HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/2010 15 Rezone 716 & 718 South 6th St and 507 East Adams St; Aziz Awad • BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. IS
For Meeting Of August 3, 2010
ITEM TITLE: Ordinance Adoption — Aziz Awad - Rezone
SUBMITTED BY: Michael Morales, Director, Community & Economic Development
CONTACT PERSON /TELEPHONE: Joan Davenport, Planning Manager
Christine Wilson, Assistant Planner 576 -6736
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
On July 20, 2010 the City Council voted to approve the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to
approve a rezone land use application submitted by Mr. Aziz Awad for property located at 716
and 718 South 6th Street and 507 East Adams Street. Attached is the legislative ordinance that
will not change the current Local Business (B -2) zoning, but will remove existing conditions of
approval of Ordinance No. 2008 -14 and substitute in their place new conditions on said
previous rezone, if the City Council takes an affirmative action.
ID Resolution Ordinance X Contract _ Other (Specify)
Funding Source
APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL:
City k anager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner recommended approval of this rezone on
June 24, 2010.
COUNCIL ACTION:
ORDINANCE 2010 - •
AN ORDINANCE relating to land use regulation and zoning;.rezoning, with conditions, three '
parcels of property located at 716 and 718 South. 6 Street, and 507 East
Adams Street, Yakima, Washington, for a non - project rezone to remove
conditions`from a previous rezone. All parcels will retain the current Local
Business, (B -2) zoning designation as more fully described herein; and
approving, with conditions the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner:
for the City of Yakima regarding the same; Mr. Aziz Awad being identified
as the applicant herein.
WHEREAS, by application dated March 23, 2010, Mr. Aziz Awed requested to remove
the conditions of approval imposed on a 2008 rezone of two parcels from the Historical
Business (HB) zoning district, and one parcel from the Single - Family Residential district to the
Local Business (B -2) zoning district. Yakima County Assessor's Parcel No.'s 191319- 43508,
191319 -43509 & 191319-43510, located at 716 and 718 South 6 Street and 507 East Adams
Street, Yakima, Washington (hereinafter "Subject Property "); and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2010, and concluding on June 7, 2010, the Hearing Examiner
• for the City of Yakima conducted an open - record public hearing regarding the requested rezone;
and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2010 the Hearing. Examiner issued Hearing Examiner's
Recommendation regarding RZ #001 -10 and SEPA #006 -10, (the "recommendation ")
recommended that the application for removal of the conditions of a previous rezone of the
applicant's three parcels without changing their current Local Business (B -2) zoning be
approved by removing the existing conditions and substituting in their place new conditions; and
• WHEREAS, at a closed- record public hearing held on July 20, 2010, the City. Council
considered the requested rezone, including the documents and other evidence which comprise
the record developed before the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation,
and the statements and comments of interested persons; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the considerations of the Hearing Examiner in
response to the requirements and criteria of Yakima Municipal Code.( "YMC ") § 15.23.030(E)
are correct and appropriate, and that the same should be adopted by the City Council as its
findings herein; and
•
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to enact the
following to approve the requested rezone, Now Therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA: •
• Section 1. The property located at 716 and 718 South 6 Street and 507 East
Adams Street, Yakima, Washington (Yakima County Assessor's Parcel No.'s: 191319- 43508,
•
191319 -43509 & 191319- 43510), legally described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, hereby retain their current Local Business (B -2) zoning
designation, and existing conditions are removed with new conditions substituted in their place.
Section 2. The findings within the June 24, 2010 Hearing Examiner's
Recommendation (RZ #001 -10 and SEPA #006 -10) regarding this rezone are hereby adopted
by the City Council. as its findings in support hereof pursuant to YMC § 15.23.030(F), and are
incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein. •
Section 3. The Official Yakima Urban Area Zoning Map and all other zoning, land
use, and other similar maps maintained by the City of Yakima shall be amended or modified,
subject to the conditions stated below, to reflect this rezone.
Section 4. The rezone granted by this ordinance is expressly conditioned on the
Owner's satisfaction of the following conditions stated on page 16 through 17 of the Hearing
Examiner's Recommendation:
1) The previous rezone conditions imposed on the applicant's three parcels by
Ordinance No. 2008 -14, including the limitation that only a parking lot may be developed
at 716 South 6th Street which may only support a food market and a Laundromat on the
other two parcels, will be removed so long as all new uses comply with all applicable
development standards and with any administrative adjustments thereof that may be
approved in accorda'nce with applicable criteria, and so long as the existing and /or new
uses on said parcels comply with the following three additional conditions of the rezone.
2) Due to existing traffic congestion both witnessed and confirmed by neighborhood
comments, all commercial delivery vehicles shall load and unload only on the north side
of East Adams Street at least twenty (20) feet west of its intersection with South 6th
Street at a location to be signed and marked in the manner required by the City at the
expense of the applicant, or from any other alley or off - street loading area to be
designated in accordance with Section 15.06.1340 of. the UAZO or otherwise by the City.
3) Future development of the applicant's three parcels are subject to all applicable Title
12 development standards, environmental review, traffic concurrency review, plan review
and building permits.
4) If commercial development is proposed at this site in the future, all applicable
development standards including, but not.limited to, parking, landscaping, site screening,
lot coverage, setback and sign standards shall be met. This condition does not preclude
site plan specific review, including consideration of any requested administrative
adjustments of development standards that comply with applicable zoning ordinance
criteria.
Section 5. Severability: If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance is declared invalid or unconstitutional for any reason, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this
ordinance with the Yakima County Auditor.
2
Section 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its passage,
approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter..
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL at a regular meeting and signed and approved this 3rd day
of August 2010.
Micah Cawley, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Publication Date:
Effective Date:
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
•
PARCEL NUMBER: 191319 -43508
LOT 8 BLOCK 118 OF RAINIER ADDITION TO NORTH YAKIMA, NOW YAKIMA,
WASHINGTON RECORDED IN VOLUME "B" OF PLATS, PAGE 23, RECORDS OF
YAKIMA COUNTY WASHINGTON. .
PARCEL NUMBER: 191319 -43509
THE WESTERLY 68 FEET OF LOT 9, BLOCK 118 OF RAINIER ADDITION TO NORTH
YAKIMA, NOW YAKIMA, WASHINGTON, RECORDED IN VOLUME "B" OF PLATS,
PAGE 23, RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY WASHINGTON.
PARCEL NUMBER: - 191319 -43510
THE EASTERLY 70 FEET OF LOT 9, BLOCK 118 OF RAINIER ADDITION TO NORTH
YAKIMA, NOW YAKIMA, WASHINGTON, RECORDED IN VOLUME "B" OF PLATS,
® PAGE 23, RECORDS OF YAKIMA COUNTY WASHINGTON.
3
?- ECER/ED
® i! 201E
City of Yakima, Washington `JFi_ ,: 'M n�i it i
Hearing Examiner's Recommendation
June 24, 2010
In the Matter of a Rezone Application )
Submitted by: )
) RZ #001 -10
Aziz Awad ) SEPA #006 -1.0
)
To Remove Conditions on a Previous )
Rezone of Three Contiguous Parcels )
To the Local Business (B -2) Zone )
A. Introduction. The introductory findings relative to the hearing process for
this application are as follows:
® (1) The Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing which. commenced
g p g
on May 27, 2010. This application seeks to remove the conditions imposed on a
2008 rezone of two parcels from the Historical Business (HB) zoning district and
of one parcel from the Single- Family Residential (R -1) zoning district to the Local
Business (B -2) zoning district. Existing uses on the two parcels on the northwest
corner of the intersection of South 6t Street with East Adams Street are the
Mercado Latino II neighborhood .food market and a beauty salon. The vacant
parcel north of those uses is not yet developed.
(2) The staff report presented by Assistant Planner Christine Wilson
initially recommended that the conditions of the previous rezone to the B -2 zoning
district be modified to remove the previous limitation that only a parking lot can
be developed on the vacant parcel at 716 South 6 Street so long as all new uses
comply with all . applicable development standards and that all commercial
delivery vehicles for existing uses shall load and unload only from the alley or
another off -street loading area to be provided by the property owner in accordance
with Section 15.06.1.30 of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance.
Aziz Awad 1
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
South 6` Street and East Adams Street
RZ #001 -10; SEPA #006 -10
RECEIVED
uk 2 4 ?On'
CITY OF YAK-;IM/ •
(3) The applicant's representative, Bill Hordan of Hordan Pla
PLANNING 0 V.
O PP '
` p n�ing
Services, argued that all conditions limiting the future use of the applicant's vacant
parcel should be removed from the previous rezone and objected to the
substitution of new conditions on the rezone that address parking and loading area
shortcomings of existing uses because the existing uses are grandfathered as to
their lack of off - street parking and loading areas required by current standards and
because proposed new conditions would not clearly allow for possible approval of
any future administrative adjustments for future development of the property.
(4) Samuel Gipson, a resident living at 713 South 6 Street, testified about
dangerous delivery truck and customer parking issues explained in his letter dated
May 17, 2010, that was submitted with seven photographs. The photo graphs, all
taken the same day, show how the view of drivers and pedestrians is reduced by
delivery trucks parked on South 6 Street near the applicant's food market and
how the vehicles using the six 90- degree customer parking spaces on South 6th
Street right -of -way must back into traffic. Two of the 'photographs show an
accident near the corner. Mr. Gipson noted that a school zone is very close to the
cluster of traffic and activity at the applicant's food market. He testified that the
City's recommendation for delivery trucks to load and unload in the alley rather
than on South 6 Street would not be workable because the alley is narrow and is
used for access to residences next to the alley. He testified that instead the
applicant should be required to improve his,vacant parcel with a parking lot so that
the large trucks could safely pull off of South 6 Street to load and unload, and so
that store customers would not have to back into traffic.
(5) Due to the evidence indicating that the lack of off - street parking and
loading areas for the existing market is grandfathered and that the applicant cannot
be forced to improve his vacant parcel solely as a parking lot to improve the
situation unless and until such time that he may choose to do so, and due to Mr.
Gipson's assertion that the alley west of the site is not a workable interim
alternative for the loading and unloading of trucks on South 6 Street, the
Examiner continued the hearing until June 10, 2010, for the parties to explore
other possible ways to improve the existing parking and delivery area
shortcomings in the interim until such time as the applicant chooses to develop his
vacant parcel.
(6) At the continued hearing on June 10, 2010, a letter from Bill I- Iordan of
Hordan Planning Services to Joseph Rosenlund of the Yakima Streets Division
dated June 7 2010, was admitted into evidence which requested the establishment
of a loading zone on the south side of the Mercado Latino II neighborhood market
Aziz Awad 2
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
South 6 Street and East Adams Street
•
RZ #001 -10; SEPA #006 -10
RECEIVED
•
(.= ff r YAidmik
PI l;NNlPlO DV.
within the north right-of-way of East Adams Street to alleviate the issue regarding
delivery trucks that parkin the street to make deliveries to the store which have a
tendency to block or obscure traffic. Also admitted into evidence was an e -mail
from Mr. Rosenlund to Assistant Planner Christine Wilson dated June 9, 2010, to
the effect that a loading zone on East Adams Street would be okay as long as the
parking and loading is not allowed within 20 feet of the intersection and as long as
the applicant, pays for the materials and labor to install the types of signage and
markings required by the City in the locations prescribed by the City. The e -mail
also notes that it is likely that double parking of delivery vehicles and /or customer
vehicles will occur along East Adams Street regardless of what is posted, but that
it would be better for that to occur on East Adams Street than on South 6 Street
where it currently occurs. A third document admitted into evidence was a memo
from Christine Wilson to the Hearing Examiner recommending that a sentence be
added to her fourth recommended new condition of the rezone to read as follows:
"This statement does not preclude site plan specific review."
(7) After reading the additional evidence, the Examiner asked questions of
Christine Wilson and Bill Hordan in order to determine exactly how the wording
of Christine Wilson's recommended conditions would be revised to read in order
to incorporate the additional information that was presented at the continued
® hearing and in order to serve as an interim improvement in the current unloading
and parking arrangement for existing uses pending development of the vacant
•
parcel. • .
•
(8) After determining exactly how the recommended conditions would be
revised to read in light of the additional information submitted, the Examiner
requested testimony from Samuel Gipson and Jean Stotts who are residents of the
neighborhood who appeared to testify at the continued hearing. Mr. Gipson
testified that East Adams Street would be better for unloading one delivery truck
at a time, but not the two or more trucks that often arrive at the same time as is
shown by his photographs in evidence. He also testified that the applicant should
be required to provide off- street parking on his vacant parcel for the delivery
trucks and customers of the food market because of the hazard to traffic and
pedestrians that is posed by any of the other parking and loading area alternatives.
He maintained this position despite testimony from Mr. Hordan to the effect that
the current deficiency in off-street parking for existing uses is grandfathered so
that the applicant cannot be forced to develop his vacant parcel as additional off-
street parking until he is ready to develop that parcel. Jean Stotts, who lives at 709
South 6` Street, testified that she would not like to see more businesses developed
on the applicant's property.
Aziz Awad 3
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
• South 6 Street and East Adams Street • .
RZ. #001 -10; SEPA #006 -1.0
•
RECEIVED
i� 2, 4 ?oi
► "1 a YAry ,,
PLANNING D V.
(9) Written public comments consisted of Mr. Gipson's letter and a letter
from Torsten and Gladys Kiddoo who live at 715 South 6 Street. Their letter
likewise favored the development of applicant's vacant parcel as a parking and
delivery area for the food market because of the hazards posed by large delivery
trucks parked on South 6 Street and by customers backing onto that street.
(10) This recommendation has been issued within ten business days after
the continued hearing was concluded and the record was closed on June 10, 2010.
B. Summary of Recommendation. Rather than removing all conditions of
the previous rezone, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the Yakima City
Council substitute new conditions based on infonnation submitted by the Planning
Division and the applicant at the continued hearing on June 10, 2010.
C. Basis for Recommendation. Based upon views of the site without anyone
else present on May. 24 and June -12, 2010; the information contained in the staff
report, exhibits, testimony and other evidence presented at an open record public
hearing commenced on May 27, 2010, and concluded on June 10, 2010; and a
review of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and the Yakima Urban
Area Zoning Ordinance; the Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS
I. Applicant/Property Owner /Representative. The applicant/property owner
is Aziz Awad, P.O. Box 2022, Yakima, Washington, and his representative is Bill
Hordan of Hordan Planning Services, 410 North 2 " a Street, Yakima, Washington.
Aziz Awad 4
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
South 6 Street and East Adams Street
1111
RZ #001 -10; SEPA #006 -10
` 4 ?(1 ti
• ® C11`i OF YAKMA
PL MMG.OIV.
IL Location. The location of the requested change in rezone conditions is 716
•
and 718 South 6 Street and 507 East Adams Street, Yakima, Washington: The •
respective Assessor's Tax Parcel Numbers for those addresses are 1913.19 - 43508,
43510 and 43509.
•
• Application. The main aspects of this application are described as follows:
. (1) The three contiguous parcels involved in this application totaling about
one -third of an acre Were rezoned on March 1.8, 2008, by City Council Ordinance
2008 -14. That ordinance adopted the Findings and the Conditions set forth in the
Hearing Examiner's. recommendation in RZ #7 -07 and EC #16 -07 dated
November 2, 2007.
(2) The two parcels on the northwest corner of the..intersection of South 6
Street and East Adams Street are currently used for the Mercado Latino II
• neighborhood food market and a beauty salon. The food market currently has six
90- degree, parking spaces on South 6 Street right-of-way where the customers
must back onto South 6th Street. The beauty salon has six . 90- degree parking
• spaces on the site north of East Adams Street where the customers must back onto
East Adams Street. No other off -street parking spaces have ever been provided for
the existing uses. The two parcels were originally zoned Historical Business
(1-IB). The third parcel north of those parcels was originally zoned Single - Family
Residential (R -1) and is currently vacant. In 2007, the applicant submitted a
project rezone application to rezone all three parcels to Local Business (B -2) in
order to construct a parking lot on the vacant parcel that would alleviate • the
shortage of parking . for the food market. The applicant's project rezone request
was approved subject to the following three conditions:
• "(a) The rezone will accommodate the proposed expansion of the existing
• commercial activities on parcel number 191319 -43508 for development of
• an accessory parking lot use for the current commercial activities on parcel
numbers 191319 -43510 and /or 191319- 43509.
(b). The rezone is limited to support of existing commercial activities, i.e. a
food market and a laundromat.
(c) The rezone is limited to an accessory parking lot use to be constructed
• in accordance with a site plan to be submitted for -the City Planning •
Aziz Awad 5
•
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions •
® South 6 Street and East Adams Street
RZ #001 -10; SEPA #006 -10
•
•
•
Rid" E VED
PLANNING DIV.
Division's consideration and approval showing the off - street and on- street
parking spaces on the three parcels in a manner that is acceptable to the
City, the site screening that will be required by the City and all other details
related to the proposed parking improvements that may be required by the
City Planning Division in order to comply with applicable development
standards."
(3) Since the rezone was approved, the applicant has purchased two
additional contiguous parcels to the north of the vacant parcel which he may wish
to have rezoned to B -2 and developed in conjunction with the vacant parcel. The
conditions placed on the previous rezone that limit use of the vacant parcel solely
to a parking lot for existing uses prevent a coordinated plan for possible shared
parking by potential additional uses. The requested flexibility to be able to
propose a new use for the vacant parcel or a coordinated development of the
vacant parcel with other parcels would defer until submittal of a development plan
the determination as to the amount of parking to be required on the vacant parcel
for new uses and possibly for alleviation of parking and delivery area
shortcomings for existing uses., The latter determination would depend upon a
determination at that time as to any grandfathered rights to lack of off - street
parking for existing uses and whether the City would allow the existing parking
arrangement for existing uses to continue.
II/
IV. Notices. Notices of the open record public hearing which was commenced
on May 27, 2010, and which was continued on the record until June 10, 2010,
were provided in the following manner:
Posting of notice of hearing on the property: April 27, 2010
Mailing of notice of hearing to owners within 500 feet: April 30, 2010
Publishing of said notice in the Yakima Herald- Republic: April 30, 2010
Notices of the application were sent to 113 adjoining property owners. Two letters
in opposition to the proposal were received. Both letters cited the need for a
parking lot on the vacant parcel to correct traffic problems that currently exist.
Concerns. included delivery trucks that routinely park directly in South 6` Street
which impede the line of vision at the intersection of South 6 Street and East
Aziz Awad 6
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
South 6 Street and East Adams Street
•
RZ 11001 -10; SEPA #006 -10
_ ry � gg p
r CE6vED
®
CITY OF YP\ ;1i'vii,
PLANNING DIU.
Adams Street for motorists and pedestrians alike. Safety concerns were also
• raised regarding the parking area located in front of the market on South 6` Street
because drivers back out into a heavily traveled arterial at an intersection.
V. State Environmental Policy Act. A final Determination of Non-
.
significance was issued on October 4, 2007, for the previous rezone request for the
applicant's three parcels under file number EC #16 -07. Since this application
involves the same parcels without a change in their current B -2 zoning, the City
issued an Adoption of Existing Environmental Document on April 26, 2010, for
the Environmental Checklist submitted with this application under file number
SEPA #006 -10. There was no appeal of the April 26, 2010, SEPA determination.
VI. Traffic Concurrency. As a non - project rezone, this application was
determined to be exempt from review under the City's Transportation Capacity
Management Ordinance.
\ H. Current Zoning and Land Uses. All three of the applicant's parcels are
zoned Local Business (B -2) in the Neighborhood Commercial Comprehensive
Plan designation. The southeast parcel is used for a neighborhood food market,
the southwest parcel is used for a beauty salon and the northern parcel is vacant.
Adjacent parcels have the following characteristics`
Location Zoning Comprehensive Plan Land Use
North R -1 • Low Density Residential Vacant • -
South R -1 Low Density Residential Residential
East R -1 • Low Density Residential Residential
West R -1 Low Density Residential Residential
Aziz Awad 7
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
South 6 Street and East Adams Street
RZ #001 -10; SEPA #006 -10
El VED>
J �•! 2 4? U i L
Ur; OF YAKINI,n 4110
VIII. Rezone Review Criteria. Recommendations regarding applicatios o r r 0►.V.
removal of conditions of a previous rezone within the Yakima Urban Area must be
based upon the following criteria specified in Subsection 15.23.030(E) of the
Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO):
(1) The testimony at the public hearing: The testimony presented at the
public hearing support this recommendation in the following ways:
(a) City Assistant Planner Christine Wilson and the applicant's
representative Bill Hordan ultimately testified at the continued hearing of
June 10, 2010, in favor of the new conditions here recommended for the
previous rezone.
(b) Resident Samuel Gipson presented legitimate concerns about
parking and delivery area shortcomings of the existing uses. His proposed
solution was to require the applicant to develop his parcel as a parking lot
to improve those shortcomings. Absent being able to force the applicant to
take that action at this time, Mr. Gipson was unable to suggest a way to
iinprove those shortcomings in the interim until the applicant submits a
development plan for the vacant parcel that may be reviewed by the City as
to adequacy of parking for proposed uses and the grandfathered nature of
any deficiencies in off- street parking for existing uses.
(c) Jean Stotts testified that she would not like to see more
businesses developed on the applicant's property.
(d) The weight of the testimony presented at the hearing established
the following facts which are the reasons for the recommended substituted
conditions of the previous rezone of the applicant's three parcels:
(i) The substituted conditions recommended by Christine Wilson
and by Bill Hordan in consultation with Streets and Traffic Operations
Manager Joseph Rosenlund at the continued June 10, 2010, hearing would
improve the existing parking and delivery area shortcomings of the
applicant's existing uses even though they are not perfect solutions;
(ii) The recommended conditions would make it more likely that
the applicant will submit a development plan for the vacant parcel in the
foreseeable future, either by proposing development only on the vacant
parcel or in conjunction with the applicant's two parcels to the north;
Aziz Awad • 8
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
South 6`'' Street and East Adams Street •
RZ #001-10; SEPA #006 -10
1ECEE !' E
•
Oil" Of YA
(iii) Until a better long -tens- solution to the existing parlana 0 ' V
delivery area shortcomings can be found, Mr. Rosenlund's view is correct
to the effect that it will be better if vehicles double park in violation of
signage to be posted on Adams Street than if they do so on 6 Street;
(iv) Discontinuance . of the food market's .current parking
arrangement without a better alternative pursuant to Mr. Rosenlund's
written comment to the effect that there is no vested right to park within the
public right -of -way would disperse the customer parking to other on- street
areas of the neighborhood that could create additional traffic safety issues;
(v) When the applicant submits a development plan for the
development of the vacant parcel alone or in conjunction with other parcels
to the north, a detei uiination can be made as to the amount of parking to be
required on the vacant parcel by considering any new proposed uses and the
applicant's obligation, if any, to provide off- street parking for existing uses;
(vi) Substituting the Planning Division's new recommended
conditions for the. applicant's 2008 rezone would at least improve the
existing parking and delivery area shortcomings of existing businesses in
the interim before the applicant submits a development plan for the vacant
® parcel which will allow the City to determine the applicable parking and
delivery area requirements for that vacant parcel; and
(vii) Making no change to the existing rezone conditions would
allow the status quo, with all of the existing parking and delivery area
shortcomings for the existing uses, to continue indefinitely.
(2) The • suitability of the property for uses permitted under the
proposed zoning: The following factors lead to the conclusion that the vacant
parcel is suitable for use permitted in the B -2 zoning district:
(a) In order for the new recommended conditions to be substituted
for the current conditions on the previous rezone of the applicant's
property, a consideration of the suitability of all the. Class (1) uses in the
Local Business (B -2) zoning district is necessary because no longer would
the use of the vacant parcel be limited to the parking lot for the existing
food market which was found to be suitable for the .vacant parcel in the
previous rezone analysis.
(b) The new recommended conditions for the previous rezone
would potentially allow all Class (1) uses to be .permitted outright on the
Aziz Awad 9
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
• South 6' Street and East Adams Street
RZ 001 -1 SEPA #006 -10
EC E VE
Gil; OF YAidiVilk
' l� NG JIB
vacant parcel without the need for Type (2) or Type (3) review if alt of i t
development standards could be met within the limited land area available.
(c) The Class (1) uses within the B -2 zoning district listed in Table
4 -1 of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance (UAZO) are exercise facilities;
daycare center; group homes (six or fewer), adult family home; stockpiling
of earthen materials; mixed use building; addressing, mailing and
stenographic services; artist's supplies; parking lots and garages; bakery;
beauty and barber shops; books, stationery, office supplies; butcher shop;
camera store; candy store; clothing and accessories; coin and stamp shop;
commercial services; computer and electronic stores; delicatessen; pet
daycare /animal training; drug stores (optical goods, orthopedic supplies);
espresso /coffee stand; fabric, store; financial institutions; florist; food store,
specialty; furniture, home furnishings, appliances; gift shop; jewelry,
watches, silverware sales and repair; massage therapy /spa; nursery; office:
professional (architects, attorneys, engineers, surveyors); office: medical
and dental laboratory, offices and clinic; office: service agencies
(advertising, employment, insurance, real estate, etc.); pet stores (pet
supplies and dog grooming); printing, photocopy service; repairs: small
appliances, TVs, business machines, watches, etc.; repairs: locksmiths and
gunsmiths; restaurant, cafe and drive -in eating facilities; seamstress, .tailor;
shoe repair and shoe shine shops; sporting goods, bicycle shops; technical
equipment sales; toy and hobby store; and video sales /rental.
(d) Any other potential uses in the B -2 zoning district require
administrative review with notice and an opportunity for the public and
others to comment relative to the criteria necessary . for approval of Class
(2) uses, or Hearing Examiner review with notice and an opportunity for
the public and others to comment in writing and /or testify at a public
hearing relative to the criteria necessary for approval of Class (3) uses.
(e) The Class (1) uses in the B -2 zoning district are all commercial
uses that would be severely limited in size by the size of the vacant parcel
and by requisite development standards such as the off - street parking
requirements for such uses; the 80% limitation on lot coverage by
impervious surfaces in that zone; the setback requirements from residential
districts in that zone; and the sitescreening requirements from residential
districts in that zone.
(f) Even if the criteria for administrative adjustments were found to
allow a relaxation of one or more development standards, the requirements
Aziz Awad 10
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
South 6 Street and East Adams Street
RZ #001 -10; SEPA #006 -10
Rt' ry
Li Ni 2; 4 ?U1G
• 1.;11Y
p; A {NNNING DIV.
for development, including development standards for lighting and other
characteristics of the Class (1) uses that could be located on the vacant
parcel, would make the applicant's vacant parcel suitable for the Class (1)
uses allowed in the Local Business zoning district. -
(g) Even though the second condition of the previous rezone limited
the use of the parking lot to the existing food market. and a laundromat
which has since been replaced by a beauty salon, any parking on the vacant
parcel for existing uses would be just as appropriate for a beauty salon
which is an outright permitted Class (1) use in the B -2 zoning district as it
would be for a Laundromat which is a Class (2) use requiring Type (2)
review in the B -2 zoning district. The recommended new conditions would
defer the determination of the uses to be served by new parking spaces on
the vacant parcel until a development plan for that parcel is submitted.
(3) The recommendations from interested agencies and departments
There were no recommendations or comments from any interested agencies.
Recommendations or comments from interested departments did not oppose the
recommended new conditions of the previous rezone. Specific recommendations
or comments from interested departments submitted as a result of the
Development Services Team meeting held on May 12, 2010, regarding the
• requested removal of conditions from the previous rezone were as follows:
(a) Code Administration: Since this is a non- project rezone, there
will be no issues until development occurs.
(b) Streets and Traffic Operations: On- street parking should not be
included as part of the calculations for available parking. There is no vested
right to park within the public right -of -way, and no assurances that parking
will be available in the future. It is unlikely in the foreseeable future that
parking would be removed in this area unless it became a safety issue: The
safety issue related to parking here has a higher probability because it is 90-
degree. parking adjacent to an intersection as compared to more typical
parallel parking.
(c) Water. & Irrigation: 716 and 718 South 6 Street are served with
a one -inch water service and each has its own existing 3 /a -inch meter. 507
East Adams Street has a 3 / -inch and a one -inch water service and meters.
The site is located in the Low Level Pressure Zone. Static pressure is
approximately 82 -92 pounds per square inch. The nearest existing fire
hydrant is located at the southeast corner of South 6 and East Adams
Aziz Awad 11
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
• South 6 Street and East Adams Street
RZ #001 -10; SEPA #006 -10
RECHVED
2 4 2010
'Jr Y OF-
PLANNING DIV,
Streets. The available fire flow is 1,600 gallons per minute froin the looped
6 -inch; waterline. If new commercial development occurs, all new fire
hydrants and fire sprinkler services for the site are to be determined by the
Code Administration Division and the Fire Department. The site is located
in the City's General 308 irrigation service area. There is an existing 4-
inch .PVC irrigation main in the alley. Each property has one ,irrigation
service. LID (Local Improvement District) charges and service connection
and installation charges will depend on the size of the water service and
meter required. .
.(d) Wastewater: No comment is submitted related to rezone of the
property. The applicant may have future requirements during site plan
review for a project.
(e) City Engineering: The developer is proposing to cancel the
previous rezone application conditions and remain in the Local Business
(B -2) zone. Engineering has no comments regarding the rezone. This
proposal does not affect Title 12 or Engineering standards. Public water
and sanitary sewer are provided by the City of Yakima. All drainage is
required to be retained on site.
(4) The extent to which the proposed rezone is in compliance with
4110
and /or deviates from the goals, policies and intent of the Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map designates this area as suitable
for Neighborhood Commercial development. The Future Land Use and Current
Zoning Comparison Chart, Figure III -11, provides a guide to the compatibility of
land use designations and the zoning districts. The Current Zoning Comparison
Chart indicates that the Neighborhood Commercial designation is compatible with
the Local Business (B -2) zoning district. Subsection 15.03.020(F) of the UAZO
states that the purpose of the Local Business (B -2) zoning district is to provide
areas for commercial activities that meet the small retail shopping and service
needs of the community; to accommodate small -scale commercial uses that need a
higher level of visibility and easy access to major arterials; and to accommodate
small retail sales and service establishments as uses characteristic of the B -2
zoning district. The current B -2 zoning of the applicant's three parcels and the
proposed continuation of that B -2 zoning with the recommended new conditions
comply with the following specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
(a) Policy 3.4.1: Encourage preventive maintenance and appropriate
reinvestment in older and declining neighborhoods. Improve the infra-
structure including, but not limited to: park improvements, sidewalks,
Aziz Awad 12
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
South 6 Street and East Adams Street •
RZ #001 -10; SEPA 4006 -10
ECE VE
� t.I N 4 2 010
uI r y OF Y1- ;1∎iw,
PLANNING DR(.
alleys, street maintenance, street lighting, trees and other landscaping
within the right -of -way.
(b) Policy 3.4.3: In the residential areas where commercial and
residential uses are heavily mixed, encourage . the establishment of
neighborhood commercial services and foster mixed uses including retail,
office and apartments. This is particularly important in areas on South
Second Street and South Third Street north of East Race Street. Discourage
commercial uses that are non- neighborhood related.
(5) The adequacy of public facilities such as roads, sewer, water and
other required public services: The applicant's three parcels are served by all
necessary public facilities such as public streets, water,, sewer, transit, fire, police
and other services.
(6) The compatibility of the proposed zone change and associated uses
with neighboring land uses: The recommended change in the previous rezone
that would impose new conditions on the rezone and would allow Class (1) Local
Business (B -2) uses on the applicant's vacant parcel would be more compatible
with neighboring land uses than the existing conditions of the previous rezone for
the following reasons:
(a) Adding a loading zone on East Adams Street to discontinue the
use of South 6 Street by delivery vehicles would be an interim
improvement of the parking and delivery area shortcomings of existing uses
until the applicant's vacant parcel is. developed.
(b) The recommended new conditions of the previous rezone would
make it more likely that the applicant will submit a development plan for
his vacant parcel in the foreseeable future, either by proposing development
only on the vacant parcel or in conjunction with the applicant's two parcels
to the north.
(c) When the applicant submits a development plan for the
development of the vacant parcel alone or in conjunction with other parcels
to the north, a determination can be made as to the amount of parking to be
required on the vacant parcel by considering any new proposed uses and the
applicant's obligation, if any, to provide off-street parking for existing uses.
(d) Any neww commercial use on the vacant parcel would be severely
limited in size by the size of that parcel and the development standards in
the B -2 zone such as the off- street parking requirements for commercial
uses; the 80% limitation on lot coverage by impervious surfaces in the 13-2
Aziz Awad 13
• Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
South 6 Street and East Adams Street
RZ #001 -10; SEPA #006 -10
3 .4ECEWEP.,, {
rj ;291i
:. ITY Ut Y rtr�lisirc
PLANNING DV
zone; the setback requirements from residential districts in that zone; and
the sitescreening requirements from residential districts in that zone.
(e) Even if the criteria for administrative adjustments were found to
allow a relaxation of one or more of the development standards, the
requirements for commercial development, including development
standards for lighting and other characteristics of B -2 uses that could be
located on the vacant parcel, would promote the compatibility of future
uses on that parcel with the neighboring land uses.
(7) The public need for the proposed change: There is a public need for
improvement of the current parking and delivery area shortcomings for the
existing uses on the applicant's parcels. Development of the applicant's vacant
parcel in a way that would provide off - street parking next to the existing uses
either in conjunction with a new use on that parcel or shared parking for one or
more new uses on other parcels to the north would serve that public need. The
recommended new conditions of the previous rezone would improve those
shortcomings on an interim basis. They would also increase the likelihood of
development of the applicant's vacant parcel in the foreseeable future in a way
that could permanently improve those shortcomings so as to permanently serve the
public need for safer passage near the intersection of South 6 Street and East
Adams Street for and pedestrians alike.
IX. Consistency of the Rezone with Development Regulations and with
the Comprehensive Plan under the Criteria Required by X1YIC
16.06.020(B) is determined by consideration of the following factors:
(1) The types of land uses permitted at the site by the City's Local
Business (B -2) zoning district, including the existing neighborhood food market
and beauty salon uses and any potential Class (1) uses allowed in the B -2 zone, are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's current Neighborhood Commercial
designation for the applicant's three parcels.
(2) The density of residential development or the level of development
such as units per acre or other measures of density are not a factor weighing
against this application for removal of conditions of a previous rezone. The .
recommended new conditions of the previous rezone would only allow
development in compliance with applicable B -2 zoning ordinance provisions
relating to the density of .development and the criteria for any administrative
Aziz Awad : 14
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
South 6` Street and East Adams Street
RZ #001 -10; SEPA #006 -10
R CE VED
• 2
�1� 70ii;
adjustment thereof. CITY Ui= Y;5 ilivii,
PL; NN!i \I OIV.
(3) The availability and the adequacy of infrastructure and public
facilities are present and support the applicant's request for removal of conditions
of the previous rezone.
(4) The characteristics of the development that already exist on two of
the applicant's . parcels and the characteristics of the potential uses of the
applicant's third .parcel would be subject to development standards applicable to
the B -2 zoning district and to the requirements for approval of any administrative
adjustment of such standards.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the foregoing Findings, the Hearing Examiner reaches the
following Conclusions:
® (1) The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction under Subsections 15.23.030(C)
and (E) of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance to make a recommendation to the
Yakima City Council regarding this application to remove the conditions of a
previous rezone.
(2) The public notice requirements of Chapters 15 and 16 of the Yakima
Municipal Code have been satisfied.
(3) There was no appeal of the City's issuance of an Adoption of Existing
Environmental Document on April 26, 2010, for the Environmental Checklist
submitted with this application under file number SEPA #006 -10 which adopted
the Determination of Nonsignificance issued on October 4, 2007, under file
number EC #16-07 for the previous rezone of the applicant's three parcels.
(4) This application for removal of conditions from a previous rezone was
determined to be exempt from the City Transportation Capacity Management
Ordinance.
(5) The recommended new conditions of the previous • rezone of the
applicant's three parcels to the Local Business (B -2). zoning district would satisfy
the seven rezone criteria in Subsection 15.23.030(E) of the Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance and the four consistency criteria in Subsection, 16.06.020(B) of the
Aziz Awad 15
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
• South 6 Street and East Adams Street
RZ #001 -10: SEPA #006 -10
RECEIVED
N; 2 4 ?U1 (''
PLANNING ON ® .
Yakima Municipal Code which are the applicable criteria to determine whether the
requested change in rezone conditions should be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner recommends to the Yakima City Council that this
application for removal of the conditions of a previous rezone of the applicant's
three parcels without changing their current Local Business (B -2) zoning as
described in the documentation submitted for UAZO RZ #001 -10 and EC #006 -10
and in this recommendation be ' APPROVED by removing the existing
conditions and substituting in their place the following new conditions on said
previous rezone:
(1) The previous rezone conditions imposed on the applicant's three
parcels by Ordinance No. 2008 -14, including the limitation that only a parking lot
may be developed at 716 South 6 Street which may only support a food market •
and a laundrorEnat on the other two parcels, will he removed so long as all new uses
comply' with all applicable development standards and with any administrative
adjustments thereof that may be approved in accordance with applicable criteria,
and so long as the existing and /or new uses on said parcels comply with the
following three additional conditions of the rezone.
(2) Due to existing traffic congestion both witnessed and confirmed by
neighborhood comments, all commercial delivery vehicles shall load and unload
only on the north side of East Adams Street at least twenty (20) feet west of its
intersection with South 6 Street at a location to be signed and marked in the
manner required by the City at the expense of the applicant, or from any other
alley or off- street loading area to be designated in accordance with Section
15.06.130 of the UAZO or otherwise by the City.
(3) Future development of the applicant's three parcels are subject to all
applicable Title 12 development standards, environmental .review, traffic
concurrency review, plan review and building permits.
Aziz Awad 16
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
South 6' Street and East Adams Street •
RZ #001 -10; SEPA #006 -10
RECEIVED
ON1 2 4 . 901i.
u1TY OF YAKImi,
PL HRl'JG
(4) If commercial development is proposed at this site in the future, all
applicable development standards including, : but not limited to, parking,
landscaping, sitescreening, lot coverage, setback and sign standards shall be met.
This condition does not preclude site plan specific review, including consideration
of any requested administrative adjustments of development standards that comply
with applicable zoning ordinance criteria.
DATED this 24` day of June, 2010.
. LULL
Gary 11 CuC illier, Hearing Examiner
•
Aziz Awad 17
Request to Remove Rezone Conditions
• South 6 Street and East Adams Street
RZ #001 -10; SEPA #006 -10