- Home
- Front Page
- Neighborhood association rewarded for persistence
Neighborhood association rewarded for persistence
- By Martha Goudey
- Published 05/14/2008
- Front Page
- Unrated
After a year and a half, South Selah Neighborhood Association members were rewarded for their persistence. In a three to one vote, the Selah City Council denied a planning commission recommendation to retain a high-density designation and multifamily (R-3) zoning on three parcels on Southern Avenue.
The SSNA request was submitted to the planning commission in November of 2006, and asked that three parcels be redesignated low-density and the zoning changed to R-1.
The properties include 903 Southern Avenue, 605 Southern Avenue and 503 Southern Avenue. Two of those parcels are owned by Carl Torkelson, co-owner of Torkelson Construction.
The 605 Southern Avenue parcel is under development as a five-structure, 24-dwelling apartment complex. Litigation is ongoing in Yakima County Superior Court on the adequacy of the environmental review on that parcel. Torkelson Construction also owns the 503 Southern parcel, which is under development as a two structure, four-dwelling duplex.
City Planner Dennis Davison said the commission concluded that nothing would justify the change of the land-use designation from high density to low density and that petitioners failed to establish a public need to redesignate the zoning.
“Staff recommendation is for denial,” Davison said.
But council member Denise Nichols said she was concerned that property owners in the area had not been given proper notice of zoning changes, nor were they given an adequate opportunity to provide input on the changes.
“I’m not pro or con high or low density,” she said. “There’s a neighborhood that was not properly kept in the loop.
“There were a number of little blunders.”
Nichols said property owners have the right to come forward and say circumstances have changed and to request consideration and a zoning change,” she said.
Council member Herb Schmidt and Summer Derrey agreed. The three voted to reject the planning commission recommendation. Council member Keith Larson voted to accept the recommendation.
The council meeting was marked by the recusals of council members John Tierney and Paul Overby. Ken Harper, Torkelson’s attorney, said Tierney, Overby and Derrey would be unable to vote fairly because all three had aligned themselves unfairly with the SSNA members.
City Attorney Bob Noe said that Derrey made statements regarding the SSNA while campaigning.
“But I don’t see her as having a conflict,” he said.
Tierney was said to have gone to a planning commission meeting.
“I cautioned him not to speak to anyone about the merits of the application,” Noe said. “I assume he took that to heart.”
Tierney said he attended planning commission meetings because he is a member of the planning committee.
“I take exception with concerns that I would be biased,” he said.
“I know several people from SSNA. Some of the members are members of my church,” he said. “I door-belled this community. I talked to these people.”
But, he said he would recuse himself for the appearance of unfairness.
“Although I have an obligation to serve my constituents, I will step aside,” Tierney said.
Noe said Overby had signed a SSNA petition before he became a council member.
Overby said he had signed the petition early in his campaign for the city council position.
“But gerrymandering to produce a favorable verdict is not appropriate,” he said. “It’s a risky gamble because we aren’t sure how this would turn out.”
Overby said the association put a lot of time into their request and that they deserved to know how each council member would stand on the issue.
“I will recuse myself,” he said. “But I am not pleased.”
Derrey said she did not have a conflict of interest.
“I wanted to hear people’s concern during the campaign. That’s what I did,” she said. “I don’t feel I’m breaking appearance of fairness doctrine.”
“I will not be bullied,” Derrey said.
Harper removed his objection to Derrey and Tierney staying, but said that Overby’s signature on the petition was meaningful.
Once Overby and Tierney left council chambers, Nichols began to question the Planning Commission decision and the packet of information the council had received.
There was discussion about whether or not to include new information submitted by SSNA members.
“The open-record proceedings were created at the planning commission level,” Harper said. “If new information is to be included over my objection, that’s fine, but it wouldn’t conform to open record requirements.”
City Supervisor Frank Sweet said the SSNA letters were put into the council members packets “out of caution to keep people from saying we don’t give everything to council.”
Noe said the council was limited to the information that went to the planning commission. But SSNA Attorney Jamie Carmody told the council that they have the authority to accept and consider additional comments.
“No matter how you characterize this hearing, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t consider the information,” Carmody said.
It was decided to limit the discussion to information the planning commission had reviewed prior to April 7.
Council member Keith Larson said his understanding of the comprehensive plan development was that there was a lot of public input.
“I guess in order to amend the plan, it is set up in such a way that someone can not just walk in and change it,” he said.
“Looking at this, I have a hard time not agreeing with planning commission.”
Larson made a motion to adopt the resolution accepting the planning commission recommendations.
There was no second.
Harper and Carmody were given the opportunity to offer arguments for and against rejecting the recommendation.
Harper said it was the ‘intent and desire” of Selah that there be a mix of housing types in the community.
“The deficit is in favor of adding more multiple family residential,” he said.
Carmody said there was nothing in the record that reflected that this area should have been designated high density.
“We’ve gone through the transcripts,” he said. “There is nothing to show it was designated this way.”
Carl Torkelson, co-owner of Torkelson Construction said that after years of discussion it had come down to just three people
making a decision.
“I’m the one with the most to lose here,” he said. “By rezoning this property, it’s taking from me and my brother.
“I find it amazing that you would give permits, and then take them away,” he said. “I will have trouble with insurance and financing that you aren’t looking at that affect us.”
Torkelson said it was “good-old-fashioned, ‘let you do this, and now we’re going to take this away.’”
Torkelson’s property will remain under current zoning, but if 80 percent damages were to occur to the buildings, new construction would be restricted to R-1 zoning.
“There were some mistakes made,” Schmidt said. “One of the ways in which we have to err, is in support of the community.”
He said that when litigation is involved hard feelings and turmoil make it difficult to make decisions everyone feels good about.
“It’s not a matter of high or low density, it’s a matter of what is right is right,” he said.
The SSNA request was submitted to the planning commission in November of 2006, and asked that three parcels be redesignated low-density and the zoning changed to R-1.
The properties include 903 Southern Avenue, 605 Southern Avenue and 503 Southern Avenue. Two of those parcels are owned by Carl Torkelson, co-owner of Torkelson Construction.
The 605 Southern Avenue parcel is under development as a five-structure, 24-dwelling apartment complex. Litigation is ongoing in Yakima County Superior Court on the adequacy of the environmental review on that parcel. Torkelson Construction also owns the 503 Southern parcel, which is under development as a two structure, four-dwelling duplex.
City Planner Dennis Davison said the commission concluded that nothing would justify the change of the land-use designation from high density to low density and that petitioners failed to establish a public need to redesignate the zoning.
“Staff recommendation is for denial,” Davison said.
But council member Denise Nichols said she was concerned that property owners in the area had not been given proper notice of zoning changes, nor were they given an adequate opportunity to provide input on the changes.
“I’m not pro or con high or low density,” she said. “There’s a neighborhood that was not properly kept in the loop.
“There were a number of little blunders.”
Nichols said property owners have the right to come forward and say circumstances have changed and to request consideration and a zoning change,” she said.
Council member Herb Schmidt and Summer Derrey agreed. The three voted to reject the planning commission recommendation. Council member Keith Larson voted to accept the recommendation.
The council meeting was marked by the recusals of council members John Tierney and Paul Overby. Ken Harper, Torkelson’s attorney, said Tierney, Overby and Derrey would be unable to vote fairly because all three had aligned themselves unfairly with the SSNA members.
City Attorney Bob Noe said that Derrey made statements regarding the SSNA while campaigning.
“But I don’t see her as having a conflict,” he said.
Tierney was said to have gone to a planning commission meeting.
“I cautioned him not to speak to anyone about the merits of the application,” Noe said. “I assume he took that to heart.”
Tierney said he attended planning commission meetings because he is a member of the planning committee.
“I take exception with concerns that I would be biased,” he said.
“I know several people from SSNA. Some of the members are members of my church,” he said. “I door-belled this community. I talked to these people.”
But, he said he would recuse himself for the appearance of unfairness.
“Although I have an obligation to serve my constituents, I will step aside,” Tierney said.
Noe said Overby had signed a SSNA petition before he became a council member.
Overby said he had signed the petition early in his campaign for the city council position.
“But gerrymandering to produce a favorable verdict is not appropriate,” he said. “It’s a risky gamble because we aren’t sure how this would turn out.”
Overby said the association put a lot of time into their request and that they deserved to know how each council member would stand on the issue.
“I will recuse myself,” he said. “But I am not pleased.”
Derrey said she did not have a conflict of interest.
“I wanted to hear people’s concern during the campaign. That’s what I did,” she said. “I don’t feel I’m breaking appearance of fairness doctrine.”
“I will not be bullied,” Derrey said.
Harper removed his objection to Derrey and Tierney staying, but said that Overby’s signature on the petition was meaningful.
Once Overby and Tierney left council chambers, Nichols began to question the Planning Commission decision and the packet of information the council had received.
There was discussion about whether or not to include new information submitted by SSNA members.
“The open-record proceedings were created at the planning commission level,” Harper said. “If new information is to be included over my objection, that’s fine, but it wouldn’t conform to open record requirements.”
City Supervisor Frank Sweet said the SSNA letters were put into the council members packets “out of caution to keep people from saying we don’t give everything to council.”
Noe said the council was limited to the information that went to the planning commission. But SSNA Attorney Jamie Carmody told the council that they have the authority to accept and consider additional comments.
“No matter how you characterize this hearing, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t consider the information,” Carmody said.
It was decided to limit the discussion to information the planning commission had reviewed prior to April 7.
Council member Keith Larson said his understanding of the comprehensive plan development was that there was a lot of public input.
“I guess in order to amend the plan, it is set up in such a way that someone can not just walk in and change it,” he said.
“Looking at this, I have a hard time not agreeing with planning commission.”
Larson made a motion to adopt the resolution accepting the planning commission recommendations.
There was no second.
Harper and Carmody were given the opportunity to offer arguments for and against rejecting the recommendation.
Harper said it was the ‘intent and desire” of Selah that there be a mix of housing types in the community.
“The deficit is in favor of adding more multiple family residential,” he said.
Carmody said there was nothing in the record that reflected that this area should have been designated high density.
“We’ve gone through the transcripts,” he said. “There is nothing to show it was designated this way.”
Carl Torkelson, co-owner of Torkelson Construction said that after years of discussion it had come down to just three people
making a decision.
“I’m the one with the most to lose here,” he said. “By rezoning this property, it’s taking from me and my brother.
“I find it amazing that you would give permits, and then take them away,” he said. “I will have trouble with insurance and financing that you aren’t looking at that affect us.”
Torkelson said it was “good-old-fashioned, ‘let you do this, and now we’re going to take this away.’”
Torkelson’s property will remain under current zoning, but if 80 percent damages were to occur to the buildings, new construction would be restricted to R-1 zoning.
“There were some mistakes made,” Schmidt said. “One of the ways in which we have to err, is in support of the community.”
He said that when litigation is involved hard feelings and turmoil make it difficult to make decisions everyone feels good about.
“It’s not a matter of high or low density, it’s a matter of what is right is right,” he said.