MIN 07-30-02 - CONGDON ORCHARDS.doc

Document Sample
MIN 07-30-02 - CONGDON ORCHARDS.doc Powered By Docstoc
					              CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
       ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
                    JULY 30, 2002 – 6:30 P.M.
       YAKIMA CONVENTION CENTER – 10 NORTH 8TH STREET


1.   ROLL CALL

     Present:
         Council: Mayor Mary Place, presiding, Council Members Clarence
                  Barnett, Lynn Buchanan, Paul George, Larry Mattson, John
                  Puccinelli, and Bernard Sims
         Staff: City Manager Zais, City Attorney Paolella, Consulting Attorney
                  Terry Danysh, City Clerk Roberts, and Records Clerk Watkins
         Also:    Susan Anderson, court reporter.


2.   INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

     Council Member Barnett led the Pledge of Allegiance.

     CLOSED RECORD PUBLIC HEARING ON CONGDON ORCHARD REZONE
     (APPLICATION TO REZONE PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTH 64TH, 72ND AND
     WEST WASHINGTON AVENUES AND WEST NOB HILL BOULEVARD, YAKIMA, WA)

     Jamie Carmody requested to change Agenda Item No. 10, to have the opponents speak
     first followed by the proponents. Council agreed. Mike Shinn, Counsel for Congdon
     Orchards, requested and received a change allowing five minutes for a surrebuttal
     following the initial rebuttal. This will reduce their rebuttal time to ten minutes, and add a
     surrebuttal of 5 minutes each.

     PUCCINELLI MOVED AND BARNETT SECONDED TO REVISE THE AGENDA
     ALLOWING EACH NON ATTORNEY SPEAKER, WHETHER REPRESENTED BY
     LEGAL COUNSEL OR NOT, A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, ONE
     TIME, AND TESTIMONY WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL ALL THE SPEAKERS HAVE
     HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. The motion failed by a 4-3 roll call vote; Buchanan,
     Mattson, Place, and George voting nay.

3.   DECLARATION OF EX-PARTE CONTACT

     During ex-parte disclosure, all Council members said they had received letters on
     the subject and turned them over to City Hall. Some had received phone calls as
     well but referred them to staff. Council Member Mattson clarified for the audience
     that he does not work for Yakima County Planning any longer but has worked for
     the Washington State Department of Transportation since 2001.
                       ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
                              JULY 30, 2002


     Jamie Carmody, Counsel for the Neighbors for Responsible Development and
     Growth, asked if, in terms of disclosure and the appearance of fairness, there had
     been any meetings between City management and City staff with regard to the
     substance or matters contained in this rezone application. He asked whether there
     had been briefing sessions with City staff. Terry Danysh, Counsel for the City, said
     it was his legal opinion that the types of discussion Mr. Carmody described did not
     amount to ex-parte contact.

4.   PRESENTATION BY LEGAL STAFF

     Terry Danysh, Attorney for the City, gave a brief description of a closed-record
     hearing. He said it is mandated by law and will not be the final review on this
     property. The City code provides for substantial further review of any project
     development applications as well as other mechanisms such as the State
     Environmental Policy Act, airport safety, endangered species, etc. From a protocol
     standpoint, in a closed-record hearing the City Council sits as an appellate court.
     This is a site-specific quasi-judicial process, reviewing the extensive and thorough
     recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. Nothing that has not been reviewed by
     the Hearing Examiner will be allowed to come before the Council at this time.
     Council will only hear arguments, not testimony. No new facts will be allowed. He
     also clarified that this hearing is about a rezone and, in his opinion, the
     development agreement is not the subject of this rezone hearing. To support this
     statement he said the development agreement was approved by the Council earlier
     and is not before them now. He noted that the issues relating to the development
     agreement are pending in front of the Growth Management Hearing Board.

     Mayor Place advised that the cutoff date for evidence to be included in this hearing
     was June 24, 2002.

5.   PRESENTATION OF CONGDON REZONE BY CITY STAFF

     A. DAN VALOFF – STAFF REPORT

     Dan Valoff, Senior Planner, said this closed record public hearing is to consider an
     application by Congdon Orchards for 715 acres to be rezoned from SR, single
     residential, and R-1, to R-2, R-3, CBDS, SCC, and M-1. This property is located in
     the area bordered by South 64th and 72nd Avenues, West Nob Hill Boulevard, and
     West Washington Avenue. The Hearing Examiner conducted open hearings
     March 14th and April 15th of this year to review the application. The Hearing
     Examiner filed his recommendation on April 24th. The City Council remanded it
     back to the Hearing Examiner and limited it to evidence relating to conditions of
     approval. The remanded hearing was held June 24th. On July 9th the Hearing
     Examiner rendered his revised recommendation to approve, subject to conditions.
     It is staff’s recommendation that the Council uphold the Hearing Examiner’s
     recommendation and direct staff to prepare the appropriate legislation.




                                           2
                       ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
                              JULY 30, 2002


     B.   BILL COOK – DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROCESS

     Bill Cook, Director of Community and Economic Development, noted that this is
     one of the largest and most significant rezone requests in the history of Yakima.
     He stated that, starting in January 2002, a total of seven notices have been mailed
     to neighbors of the proposed rezone; a total of 889 properties receiving over 4,000
     letters. The parties of record in this case are in excess of 900. There have been
     three public hearings totaling more than 25 hours of public testimony. The record,
     consisting of 1,800 pages of testimony, argument, and opinion, form the basis for
     the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation. In two documents, dated May 30th and
     July 9th, the Hearing Examiner submitted 81 pages explaining his recommendation
     to approve the rezone with conditions. The outcome will be a decision on the types
     of land uses that could be developed on this property. The Council is not making
     decisions on specific site plans, building sizes, or configurations. These decisions
     will be made in the future after receipt and review of project-specific applications.
     He emphasized that this is not the last time for public comment. There will be
     many future triggers requiring public notice and allowing an opportunity for public
     input. These will be things like SEPA environmental review for industrial buildings
     over 12,000 square feet in size, parking lots of over 40 spaces, and residential
     development of more than 20 units. This is an issue of balance between the rights
     of private property owners to develop and the rights of neighbors who suggest this
     rezone will negatively impact their property. The Council has to balance the needs
     of individual property owners and the needs of a growing city of 80,000+ citizens.

6.   PROPONENTS PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL

     Mike Shinn, Attorney from Halverson and Applegate representing Congdon,
     reviewed the history of this rezone process. He described the current zoning,
     changes around the property, and the reality of farming in current times. He
     discussed the changes that took place in future land use in 1987, the Growth
     Management Act (GMA) in 1990, and amendments to the GMA in 1997 that
     categorized this property consistent with what they are trying to do now. He
     discussed how the designation of each tract in the Future Land Use Map has
     changed but the zoning hasn’t. As the future land uses changed, Congdon began
     a plan to develop this property in a cohesive, well thought out, well planned
     manner. In 2001 Congdon created a development strategy for the future
     development of this property. They negotiated an agreement in good faith and in
     an attempt for an organized and thoughtful development with the City of Yakima.
     This required some tinkering with the Future Land Use Map. In 2001 Congdon
     applied to amend that map. He said the amendments were not substantial and
     described the affected tracts. Congdon has been through a number of hearings,
     in the annexation phase, future land use phase, and now future land use
     designations, that have helped facilitate the development strategy created over the
     years. But, there still is the misplaced zoning from the 1986 zoning ordinance.
     There are a number of laws that say this should be fixed. In January 2002,
     Congdon submitted the rezone designation for parcels A through F. The
     mechanism used was the Comprehensive plan itself which provides a chart for
     matching future land uses to the zoning map. The Congdons solicited advice from
     the City on appropriate zones to choose. Mr. Shinn then outlined the zoning



                                            3
                  ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
                         JULY 30, 2002


requested for each tract. The application was submitted to the Hearing Examiner.
The Hearing Examiner went through it all to verify the property is suitable for the
zoning chosen. Based on the evidence, he came to the conclusion that it was.
The struggle came when the issue of compatibility arose. This is where the
balancing approach came into play. After testimony from neighbors, the Hearing
Examiner recommended conditions. The conditions are of two basic categories;
transitional land uses so that R-3 isn’t up against R-1 and, CBDS versus R-1
interfaces addressed in the form of buffers, sight screening, and set backs
standards. There are also conditions as part of the Hearing Examiner’s
recommendation with regard to street improvements, all of which Congdon is
prepared to endorse. There are two conditions that Congdon feels are premature;
a lighting standard requiring a measure of lumens per net acre on parcels D and E,
and specific requirements for open space landscaping for parking lots. They feel
these conditions presuppose the type of requirement before a project is defined.
He suggested that light standards, noise, traffic, odor, etc. should be reviewed
during SEPA, not during a rezone application, because it is not project specific. He
then referred to a case, Ullock versus Bremerton, which tells us where there is not
a specific project, even if there is adverse environmental impacts, the zoning need
not address those impacts as it is only a matter on paper. He pointed out that
Congdon is a neighbor of this property and will continue to be, therefore, they have
interests as a neighbor as well. He said, we’ve done the matching and we solicited
the input to make sure the matching we did was in conformity, not just with this
chart, but with the future use of this property. He stressed that there is no need to
engage in hypothetical “what ifs”, that there is time for that later. Now is the time
for the zoning to be approved, finally, since 1986 to match the Future Land Use
Map in existence.

Bill Huibregtse introduced himself as a civil engineer who has been practicing in
Yakima for over 30 years. He was hired by Congdon Orchards to address the
lighting issue. His major point was that 50,000 lumens per acre on parcels D and
E is an inappropriate standard. He advised that lighting is typically measured by
foot candles, not lumens referring to the IESNA, Illumination Engineering Society of
North America, standards. He commented on the Hearing Examiner’s research
that established the 50,000 lumens per acre standard stating that it was based on
a county in Arizona that adopted it due to the amount of observatories in the area
and was it was designed to restrict the amount of light put into the night sky. He
said these references do not consider the safety and security of the citizens of this
community. He stressed that external lighting is a site-specific development
element, and it is premature to try to measure it in a rezone hearing. He said they
recommend the City continue to apply and review specific building and site
development on a case-by-case basis measured on the particular use proposed
not on a broad rezone basis. He offered the existing ordinance for the City of
Kennewick for review. He also pointed out that the July 9th recommendation from
the Hearing Examiner left out the criteria that was in his previous recommendation
for fully shielded fixtures that they believe is important. He strongly encouraged
the Council to not accept the recommendation of 50,000 lumens per acre.

Cliff Adams, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Congdon Orchards, referred
to the conversations regarding the urbanization of the areas around Congdon



                                       4
                        ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
                               JULY 30, 2002


     Orchards that has occurred over the last decade and the annexation into the City.
     Beginning in 2000 they recognized that as the City was expanding there was an
     incompatible use between continuing their operations and urbanization. They
     began more serious conversations with the City and decided the best way to
     proceed was to retain an urban planning firm to get a conceptual idea on how this
     property might best be developed over the next 25-50 years. That firm had
     expertise in transitioning from agricultural to urban. Their approach was to visit the
     property, visit with City staff, look at the comprehensive land plan, and create their
     conceptual strategy. That strategy was made available to a wide variety of people.
     What has been in the paper is that strategy; it hasn’t changed in two years.
     Congdons have been through an extensive and exhaustive procedure to get to this
     point. They have tried to be good corporate citizens. He outlined the activities that
     took place, notice of annexation, hearing with the Boundary Review Board, and
     discussions with the City to develop the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
     The MOU established the ground rules on how to develop the property over time,
     so that in 25-30 years hence there would be an understanding of the framework.
     He noted that 25 years ago, Congdon operated in an agricultural zone surrounded
     by agricultural zone. Developers put in houses. Twenty-five years from now, if
     there isn’t a plan, there will be islands of commercial and islands of residential.
     They felt there was a better way of doing it. He outlined the schedule;
     development of the MOU in May 2001, the application to change the Future Land
     Use Map in April 2001; Public Hearings in July 2001; the Regional Planning
     Commission’s acceptance of Future Land Use changes; the Joint Public Hearing in
     October 2001, and the adoption of those amendments by both the City and the
     County. During that time, the MOU was implemented and there was a public
     hearing on the development agreement. The development agreement was
     approved by the City Council and was signed in November 2001. In January 2002
     Congdon submitted an application for rezone that went through a review by City
     staff and has been through numerous hearings. He pointed out that during that
     process there were no recommendations for conditions to be imposed on the
     application. He also met with the neighbors and tried to listen to their concerns
     and what they were most worried about. He said they did listen, made
     suggestions and on two separate occasions proposed conditions to the Hearing
     Examiner that they found acceptable. He reminded Council that they are also
     neighbors don’t want to see something go in that is inconsistent with the
     development. He said they are willing to offer a further condition that on tracts D
     and E, add the requirement of a SEPA review on any and all projects.

     There was further discussion on the lighting issue and clarification of what the
     current City standards are.

7.   OPPONENTS PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL

     Jamie Carmody, attorney representing the neighborhood, opened by saying this is
     their story about the changes they are going to face. He said the starting point is
     that the original proposal was found to be non-compatible by the Hearing Examiner
     who then added certain conditions for compatibility.




                                            5
                   ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
                          JULY 30, 2002


Pastor Rick Harpel, 806 South 69th Avenue, said that everything they’ve seen
happening is fundamentally wrong. There has been an appearance of exclusion.
He said there appeared to have been years of strategizing between the City and
Congdon that didn’t include the public. He claimed that public notices were the
bare minimum and, in some cases, inadequate. He was under the impression that
the decision has already been made and questioned the legality if that was true.
He compared this rezone to allowing a Costco to be built across the street from
your home. He argued that the citizens should have been assigned lawyers by the
City to represent them. He went on to say they were not against development,
they understand that Congdon wants a valid return for their land, the City needs
growth, and the citizens want safe neighborhoods. He thinks the City should hire a
professional planner, as Congdon did for their interests, who will be objective and
bring the interests of all parties into consideration.

Mike Noble, 5609 West Arlington Avenue, spoke about the Comprehensive Plan
and read excerpts regarding neighborhood preservation. He spoke strongly
against the rezone to CBDS noting that the central business district is physically far
removed from this area. He brought up the problem that most uses under the
CBDS zoning are Class 1 review, which means there would not be the opportunity
of citizen input in a public hearing. He questioned the effectiveness of the
mitigation conditions suggested by the Hearing Examiner pointing out that a B-2
zoning would be more appropriate for the area. He said the citizens feel they are
being steamrolled, that the City is promoting economic development by sacrificing
the community.

Terri Trisler, 1521 South 69th Avenue, spoke against the R-3 zoning for tract D.
She suggests there be a step-down approach of two rows of R-1, then two rows of
R-2, before allowing R-3 zoning. She also would like to see Mead Avenue and
King Street dead end.

Cherie Dubeau, 1116 South 68th Avenue, and son Jeremy, gave a history of her
family and their move to the area. She tearfully spoke against the rezone saying
she feared it would compromise the quality of life that she has worked hard for.

Keith Olive, 6802 Bristol Way, said he lives adjacent to tract E, and gave his
credentials as a science teacher. He said every year he sets up astronomy nights
at school for parents and students, and one of the common complaints is the
impact of too much light on sky visibility. He addressed the problems of light
pollution and noise that he was sure would be caused by allowing this rezone. He
used an air popcorn popper to demonstrate the level of noise expected. He also
spoke about the impact to the neighbors’ views, and the airport safety overlay. He
commented that he felt the Council needs to represent the people and not become
adversaries.

Wilma Koski, 6403 Terry Avenue, referred to a document that stated there were no
“significant compatibility issues” in tract A. She vehemently disagreed with that
statement and pointed out areas that she felt were compatibility issues, e.g. the
corner of 64th Avenue and Washington Avenue. She didn’t agree with the
inference that 64th Avenue was enough of a buffer. She stated that the buffering



                                       6
                        ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
                               JULY 30, 2002


     that has been suggested is unacceptable and is prejudicial. She also addressed
     the airport overlay zone questioning noise and safety issues. She referenced an
     airport overlay zone regulation adopted by the City in February 2001, RCW
     36.70.947, and the Comprehensive Plan with regard to airports and zoning. She
     emphasized that the City’s top priority should be fair, equal treatment, and safety of
     all citizens. She alluded that this was all the result of the City’s efforts to stop the
     creation of the City of West Valley.

     Jamie Carmody, spoke again, stating that these are matters that are going to last
     forty years and fundamentally change the lifestyle and quality for these people.
     They feel they have been limited in their opportunity to participate in this process.
     He pointed out that this might be a land use matter to the Council and to staff, but
     that it’s everything to these people in terms of their investments, their lives and
     their families. He questioned the common sense in putting a zoning of CBDS next
     to an existing neighborhood, what is the thought in putting industrial next to existing
     family neighborhoods. Where is the thought and logic to put multi-family against
     existing neighborhoods? He claimed Council has jealously guarded the residential
     attributes of the community and asked why are they moving from that policy now?
     He made the point that there are seven criteria in the zoning ordinance that require
     supporting evidence. If Congdon fails in making any one of those proof points, this
     rezone must be denied. He emphasized the number of people who oppose the
     rezone. He referred to comments from the Department of Ecology and the
     Department of Transportation that allegedly had questions about the rezone. He
     encouraged the Council to read the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically
     what it says about neighborhoods, buffering, separation of neighborhoods and
     industrial, and the compatibility chart. He emphasized that good planning is
     transitional usage, transitional and structural density separation. He said the most
     telling compatibility comment came from the San Francisco land use planner,
     “…where possible the new commercial designations have largely been surrounded
     by more intensive residential as is good planning practices.” Congdon and the City
     have told the neighbors over and over again that there is no project. If there’s no
     project, why is there a problem with building these buffers? He then spoke about
     the fact that there would not be any public reviews for any projects. He said the
     offer by Congdon to have everything go through a SEPA review doesn’t satisfy
     them because SEPA does not deal with compatibility or density. He referenced the
     development agreement noting it “fixes” this for forty years and the neighbors
     cannot come back to the Council. He also brought up the airport safety issue
     referring to a letter from the Aviation Division that said they haven’t had a chance
     to review the issue but that it’s incompatible for multi-family at least. He inferred
     that if the City deviates from the airport safety guidelines they put the City into a
     liability situation.

     A break was taken at 9:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:17 p.m.

8.   CITIZEN COMMENTS (COMMENTS FROM NON-ATTORNEY REPRESENTED

     June Busch, 806 Pickens Road, reminded Council that they are supposed to be
     leaders making decisions in the best interest of the community. She spoke very
     negatively about what has transpired to date.



                                             7
                   ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
                          JULY 30, 2002



Wiley Mills, 1716 West Yakima Avenue, offered to buy the Congdon’s 900 acres,
plus the castle, at today’s appraised value, and sell it back to the neighbors.

Sandra Swanson, 6 South 2nd Street, spoke emphatically about the airport overlay
area and safety concerns as well as citizens’ (taxpayers’) frustrations.

Scott Wilson, 2410 South 66th Avenue, reminisced about Chester Congdon and his
philanthropy in Duluth, Minnesota. He told how Mr. Congdon had purchased land
near Davis High School, had it platted as the Capitol Addition, and handed the
deeds to the Legislature in case they wanted to make Yakima the capitol of
Washington State. The Legislature returned the property and he then offered it to
the City of Yakima for them to develop and maintain as a park. The City declined
saying it was too far out in the country.

Janie Richardson, 5401 West Arlington Street, said the proposed mitigation is not
adequate for tract F and requested the perimeter buffering be increased. She also
asked that the sizes and value of houses developed be equal to those of Tancara.
She said they are asking for responsible development compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods. She is very much against 56th Avenue being pushed
through to Nob Hill Boulevard. She claimed they had not been adequately
informed about meetings and have been mislead.

Clarence Gipson, 1315 South 40th Avenue, agreed that this is one of those hard
decisions that has to be made. If planning isn’t done for as far out as 40, 50, or 60
years, then the City will end up in a whirlpool with no where to go. He
acknowledged that Yakima needs to grow west and we need to take the
opportunity now. But he encouraged the City to find a way to make it work, to
hopefully, include parks in the plan and not just business and high-density zoning.

Marie Fulks, 8312 Aspen Street, described what happened in her neighborhood
when a mini-mart came in next door. She spoke about the lights shining in her
windows and the constant low-level noise. She said that berms are not going to
keep the noise out.

Chandra Harpel, 806 South 69th Avenue, spoke about the potential impact to her
family if a large business goes into the adjacent property if it gets zoned CBDS.
She emphatically stated that CBDS does not belong anywhere close to their
homes.

Lou Emard, 6910 W Nob Hill Boulevard, spoke of her experiences in conversations
with Mr. Adams from Congdon. She accused the City of not representing the
citizens of West Valley but representing Congdons. She also raised the issue of
increased danger to the kids walking to Wide Hollow School because of the
resulting increased traffic from a rezone.

Theresa Smith, Aviation Planning Manager for the Department of Transportation
Division, offered technical assistance to the City to provide information to allow for
informed decision making. She did say they would have great concern with



                                        8
                         ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
                                JULY 30, 2002


      amendments to the airport overlay and would want to be in discussion with the City
      if there was to be amendments. Her greatest concern would be developing multi-
      family residential in the flight approach.

10.   REBUTTAL

      A.       OPPONENTS

      Jamie Carmody referred to the development agreement, F-12, page 7, where it
      describes responsibilities for Nob Hill Boulevard, 64th Avenue and Washington
      Avenue. He said that per that agreement the maximum that can be asked of
      Congdon is right-of-way designation. He said that per Title 12 every other
      developer is required to put in curbs, sidewalks and gutters. He criticized the
      sequence of events, the process that was followed, and also pointed out that
      receiving guidance from the Aviation Division of the DOT should have occurred
      prior to any application being made. He referred to the Hart/Howerton document,
      F-3, and it’s step down zoning allowing for good buffering rather than berms and
      fences. He suggested that the City should want transitioning uses to help move
      people from place to place and not install barriers. He summarized by saying that
      all the neighbors are asking is that planning be done based on facts, and that the
      City work with the Aviation Division.

      B.       PROPONENTS

      Terry Schmaltz, attorney representing Congdons, countered the airport overlay
      issue stating that Mr. Clem and Mr. Berndt signed a letter dated May 24th that
      confirmed that the plans are compatible with the use and provisions of Chapter
      15.30 of the Yakima Municipal Code. Until there is a site-specific development,
      they accept this letter at face value. He responded to the inference that much of
      this process has been secretive and behind closed doors, a clandestine endeavor
      on behalf of Congdon and City to get to this point. The contrary is the case; this is
      a public process and has been from the beginning. He itemized the activities
      involved such as the 1997 Comp Plan that was a public process, the Comp Plan
      land use changes in ’02 that was a public process; the changes to the Future Land
      Use Map they requested based upon discussions with City was part of a public
      process. There were no secrets. The development agreement was part of the
      record at all times. He described how they argued to bring land use regulations
      and zoning laws into compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use map. He then
      reiterated that the table tells what zoning should go into various parts of the Future
      Land Use Map. He said that both CBDS and B-2 can go into Arterial Commercial
      but when they discussed it with the City, the City recommended CBDS. The other
      zones that were asked for were to simply bring the zoning map into compliance
      with Future Land Use Map changes. They entered into the develop agreement on
      the same basis. They went through the hearing process where Mr. Lamb made
      recommendations that, with the mitigations along the property perimeters, there
      would be consistency and then he would recommend the rezones. They offered
      modifications, changed set backs, and agreed with the buffers, although there may
      be bigger buffers by the time this is done. They have also offered a SEPA review
      anytime there’s any development on tracts D and E for further mitigation. They’ve



                                             9
                         ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
                                JULY 30, 2002


      agreed to the imposition and dedication as far as the airport overlay.
      Hart/Howerton came to the City of Yakima with the existing Future Land Use Map
      and worked from that, they didn’t try to redesign anything.

      FINAL REBUTTAL

      Terry Schmaltz referred back to Mr. Cook’s mention that there had been twenty-
      five hours of testimony before Hearing Examiner Lamb. All that was heard again
      tonight, Mr. Lamb heard and based his findings on it. With parcel A there was
      essentially no issue. The other parcels needed some mitigation to deal with
      compatibility as set forth in code along the perimeters and he made those
      recommendations. With two exceptions they are acceptable to Congdons and they
      have added more tonight. He said if Council rejects the Hearing Examiner’s
      findings and recommendations they reject all of that effort and his purpose of
      hearing all of the evidence over the last several months. He submitted those
      findings and recommendations as being his best judgement on how compatibility
      issues can be resolved for the benefit of all the City of Yakima. The Council’s
      decision has to be based on what’s best for all of the 80,000+ people. The people
      who live along the edges of this land are very important and articulate, but the
      Council represents an entire city and are looking at not just today or tomorrow or
      next year, but a long range plan.

      Jamie Carmody agreed that the City Council represents the city. He asked that
      they listen to everyone that spoke tonight and before the Hearing Examiner
      previously. He directed Council to be considerate of neighborhoods and to
      preserve and protect them. He indicated it is not that tough to harmonize existing
      neighborhoods and commercial and economic development. He then went on to
      explain that you can do so by putting a perimeter around the property of 400-500
      feet (about a block and a half) of single family residential, then some R-2 and blend
      it out, then everyone would go home happy. He spoke about the lack of public
      review when projects come up. There may be SEPA review, but no public review.
      He would rather see developers come to the public and convince them of
      compatibility when they want to put in an apartment building. That way you are not
      taking the land use away but are providing for the protection of the people. He
      asked why not rezone to B-2 rather than CBDS? They could still build the
      Walmarts but would just have to go through a public process.

11.   CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING

      Council Member Puccinelli prompted a discussion on the review process if
      someone wanted to put in a 24-hour gas station. COUNCIL MEMBER MATTSON
      MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO CLOSE THE HEARING. The motion
      carried by a 5-2 voice vote, Barnett and Puccinelli voting nay.

12.   COUNCIL DELIBERATION

      Council Member Mattson said the reason he moved to close the hearing is he
      wanted to propose a solution. He recommended the creation of a Congdon
      overlay zone applicable just to this rezone that elevates the level of review from



                                            10
                   ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
                          JULY 30, 2002


Class 1 to Class 2. This would allow Congdon the uses that are spelled out in the
CBDS zone, which are many, yet it affords the neighborhood some protection,
allowing for a 500’ radius notification for public review that goes with Class-2. This
would keep the public involved.

When the other attorneys were asked if that violated any existing agreement with
Congdon, they said they would have to look into it. There was discussion on what
impacts there might be if this was in conflict with the development agreement.
Council Member Sims recommended to Council that under the conditions they
eliminate the condition for 50,000 lumens under tract D, 4.3, and under tract E, 5.4.
He also suggested the elimination of the consideration for landscape requirements
in parking lots from 5% to 10%. A discussion on lighting issues ensued. Council
Member Mattson noted that one of the advantages of a SEPA review when there is
a project is they know what lighting standards are needed and it is disclosed in the
environmental check list allowing the community within 500 feet to respond. He
said we are not at that level of detail yet and that’s why there is so much problem
discussing these issues tonight.

 A short break was called at 10:45 p.m. to allow the Congdons to discuss the
potential of elevating the Class 1 to a Class 2 review. The meeting reconvened at
11:05 p.m.

Mr. Carmody suggested that there be a 30-day cooling off period and a mediation
to discuss a number of options. He recommended that mediation involve Theresa
Smith from the Aviation Division.

Mr. Schmaltz asked for clarification on what tracts would be affected by raising the
review from Class 1 to Class 2. Council Member Mattson said the intent was to
kick CBDS from Class 1 to Class 2 but after discussion agreed to limit it to tracts D
and E. When asked, Mr. Schmaltz said the Congdon representatives were not
willing to agree to a 30-day cooling off period for mediation. They felt they have
been in negotiations for too long already.

   MOTIONS

COUNCIL MEMBER MATTSON MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO ACCEPT
THE HEARING EXAMINER’S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CONGDON
REZONE.

AMENDMENT #1: COUNCIL MEMBER MATTSON MOVED AND SIMS
SECONDED TO AMEND ITEMS 4.3 AND 5.4 TO DELETE THE 50,000 LUMEN
STANDARD FOR TRACTS D AND E.

AMENDMENT #2: COUNCIL MEMBER MATTSON MOVED AND SIMS
SECONDED TO AMEND ITEMS 4.4 AND 5.5 TO REVERT BACK TO 5%
STANDARD FOR TRACTS D AND E.

AMENDMENT #3: MATTSON MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO AMEND THE
CBDS ZONES IN TRACTS D AND E FROM CLASS-1 TO CLASS-2 REVIEW.



                                       11
                           ADJOURNED BUSINESS MEETING
                                  JULY 30, 2002



      There was limited discussion on changing it from Class 1 to Class 3, or to change it
      to B-2 zoning instead. Congdons would not agree to that change.

      AMENDMENT #4: MATTSON MOVED AND SIMS SECONDED TO DEMAND A
      SEPA REVIEW FOR ALL PROJECTS IN TRACTS D AND E.

      The question was called for a vote on the amendments:

      Amendment #4, passed by 5-2 roll call vote; Barnett and Puccinelli voting no.
      Amendment #3, passed by 5-2 roll call vote; Barnett and Puccinelli voting no.
      Amendment #2, passed by 4-3 roll call vote; Buchanan, Place, and Puccinelli voting
      no.
      Amendment #1, passed by unanimous roll call vote.

      The question was called for a vote on the amended motion. The motion
      passed by a 5-2 roll call vote; Barnett and Puccinelli voting no. Staff was directed
      to bring legislation back to Council at the August 20, 2002 meeting.

      In response to Mr. Carmody’s request regarding compliance with the airport
      overlay issue, Mr. Danysh said we will take the discussion that has occurred and
      will provide Council with decisions and findings of fact. Mr. Danysh said, in the
      interest of the community, the airport safety overlay does have to be implemented
      and it does have to comply.

13.   ADJOURNMENT

      COUNCIL MEMBER BUCHANAN MOVED AND GEORGE SECONDED TO
      ADJOURN. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote.

      The meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m.


READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: ___________________________________
                                COUNCIL MEMBER                DATE

                                                    ___________________________________
                                                    COUNCIL MEMBER               DATE


ATTEST:


_______________________________                     _________________________________
                CITY CLERK                                   MARY PLACE, MAYOR

Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City
Clerk’s Office




                                                   12

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:12
posted:12/14/2011
language:
pages:12