
Works :Director John .Mayo, reported .that :in .accordance • with a request ,by the people .oppos =.
ing . the removal : of.,-the ; on- street parking, _when they felt, the :traffic, ,count .taken in�,this
area :.in November,- was not an accurate or average count, another,actual traffic count, or
rather parking space:count, was-made.a week.ago,on - a•Wednesday and,Friday and .
the .parking usage - •increased froth .1.8% of the spaces .to 2.9% usage: . -He stated that the
traffic ,engineer : feels .that Tin evaluating f the street. function, and , the function of ..the park -
ing spaces, what is -the• overall. 'good: for the :area ,is 'what ,has.. to be :considered, Mr, , Mayo
indicated that the -predominant :usage , of the street is, ao : move traffic , •from : one .place . to
another- and . :to -be : able . to turn : -into .'the businesses along -a. street, _ and that -the • few parkin.
spaces :should be removed to ;gi.ve.- the: be_ st - -usage e to -this street,--Those . present and oppos-
ing, the removal .o f . the , parking, on this street, ._wer-e Mr. •Fred . -Velikanje, Attorney, repre -
senting the ,Wi•lsons, •owners , of the Trading ,Post, between. 8th :and 9th Avenues; ,Stan Easter,
• owner of a four -unit apartment, 1128 and 1130 Nob Hill Boulevard; Mr. Ed Cash, owner of
the Arctic Circle, and :representing.Ole's.- Tavern Mr. Perry Robinson, , Attorney,..•,
reprsenting Supply and :himself as a property owner -in this `area; and.
.Mr. Stan- Easter. Council members.indicating that.they.feel there is• not enough usage of
the . parking ;spaces : to_ warrant..- keeping them,;and;that it is more important to move traffic
safely,.it was MOVED,by Lambert, seconded by Brown,. that the Traffic Engineer's recommenda
tion, Alternate #1, testriping the street, with four travel lanes, plus a two -way left
(continued)
66
•
JUNE 15, 1970 .
turn for.the most of the length.of. :this section, be approved and be prepared...
to make.said changes: carried, Brown, Larson, McNeice and Robinson.voting :'
aye by voice vote. Lust voting nay by voice vote.
This being the time fixed for the Hearing.on the Rezone.Application, filed by James M. New-
born and Others, requesting rezone of property located at 1315 S. 6th Street, it was,MOVED
by Brown, seconded by Lust that Ordinance No..1225 rezoning said property, be passed as
:r.ead.'. Mr, Ed Loidhamer" of. the:Planning Department; reviewed this matter explaining that
the request is being made to enable the applicant.to open a barbeque -type restaurant. He
stated that at the Public Hearing of March 3, 1970, the Planning Commission had recommended
denial.to the.City Council and the City Council at its public hearing on March 30, 1970,
referr -ed it.back to :the Planning for review :and reconsideration. He :further
stated that.'at the.Hearirig on May 21, 1970, the Planning Commission recommended the rezon-
ing of this property..from.'R -3, Multiple Family Zone to B- 2,.Local Business._Z.one.._ Mr: Don__
Turistall, Attorney representing,Mr. Newborn, stated that he had nothing new to add to
information given.at.previous meetings except.that a house next to this property has been
condemned, by the City... After due - discussion; Mayor Larson called for the roll call vote
on the Motion -to pass Ordinance No. 1225 rezoning said property, and :it carried, Brown, •
Lambert,"Larson,.Lust and McNeice voting aye roll call. .Keith Robinson vott.ng.nay
on roll.call.r . Councilman Robinson.agreed that anything put in here would bean improvement,
but think is and-felt that any rezone matters in this area should wait until •
after the Southeast .Center .is completed.
•
ORDINANCE. NO..1225, AN ORDINANCE rezoning. property.situated at 1315 •South..6th.Street, in
the City•of Yakima,. from R -3 Multiple - Family Zone, to 8-2, Local.Business.Zone:
This being'•the: :time fixed for the Hearing on.the from the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the rezone. application filed by:Safeway Stor-es,Inc., requesting rezone
of property ;located on'the Southwest corner of Surnmitview and 56th Avenues, Mr. Ed Laid:-
hamer of :.the Planning 'Department reported on the by the Planning Department
and th'e Planning Commission on this matter. He stated :that the General Plan indicates :a
neighborhood.shopping Center in the vicinity of N. 66th.'and Summitview Avenues; however, tie
furiction•of :this proposed facility is now being fulfilled by the Chalet. Mall at'56th and
Summitview Avenues, and the Planning Staff feels thatthe zoning pattern established in
• this.area would appear as encouragement for the'deveiopment of a large regional shopping
facilityandtwould-'be in opposition to the Gerieral Plan and Central Business District Plan
and recommended.'denial of .this rezone request, :arid - 'the; Planning .Commission at: its . Hearing
on May-5;. 1970, also recOMMended_den.ial.. Mr. Bud.,Applegate, Attorney, representing Safe-
way, - Incy;: first asked permission for Mr: Henry Neer, a :Court Reporter, - to record matters
of '_ this =.. Hearing;:' r,Be." then .pr.e sentede a:; Memorandum of Appellants.,;. Mr:i and Mrs - Per.ry - G : :Hayes,
Mr.:..and`Mrn, Ray:K. Embree'and: --Safeway.: Inc:- as.wprepared,by, the. -:Attor-neys :representing.=
; them,_ .Douglas:.A Wilson of °.Wilson & }Weeksr, Attorneys;_for Appellants:.?.Haye:s;.. Terry) ".C. 'Schmalz
of Felthous,..Brachtenback Peter Schma-lz,. Attorneys. foryAppellants ,Emb=ree;. :andS;
App1egateCof.: ..McDonaldohdt.andhGrahn; Attorneys :.lor:.iAppellant
way; Inc.,..; whichngiveS in History of :thcisSrezone ..requestt_ the': ?Consideratiori'aby°
the _Planniing: C::ommiss:ioh4cand allsotherbplans= and action.s up- to },.the present time Each of
the three Attorneys, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Weeks (speaking . in the absence of Douglas :A.'Wilson)
and Mr: Terry Schmalz, reviewed in detail certain portions of this .Memorandum, under the
headings as follows:.I. History, and Consideration by the Planning Commission; II. The
.Planning Commission's Decision was Fundamentally Wrong; III. Granting the Application will
Create no traffic conjestion; IV. Property owners are favored in- Zoning Ordinances;'V. The
Chalet Mall will not admit competitive businesses; VI. Existing,Businesses in the'area
desire the rezone; VII. There is a west side population.explosion.in this area; VIII. Good
Planning. requires that the application be granted; IX. Safeway's Plans; X. - Safeway had
no disaster at 40th and Summitview; XI. Safeway's.Alternatives; and XII. Conclusion, which
states, "It is respectfully submitted that granting the rezone request complies with the
general plan and forwards all aspects of good planning as contained therein. ..For the fore-
going reasons appellants respectfully request that the application be granted." Mr.
Applegate presented Mr.'Curtis Boone, who is the District representative for Safeway, Inc.,
who spoke briefly for this rezone. .Mr. Bob West, Realtor, spoke for the request,
stating that he had tried to buy some of the B -2 property from.Mr. Strausz, owner of the
Chalet Mall and property, but found that he would not sell to any - business that
would be in competition to any other business in the Chalet Mall. Mr. Applegate also pre -
sented a Petition signed•by 282 residents in this shopping area who are in favor of Safe-
way locating on this property.. Mr..Applegate'and the other attorneys speaking for this
rezone presented pictures and stated that none of this information had been presented at
the Commission meeting and requested that this matter be referred back to the
Planning Commission for - further study and recommendation. Those present and speaking
against this rezone request were: Mr. Red Harris, plumber and apartment house owner in this
area; Mr. Chuck Daniel; Helen Franc; Mr. Brad Majors;. Mr. Randy Brown, property owner and
'realtor; Jerry Ward; 'Mr. Wade Brumley; and Mr. Willard Tolliver, representing Mr. Adams,
and who presented a petition•signed by property owners who live within 200 feet of the
proposed store and strongly oppose this rezone. Also speaking against the rezone applica=
tion was Mr. Max Vincent, representing Straco, who reported in detail the reasons why this
rezone application should not be granted and indicating that he feels nothing new' has been
added to the information that was presented to the Planning'Commission Hearing, except some
pictures : stated that he agrees with the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission
that this rezone application should be denied. Councilman Lambert stated that on much less
presentation'or reason we have returned back to the Planning.Commission, a matter such as •
this, even though it has been said that the circumstances were not anything different.
Councilman Robinson stated that he feels we should postpone action on this matter to have
time to study the ten -page memorandum of the appellants Mr. and Mrs. Perry G. Hayes, Mr.
and Mrs. Ray K..Embree, and:Safeway, Inc., and to ask that some traffic data be•prepared
and submitted for study, then would suggest that action be taken to either refer it back
to the Planning Commission, or pass the Resolution affirming the Planning Commission's de-
cision and denying said rezone application. After due discussion, it was MOVED by Robin-
son, seconded by that this matter be continued for two weeks: carried, Keith, Lambert,
Larson, Lust,. McNeice and Robinson voting aye by voice vote. Brown not voting.
A, recommendation by the'Parks and Recreation dommission, on the advice of the Park Needs
Study Committee, proposing a park bond issue, having been received and considered by the
City Council, Mr.. Joseph Wiatrak, Chairman of the Park Needs'Study Committee, spoke to
this matter. He explained that the City Council had appointed.a Park Needs Study . Committee
for the purpose of evaluating existing park facilities and'the.need for new park facilities.
(continued)
•
JUNE 15, 1970
He further explained that the -Park Needs Study Committee is responsible'for • a formal
recommendation indicating the improvements to be made, the cost of those improvements, the
cost to the taxpayer, and the date on which an issue should be placed on the ballot for
voter consideration, and after holding three public hearings and two private committee
hearings, recommends a Bond Issue for badly needed park .improvements and acquisition of
new facilities to meet the ever - growing needs of the citizens of Yakima. He stated that
the majority of the committee feel that this General Obligation Bond Issue should be sub-
mitted to the Yakima voters on the September Primary Ballot, 1970 and made this'recommen-
dation on the basis of . a list of improvements presented to the City Council. Mr. John F.
Chesterly, Chairman of the Board of Park Commissioners, being present, stated that the
Parks Commission for the City of Yakima has reviewed the proposal by the Park Needs Study
• Committee for a park improvement bond issue in the amount of $1,767,855 ani concurs with
the recommendation with the addition of•a pool cover for Lions Pool, which should be
included in this issue, which pool cover would be temporary. He further stated that the
Board of Park Commissioners strongly support and urge the City Council to confirm this
matter. Others present.and speaking to this matter-were Mr. 011ie Nelson, Mr. Bud Apple-
gate and Mr. Mer Edmondson. Council members indicating that they concur with these re-
commendations, it was MOVED by Keith, seconded by Robinson that authorization be given to
hire Bond Counsel.and to start the action for the bond issue: carried,. Brown, Keith,
Lambert, Larson, Lust, McNeice and'Robinson voting aye by-voice vote.
An Appeal from the Planning Commission's decision in denying the Rezone Application, filed
by Mr & Mrs Ralph H. Johnson, requesting rezone of'property located at the southeast
corner of the intersection of Tieton Drive and 40th Avenue, having been filed, it was MOVED
by Robinson, seconded by that June 29, 1970 be fixed as the time for Hearing on
this matter: carried, Brown, Keith, Lambert, Larson, Lust, McNeice and Robinson voting
aye by voice vote.
City Manager McMicken explaining that it is necessary to purchase material and hire labor
to replace a defective compressor on the air conditioning system at the Yakima Municipal
Airport and this material is•available from one source only, it was MOVED by Brown, secon-
' ded by McNeice that Resolution No. D -1501 authorizing the purchase of said materials and
hiring of labor without calling for bids be passed as read: carried, Brown, Keith, Lambert,
Larson, Lust, McNeice and Robinson voting,aye by voice'vote.
RESOLUTION NO. D -1501 ,A RESOLUTION authorizing the purchase of materials and hiring of
labor without calling forbids.
•
City Manager McMicken reported that a Notice. of Claim, in the amount of $10;,850, has been
filed by Bay Cons truction- Everett - ajoirnt venture, the contractor. for construction of
the 48" Water! Transmission Main, .Schedule C., and that this claim will be filed as any other
Claim received is filed.
City Manager McMicken stating that a report has been received from the City Engineer on the
completion of L.I.D. No. 976, 1969 Street and Alley Paving Project, and recommending that
the work by accepted and final payment made, it was MOVED by Robinson, seconded by Keith
that the report of the City Engineer dated June 11, 1970, with respect to the completion •
of the work on.said Project, be approved, the work be accepted and payment of the final
estimate as therein set forth is hereby authorized: carried, Brown, Keith, Lambert, Larson,
Lust, McNeice and Robinson voting aye by voice vote. .
Councilman Brown asking to be excused from the next meeting of June 22, 1970, it was MOVED
' by Robinson,,seconded by that he be excused: carried, Keith, Lambert, Larson, Lust,
McNeice and Robinson voting ayeby'voice vote.
•
There being no further business to come before the Council, it wasMOVED by Keith, seconded
by Lust that we do now adjourn at the-hour of-1:45 A.M.: carried, Brown -, Keith, Lambert,
Larson, Lust, McNeice and Robinson.voti'g.aye by voce vote.
READ AND .CERIFIFf ACCURATE BY , ' ! DATE � 2./70
•
NCILMAN
•
•
(7`77 � . DATE
C OUNCILMA
ATTEST: •
C I T Y ■-••"‘- .1(://V2.,k7--
C L E R K • M A Y O R
•
•
•
•