HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2015-113 Small Convenience Center Zoning; Adopting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law RESOLUTION NO. R- 2015 -113
A RESOLUTION adopting findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting decision
of City Council affirming in part and reversing in part Hearing
Examiner's Interpretation, File No. INT #001 -14, pertaining to the
SCC Small Convenience Center Zoning District.
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted a comprehensive land use
regulatory ordinance governing land uses and establishing zoning districts within the City
of Yakima, which comprehensive land use and zoning code is known as the Urban Area
Zoning Ordinance ( "UAZO ") and is codified at Title 15 YMC, and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015, the City Council heard and considered an appeal
of a hearing examiner interpretation, which interpretation is described as Interpretation File
No INT #001 -14, and concerns the request for interpretation submitted by Yakima
Neighborhood Health Services to determine whether its proposed use would be a use
permitted within the SCC Small Convenience Center zoning district, and in particular, upon
a parcel commonly known as the "Roy's Market" site located at 201 South 6 Street within
the City of Yakima, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered the files and records herein,
together with the Interpretation decision of the hearing examiner, and the evidence and
testimony of record and the evidence and testimony presented at the August 18, 2015
appeal hearing, hereby makes and enters the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City Council of the City of Yakima has previously adopted the Urban Area
Zoning Ordinance as codified at Title 15 of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC).
2. Title 15 YMC is a comprehensive land use regulatory ordinance which establishes
a system and designation of zoning districts, and further defines and designates
specific uses ( "classified uses ") which are allowed as a Class (1), Class (2) or Class
(3) use within each zoning district, or which uses are prohibited in a particular zoning
district. The classified uses permitted or prohibited in each zoning district are listed
in Table 4 -1 as set forth in YMC 15.04.030.
3 YMC 15.04 040 provides.
15.04.040 Unclassified uses.
Any use not listed in Table 4 -1 is an unclassified use and shall be permitted
only in those districts so designated by the hearing examiner. Any
unclassified use permitted in a particular zoning district shall be allowed only
as a Class (2) or (3) use. The hearing examiner shall follow the provisions of
YMC Chapter 15 22 when determining which zoning districts are appropriate
for a particular unclassified use.
1
4 Chapter 15 22 YMC sets forth the provisions and procedures relating to the hearing
examiner's exercise of "interpretation" jurisdiction Such jurisdiction includes
determination of whether an unclassified use should be allowed as a Class (2) or
(3) use within a zoning district or districts, clarification of existing procedures and
definitions, and determinations of the precise location of zoning district boundaries.
The specific provisions concerning "unclassified use" interpretations are stated in
TMC 15 22 050, which provides in part:
The following conditions shall govern the hearing examiner in issuing use
interpretations (see YMC 15 04 040)
A. No use interpretation shall vary the location or review requirements
of any use listed in Table 4 -1 or home occupation listed in Table 4 -2.
B. No use interpretation shall permit any use in any zoning district
unless evidence is presented which demonstrates that it will comply with the
intent and development standards established for the particular district....
YMC 15 22 040 provides.
15.22.040 Notice of examiner's decision.
A. The hearing examiner shall mail a written copy of his
interpretation to the applicant, the Yakima County planning department, the
city of Yakima department of community and economic development, and
their respective administrative officials. Such notice shall be provided within
thirty days from the date of his receipt of an application for interpretation or
such longer period of time as may be agreed to by the applicant.
B. The hearing examiner shall clearly state the analysis and
reasons upon which any interpretation is based and, if the interpretation is a
use interpretation, how the interpretation is consistent with the specific
conditions established in YMC 15 22.050.
C. The department shall keep a copy of each interpretation on file
and shall make a copy available for public inspection during regular business
hours.
5. YMC 15.22 070 provides that the hearing examiner's decision on an interpretation
may be appealed under Chapter 15.16 YMC. Appeals under Chapter 15.16 YMC
are to the City Council.
6. YMC 15.16.040 provides in pertinent part that the "final decision of the hearing
examiner on those applications listed in YMC 15.20 040(C)(1), and on appeals
made under YMC 15.16.030, shall be final and conclusive unless it is appealed to
2
the legislative body by a person aggrieved, or by any agency of the city /county,
affected by the decision..."
7. RCW 35 63.130 provides
(1) As an alternative to those provisions of this chapter relating to powers or
duties of the planning commission to hear and report on any proposal to
amend a zoning ordinance, the legislative body of a city or county may adopt
a hearing examiner system under which a hearing examiner or hearing
examiners may hear and decide applications for amending the zoning
ordinance when the amendment which is applied for is not of general
applicability In addition, the legislative body may vest in a hearing examiner
the power to hear and decide those issues it believes should be reviewed
and decided by a hearing examiner, including but not limited to
(a) Applications for conditional uses, variances, subdivisions,
shoreline permits, or any other class of applications for or pertaining to
development of land or land use;
(b) Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations; and
(c) Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations pursuant to
chapter 43 21C RCW.
The legislative body shall prescribe procedures to be followed by the hearing
examiner.
(2) Each city or county legislative body electing to use a hearing examiner
pursuant to this section shall by ordinance specify the legal effect of the
decisions made by the examiner. The legal effect of such decisions may vary
for the different classes of applications decided by the examiner but shall
include one of the following
(a) The decision may be given the effect of a recommendation to
the legislative body;
(b) The decision may be given the effect of an administrative
decision appealable within a specified time limit to the legislative body; or
(c) Except in the case of a rezone, the decision may be given the
effect of a final decision of the legislative body.
3
8 Yakima Neighborhood Health Services ( "YNHS ") is a charitable nonprofit
corporation with offices at 12 South 8 Street, Yakima, Washington. YNHS
submitted an application for land use review and a request for interpretation
concerning a proposal to develop the Roy's Market site. The proposal was to
develop a resource service center providing a range of services for homeless and
pre - homeless individuals, including case management, employment and job
assistance, health care assessment, a dormitory for shelter or emergency housing
for up to 50 persons, placement assistance for transitional or permanent housing,
food services, provision of clothing and other staples, shower and similar facilities,
drug and alcohol treatment, behavioral health services, respite care and
transportation assistance The application for land use review sought a Class (2)
review for such uses as a "community center" or "mixed -use building" on the Roy's
Market site. The request for interpretation asked the hearing examiner to determine
whether such proposed uses constituted a "community center" or "mixed -use
building" as currently defined in YMC 15.02 020. If the hearing examiner determined
that such proposed use was not a community center or mixed -use building, the
request for interpretation asked that a new use classification be established for
YNHS' requested use pursuant to YMC 15 04 040 Pursuant to agreement between
the City of Yakima and YNHS, it was determined that the request for interpretation
should be processed first before any hearing was scheduled and conducted to
consider YNHS' Class (2) land use application.
9. The Roy's Market site is currently zoned SCC Small Convenience Center The
Roy's Market site consists of one parcel (Yakima County Assessor's Parcel No.
191319 - 13473) approximately 29,657 square feet in size. The parcel is surrounded
by R -1 Single - Family Residential and R -2 Two - Family Residential zoned properties
The purpose and intent of the SCC zoning district is set forth in YMC 15 03 020 as
follows
H Small Convenience Center District (SCC) The purpose and intent of
the small convenience center district is to:
1. Provide areas for commercial activities outside the downtown
commercial district that meet community retail shopping and service needs,
and
2. Accommodate small commercial centers, generally two to five
acres in size, where most of the commercial uses have located in a
coordinated manner around a common parking lot and one major
commercial approach driveway.
Small convenience centers serve the day -to -day convenience shopping and
service needs of the surrounding neighborhood and should be designed to
4
minimize undesirable impacts of the center on the neighborhood it serves
Uses in this district should be retail or personal service establishments
dealing directly with the consumer, the primary occupants usually being such
uses as a supermarket, fast food restaurants and drug store
10. Under the category of "Health and Social Service Facility" in Table 4 -1, YMC
15.04.030, the following classified uses are not permitted in the SCC zoning district:
group homes (six or fewer), adult family homes, boarding houses, halfway houses,
group homes (more than six), and convalescent and nursing homes Each of these
prohibited uses contain a significant residential component.
11 On April 2, 2015, the hearing examiner conducted a public hearing, pursuant to duly
published notice, to receive testimony and argument concerning YNHS' request for
interpretation The hearing lasted approximately five (5) hours and the hearing
examiner received testimony regarding the requested interpretation from several
individuals. Additionally, Maud Scott presented testimony in opposition to the
requested use and presented copies of written opposition to the proposal signed by
approximately 300 persons residing in or around the Roy's Market site
12. At the April 2, 2015 interpretation hearing, and in briefs submitted during such
hearing, the City of Yakima contended that the use proposed by YNHS constituted
a "mission" use as formulated and defined in a 1992 Hearing Examiner Interpretation
issued by Hearing Examiner Phil Lamb concerning a request for interpretation
submitted by the Union Gospel Mission (UAZO INTERP. #1 -92). The definition of
"mission" formulated by the hearing examiner stated:
Mission means a facility typically owned or operated by a public
agency or non - profit corporation, providing a variety of services for
the disadvantaged, typically including but not limited to temporary
housing for the homeless, dining facilities, health and counseling
activities, whether or not of a spiritual nature, with such services
being generally provided to the public at large.
The 1992 Interpretation further ruled that a "mission" would be allowed as a Class
(2) use only within the CBD Central Business and CBDS Central Business Support
(now the GC General Commercial) zoning districts. By a later Interpretation, the
hearing examiner expanded the allowable zoning districts to include the M -1 Light
Industrial zoning district (UAZA INTERP. #2 -94).
13. Based on the above, the City of Yakima argued that the definition of "mission" served
as precedent and that, given the similarity of uses between the services provided by
the Union Gospel Mission and those services proposed by YNHS, YNHS's proposed
use constituted a mission and was not allowed in the SCC zoning district. In a table
5
summarizing and comparing the services provided by the Union Gospel Mission and
YNHS, the following was presented:
Comparison of Uses Mission Versus Proposed YNHS Neighborhood Resource
Service Center (NRSC)
USES NRSC MISSION
Clothing and Other Staples X X
Shower and Similar Facilities X X
Transitional Housing X X
Meals / Food X X
Drug and Alcohol Treatment X X
Dormitory / Shelter X X
Dining and Kitchen Facilities X X
Employment Assistance and X X
Outreach
Behavioral Health X X
Nutrition X X
Maternity Support Services X
Respite Care X X
Permanent Housing Assistance X X
Warming Shelter X X
Transportation Assistance X
The City Council finds that the types of services proposed by YNHS are so close to
those provided by the Union Gospel Mission as to be virtually identical.
14. During the time the interpretation hearing was being scheduled and conducted, the
City of Yakima Planning Commission was conducting hearings and public meetings
on a proposed ordinance incorporating the hearing examiner's 1992 definition of
"mission" use and designating such use as an allowable Class (2) use in the GC
6
General Commercial, CBD Central Business and M -1 Light Industrial zoning
districts.
15 On May 12, 2015, the hearing examiner issued his Interpretation (File No INT #001-
14). The Interpretation concluded that YNHS' proposed use did not constitute a
"community center" or "mixed -use building" as those terms and uses are defined
and classified in Table 4 -1 While noting that the uses and services proposed by
YNHS were similar to those offered and performed by the Union Gospel Mission,
the hearing examiner failed and refused to apply the previously established
definition of "mission," holding that such was a legislative function beyond his
jurisdiction under RCW 35.63.130(1). Instead, the hearing examiner concluded that
he could exercise his unclassified use jurisdiction to allow the YNHS proposed use
as a Class (3) use on the Roy's Market site, and that such decision would apply only
to that parcel and not to any other SCC zoning district within the City of Yakima.
16. The hearing examiner concluded that his decision was consistent with the purpose
and intent of the SCC zoning district, despite having previously concluded that the
"residential component" of the YNHS proposal rendered such use inconsistent with
the classified "community center" use in the SCC zoning district. The hearing
examiner also concluded that the YNHS proposed use was consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan, despite evidence in the record that stated.
The subject [YNHS] proposal, regardless of use, meets the goals
and policies of the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan (as more
fully described above in Comprehensive Plan and Applicable Goals
and Policies): 3 3.1, 3.12, 3.12.3, and 3.12.4, however, the subject
proposal does not meet goals and policies: 3.3, 3.3.2, 3.4, 3.4.3,
3.4.4, 3.6, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.5, 3.8, 3.8.1, 3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.6,
3.8.7, 3.12.1, 3.12.2, 3.12.5, 3.12.7, and 3.12.8.
The City Council finds that the YNHS proposed use is not consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
17 On August 4, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2015 -022 which
codified the definition of "mission" as follows:
"Mission" means a facility typically owned or operated by a public
agency or non - profit corporation, providing a variety of services for
the disadvantaged, typically including but not limited to temporary
housing for the homeless, dining facilities, health and counseling
activities, whether or not of a spiritual nature, with such services
being generally provided to the public at large. Mission uses shall
be Class (2) uses within the GC General Commercial, CBD Central
Business District, and M -1 Light Industrial zoning districts as set
forth in Table 4 -1, YMC 15 04.030, and subject to a Type (3) review
as set forth in Chapter 15.15 YMC with a development agreement
7
incorporating applicable development standards and mitigations
imposed by the hearing examiner. Effective as and from August
24, 2015, any modification of an existing mission use shall be
subject to the modification procedures and provisions of Chapter
15 17 YMC, provided, that any proposed modification that does not
meet the criteria in YMC 15 17 040 for administrative review and
approval shall be subject to a Type (3) review with a development
agreement incorporating applicable development standards and
mitigations imposed by the hearing examiner
Section 3 of Ordinance No 2015 -022 amended Table 4 -1 to provide that the mission
use is allowed only in the GC General Commercial, CBD Central Business District
and the M -1 Light Industrial zoning districts The City Council finds that the types of
services proposed by YNHS constitute a mission use as defined under both the
1992 hearing examiner interpretation and the definition adopted and codified in
Ordinance No. 2015 -022
18 The City of Yakima and Maud Scott each appealed the hearing examiner's decision,
which appeals were timely presented On August 18, 2015, pursuant to notice duly
published, the City Council held and conducted an appeal hearing. While YNHS
contended that the Interpretation proceedings before the hearing examiner were
quasi - judicial (which characterization was opposed by the appellant City of Yakima),
there was no objection to any member of the City Council hearing and deciding the
case. After hearing and considering all documents and testimony of record, together
with the evidence and testimony presented at the August 18, 2015 appeal hearing,
the City Council, by a vote of 4 -3, granted the appeals submitted by the City of
Yakima and Maud Scott, by which action the issues assigned as error in the hearing
examiner's Interpretation (File No. INT #001 -14) are reversed.
19. To the extent any Finding of Fact set forth above is deemed to be a Conclusion of
Law, such item shall be deemed a Conclusion of Law without derogation of any
other Finding of Fact88.
Having made the above Findings of Fact, the City Council hereby adopts the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The City Council has jurisdiction to decide and determine all matters and issues
herein.
2. The appellants each have standing to present their appeals pursuant to
YMC 15.16.040.
3. The appeals filed by each appellant herein were timely filed and in conformity with
the requirements of Chapter 15.16 YMC and Chapter 16 08 YMC.
8
4. Pursuant to RCW 35.63.130, the delegation of authority to the hearing examiner to
exercise interpretation and unclassified use jurisdiction, as well as jurisdiction to
interpret zoning district boundaries, all as set forth in YMC 15 04 040 and Chapter
15.22 YMC, constitutes a lawful delegation of limited legislative jurisdiction, which is
to be given the effect of an administrative decision subject to appeal to the City
Council for final determination The delegation of authority is limited to
interpretation of existing provisions, procedures, definitions; determinations of
locations of zoning boundaries; and definition of new "unclassified uses" with
designation of the appropriate zoning district(s) for such new uses. Such
determination of new use and the appropriate zoning district for such use constitutes
a land use decision with precedential effect which becomes final unless timely
appealed to the City Council for final determination The delegation of legislative
authority to accomplish such unclassified use jurisdiction is limited to (a) defining
with particularity the new use, (b) basing the interpretation upon evidence that the
new use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the designated zoning district
and Comprehensive Plan, (c) requiring that the new use does not vary the location
or review requirements of any use listed in Table 4 -1 or home occupations listed in
Table 4 -2; (d) limiting the authority by requiring that any new use be only a Class (2)
or (3) use in the designated zoning district(s); and (e) limiting the hearing examiner's
authority by giving it the effect of an administrative decision subject to appeal to the
City Council for final determination. Under the unclassified use jurisdiction, the
hearing examiner would not have authority to establish a new use that applied in
every zoning district within the City of Yakima It was error for the hearing examiner
to conclude that he did not have authority to exercise the unclassified use jurisdiction
set forth in YMC 15 04 040 and Chapter 15.22 YMC.
5. The 1992 and 1995 Interpretations issued in UAZO INTERP. #1 -92 and UAZA
INTERP #2 -94 pertaining to the Union Gospel Mission were properly decided by
the hearing examiner, were never appealed, and thus had precedential effect when
considering future requests for similar uses. It was error for the hearing examiner
to fail or refuse to consider such precedential interpretations
6. The plain wording of YMC 15 04 040 defines the purpose and scope of the hearing
examiner's interpretation and unclassified use jurisdiction:
Any use not listed in Table 4 -1 is an unclassified use and shall be
permitted only in those districts so designated by the hearing
examiner. Any unclassified use permitted in a particular zoning
district shall be allowed only as a Class (2) or (3) use The hearing
examiner shall follow the provisions of YMC Chapter 15.22 when
determining which zoning districts are appropriate for a particular
unclassified use
9
(Emphasis added) The designation of a "particular unclassified use" requires the
hearing examiner to establish a definition of such use. It was error of the hearing
examiner to fail or refuse to create such definition in this case
The designation of the new use shall apply in those "zoning districts" so designated
by the hearing examiner. It was error of the hearing examiner to rule in this case
that any interpretation regarding the YNHS proposed use would apply only to the
Roy's Market property and not throughout the SCC "zoning districts" of the City
7. Because the interpretation and unclassified use jurisdiction is a limited delegation of
legislative authority, to be given the effect of an administrative decision, it was error
for the hearing examiner to construe his interpretation as a quasi - judicial land use
decision limited to specific parties and a specific parcel of property. There was no
land use application submitted concerning development of a specific project, but
only a request that the hearing examiner exercise his interpretation authority to
consider whether the YNHS proposed use fit within the definition of an existing use
classification, and, if not, whether the hearing examiner could exercise his
unclassified use jurisdiction to define a new use that would be allowed within, and
be consistent with the intent and purpose of, the SCC zoning districts of the City
The City Council concludes that the interpretation and unclassified use jurisdiction
of the hearing examiner constitutes a limited legislative delegation and function, to
be given the effect of an administrative decision, and is not a quasi - judicial land use
decision
8 The hearing examiner erred by failing or refusing to make findings based on
evidence that the YNHS proposed use was consistent with all SCC zoning districts
within the City.
9. The hearing examiner properly exercised his interpretation authority by finding and
concluding that the YNHS proposed use was not a "community center" or "mixed -
use building" as currently defined in Title 15 YMC. It was error by the hearing
examiner to fail or refuse to analyze the existing definition of "mission" as applied to
the YNHS proposed use.
10 The hearing examiner stated in his Interpretation that the use proposed by YNHS
"has similarities to the activities conducted by the Union Gospel Mission," but failed
and refused to examine, analyze and discuss those similarities and to apply the
existing definition of mission This was error by the hearing examiner.
11. Having considered the record herein and compared the type of services proposed
by YNHS with the types of services contained in the definition of mission as
established in the 1992 hearing examiner's Interpretation, the City Council
concludes that the services proposed by YNHS substantially conform to the type of
10
services included within such definition of mission, and that the use proposed by
YHNS constitutes a mission use. Us a mission use, the YNHS proposed use is not
allowed in the SCC zoning district.
12 Despite professing knowledge that the Yakima Planning Commission was engaged
in proceedings leading to the codification of the hearing examiner's 1992 definition
and decision regarding mission uses, the hearing examiner erred by ignoring such
proceedings and proceeded to issue his interpretation decision without deferring to
the then - existing legislative process.
13. Despite the directives in YMC 15.04.040 and Chapter 15 22 YMC, the hearing
examiner erred by holding that the YNHS proposed use would be allowable as a
Class (3) use only on the Roy's Market site. Such interpretation constitutes an illegal
spot zone
14 By adoption of Ordinance No 2015 -022 on August 4, 2015, the City Council has
rendered moot the hearing examiner's determination that he lacked jurisdiction to
consider the definition of mission as established by the 1992 hearing examiner's
interpretation. The City Council's legislation adopted and codified a definition of
mission and limited the mission use to the General Commercial, Central Business
District and M -1 Light Industrial zoning districts The City Council concludes that the
type of services proposed by YNHS constitutes a mission use under the terms of
the definition adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2015 -022, and that such use is not
allowed in the SCC zoning district, and not allowed upon the Roy's Market site.
15. The City Council concludes that the hearing examiner's Interpretation in the above -
referenced case should be reversed, and that such reversal is in the best interests
of the residents of the City of Yakima and will promote the general health, safety
and welfare
16 To the extent any Conclusion of Law set forth above is deemed to be a Finding of
Fact, such item shall be deemed a Finding of Fact without derogation of any other
Conclusion of Law.
Having set forth the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the City Council hereby
issues its
DECISION
1. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above are hereby adopted
by the City Council as its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law herein.
2. The Interpretation in File No INT #001 -14 issued May 12, 2015 by Hearing Examiner
Patrick D Spurgin is hereby affirmed in part and reversed in part as follows:
11
(a) The Interpretation is AFFIRMED insofar as it interprets the classified uses of
"community center" and "mixed -use building" and holds that the proposed use
of YNHS is not a community center or mixed -use building as defined at
YMC 15.02.020.
(b) The Interpretation is REVERSED insofar as it holds that a hearing examiner
exercising interpretation authority and unclassified use jurisdiction pursuant to
YMC 15.04.040 and Chapter 15.12 YMC cannot exercise legislative authority to
accomplish the purposes of such codes, in accordance with the lawful delegation
of limited legislative authority, to be given the effect of an administrative decision,
granted by the City Council in such codes and the provisions of RCW 35.63 130.
(c) The Interpretation is REVERSED insofar as it holds that a hearing examiner's
interpretations and unclassified use determinations apply only to the specific
parties requesting the interpretation and /or determination and the specific parcel
or project giving rise the request for interpretation and /or unclassified use
determination.
(d) The Interpretation is REVERSED insofar as it holds that the YNHS proposed
use will be allowed as any class of use within the SCC zoning district.
3. The proposed use submitted by YNHS constitutes a mission under the definition
adopted pursuant to Ordinance No 2015 -022 and pursuant to the hearing
examiner's 1992 Interpretation in UAZO INTERP #1 -92, and is not permitted or
allowed in the SCC Small Convenience Center zoning district of the City of Yakima,
and in particular, is not permitted or allowed on the Roy's Market site.
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED AND RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF YAKIMA this 1st day of September, 2015
I
ATTEST: Micah Cawley,/Mayor
' • t �� •• f y
Sony Claar Tee, City Clerk; !
12
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. S.I.
For Meeting of: September 1, 2015
ITEM TITLE: Resolution adopting findings of fact and conclusions of law
supporting decision of City Council affirming in part and reversing in
part Hearing Examiner's Interpretation, pertaining to the SCC Small
Convenience Center Zoning District
SUBMITTED BY: Mark Kunkler, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
On August 18, 2015, the City Council heard the appeal of the City of Yakima and Maud Scott regarding the
above - referenced hearing Examiner's Interpretation regarding Yakima Neighborhood Health Services'
(YNHS) use proposed for the Roy's Market site. After consideration of the record, together with the
testimony, argument and briefing at the appeal hearing, the City Council, by a vote of 4 -3, granted the appeal
and reversed the hearing examiner's Interpretation. Pursuant to YMC 15.16.050, if the City Council reverses
the hearing examiner, it must adopt findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision.
The attached Resolution contains the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision
supporting the City's Council's decision rendered on August 18, 2015. The City of Yakima's appeal did not
seek to reverse that portion of the hearing examiner's interpretation where he construed the existing use
classifications for "community center" and "mixed -use building." Therefore, that portion of the hearing
examiner's Interpretation would remain effective. The proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
support the decision of the City Council reversing the Interpretation of the hearing examiner insofar as it
disregarded prior Interpretations of the hearing examiner defining the "mission" use, refused to exercise
jurisdiction granted pursuant to YMC 15.04.040 and Chapter 15.22 YMC, and concluded that the YNHS
proposed use constituted a Class (3) use allowed upon the Roy's Market site in the SCC Small Convenience
Center zoning district.
Staff recommends adoption of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision set forth in the
attached Resolution.
Resolution: X Ordinance:
Other (Specify):
Contract: Contract Term:
Start Date: End Date:
Item Budgeted: NA Amount:
Funding Source/Fiscal Impact:
Strategic Priority: Improve the Built Environment
Insurance Required? No
Mail to:
Phone:
APPROVED FOR
SUBMITTAL:• City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date Type
D Findings of Fact -YHNS Aug 20 2015 8/24/2015 Resolution