Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02/04/2025 08.D. Public hearing and Resolution to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding a right-of-way petition for Ted Palmatier and deny the request to vacate a portion of N. 68th Ave. between Englewood Ave. and Scenic Drive
i4 eif,L4Ailiiii + i,i • i VA , _,) BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 8.D. For Meeting of: February 4, 2025 ITEM TITLE: Public hearing and Resolution to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding a right-of-way petition for Ted Palmatier and deny the request to vacate a portion of N. 68th Ave. between Englewood Ave. and Scenic Drive SUBMITTED BY: *Trevor Martin, AICP, Planning Manager Bill Preston, Community Development Director SUMMARY EXPLANATION: PLSA Engineering & Surveying Inc, on behalf of Ted Palmatier, submitted a petition on April 29, 2024, to vacate a portion of N. 68th Ave. between Englewood Ave. and Scenic Dr. The application was reviewed at an open record public hearing held on July 25, 2024 and August 8, 2024. The Hearing Examiner issued his interim decision to reopen the record on August 22, 2024, requesting additional information, the last of which was received on October 4, 2024. He issued his Recommendation on October 18, 2024. The complete hearing record was distributed to City Council in the agenda packet on January 21, 2025 and can be found online at: https://www.yakimawa.gov/council/agendas-and-minutes/ To participate in this public hearing please refer to the Public Comment Guidelines at: https://www.yakimawa.gov/council/public-comment/ ITEM BUDGETED: N/A STRATEGIC PRIORITY 24-25: A Resilient Yakima RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution denying request for right-of-way vacation. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Right of Way (RoW)Vacation.pptx 114 RESOLUTION NO. R-2025- A RESOLUTION relating to land use; denying vacating a portion of N. 68th Ave. between Englewood Ave. and Scenic Dr. in the City of Yakima, Washington, WHEREAS, by petition dated April 29, 2024 (Petition #24-09), which included signatures of the owners of more than two-thirds of the parcels abutting the property proposed to be vacated, Ted Palmatier requested to vacate a portion of City of Yakima right-of-way more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference generally known as a portion of North 68th Ave. north of Englewood Ave., in Yakima; and WHEREAS, the City of Yakima City Council has revaluated the location of the right-of-way and determined it is appropriate to vacate the right-of-way as there are no future plans to further develop or improve said right-of-way and there are multiple other methods to get to locations within that portion of the City which do not necessitate the use of this block of North 68th Avenue; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2024, and August 8, 2024, the Hearing Examiner for the City of Yakima conducted an open-record public hearing regarding the requested right-of-way vacation, and, heard from both the City and the applicant, as well as the public through written and oral public testimony; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2024, the Hearing Examiner issued as Interim Recommendation regarding RWV#003-24, requesting additional information, the last of which was received on October 4, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner issued a final recommendation on October 18, 2024, recommending denial of the Right-of-Way Vacation; and WHEREAS, as after reviewing the Hearing Examiner recommendation, the City Council agrees with facts, finding, conclusion, and recommendation and has determined the proposed Right-of-Way Vacation is not appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the findings of the Hearing Examiner set forth in Exhibit"A", and the recommendations in response to the requirements of the Yakima Municipal Code § 14.21 and RCW 35.79 are correct and appropriate, and that the same should be adopted by the City Council as its findings herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to YMC § 14.21 080, on February 4, 2025, a public hearing regarding the requested Right-of-Way Vacation described above was held before a meeting of the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to enact the following and to deny the requested Right-of-Way Vacation described above, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The Yakima City Council adopts the October 18, 2024, findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Hearing Examiner as its own, and hereby denies RWV#003-24, A copy of said recommendation is attached as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein by this reference. 115 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 4th day of February, 2025. ATTEST: Patricia Byers, Mayor Rosalinda Ibarra, City Clerk 116 r '' O ,,, %" ' � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Bill Preston,P.E.,Director I• Trevor Martin,AICP,Manager •..a° Planning Division \'a �,.' . r 129 North Second Street,2nd Floor Yakima,Washington 98901 1,1j',fJQAJa.1t'ti Il- ,-JY Phone(509)575-6183 •Fax(509)575-6105 •Email:ask.planning@yakimawa.gov NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 22,2024 TO: Applicant,Adjoining Property Owners and Parties of Record SUBJECT: Notice of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation FILE#(S): RWV#003-24 APPLICANT: Tom Durant—PLSA Engineering&Surveying PROJECT LOCATION: N.68th Ave.,between Englewood Ave.&Scenic Dr. On October 18,2024,the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered their recommendation on RWV#003-24, a proposal to vacate right-of-way at N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. & Scenic Dr.The application was reviewed at an open record public hearing held on July 25,2024, and was subsequently continued to August 8,2024 and an interim decision was issued on August 22,2024 requesting additional information. Enclosed is a copy of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation. The Hearing Examiner's Recommendation will be considered by the Yakima City Council in a public hearing to be scheduled.The City Clerk will notify you of the date,time,and place of the public hearing. For further information or assistance, you may contact the assigned planner, Trevor Martin at (509)575-6042 or email:trevor.martin@yakimawa.gov. Eva Rivera Planning Technician Date of Mailing:October 22,2024 Enclosures: Hearing Examiner's Recommendation Yakima 11IIJ, 2015 1994 117 RECEIVED O C T 1 8 2024 all OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV, City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Recommendation October 18,2024 In the Matter of an Application and ) Petition for the Vacation of Street ) Right-of-Way Submitted by: ) ) Ted Palmatier ) RWV#003-24 ) For Vacation of the North 68th ) Avenue Right-of-Way Between ) Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive ) A. Introductory Findings. The llearing Examiner conducted an open record public hearing commencing on July 25, 2024, which was continued until August 8, 2024. An Interim Decision was issued on August 22, 2024, requesting additional information, the last of which was received on October 4, 2024. The findings relative to the open record public hearing proceedings for this application/petition for vacation of the North 68th Avenue street right-of-way between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive may be summarized as follows: (1) The staff report presented as the first evidence at the July 25, 2024, hearing by Planning Manager Trevor Martin recommended denial of this requested vacation of North 68th Avenue street right-of-way which the agenda statement for the petition states Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 1 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 118 'FCEIVEC) nil' 18 2024 I Y OF YAKIir>> 31_AINNING DIV. is 1,285 feet long between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive and which varies from 50 feet in width at both ends to 40 feet in width in the middle of right-of-way area. (2) The following people also testified in opposition to this right-of-way vacation at the July 25,2024,hearing:(i)Tom Robinson of the Active Transportation Alliance and (ii)Phil Mattoon of the City of Yakima Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee. (3) Written comments were submitted in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation prior to the July 25, 2024, hearing in the form of: (i) letters from Maxine I. Farren; (ii) a letter from Jennifer J.Farren; (iii)a letter from Tom Robinson;(iv)an email from Phil Mattoon; (v) a letter from Coleen Anderson;(vi)a letter from Cyrus Philbrick; (vii) a letter from Phil Hoge; and (viii) a letter from the Active Transportation Alliance (ATA)group signed by Tom Robinson,Neil Barg,Ryan Kallis,Phil Mattoon,Edward A. Lisowski,Phil Hoge,Bobby J.Wright,Emily Wright and Pete Dougherty. (4)The following people testified at the July 25,2024,hearing in favor of vacating this right-of-way: (i)the representative of the petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier, Tom Durant of PLSA Engineering & Surveying; (ii) petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier; (iii) petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Carol Wagar; (iv)property owner/resident who uses North 68th Avenue as his sole access Barry Bernfeld;and(v)petitioner/adjacent property owner Matthew Sevigny. (5) Written comments in favor of the requested street right-of-way vacation were submitted prior to the July 25,2024,hearing in the form of a Narrative Statement of Tom Durant. (6) The hearing was continued until 9:00 a.m. on August 8, 2024, in the same hearing room at City Hall in order for the City Planning Division and the petitioners to consider and report back as to whether a Revocable License Agreement to use the right- of-way should be recommended in lieu of continuing the status quo by denying the requested street vacation or in lieu of granting the requested street vacation. More specifically, the Hearing Examiner asked for input regarding the feasibility of recom- mending a Revocable License Agreement between the City and the petitioners to use and gate the right-of-way under agreed conditions that would allow use by pedestrians and bicyclists and serve the purposes of the petitioners until the right-of-way can either be improved to City standards or be vacated when it is known for certain that it will never be improved to City standards. Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 2 Vacation of North 68°i Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 119 " '7-CEIVED 8 2024 I Y (Jr= YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. (7)At the continued hearing on August 8, 2024, Trevor Martin read his Memoran- dum explaining in greater detail why the Planning Division recommends that the requested vacation of street right-of-way should be denied. Tom Durant and Ted Palmatier testified in greater detail why the requested vacation of street right-of-way should be granted. City Attorney Sara Watkins answered a question that arose during the continued hearing by indicating that this area is not assessed for County fire protection services which indicates that those services are provided to this area by the City. (8) Written comments submitted at the August 8, 2024, continued hearing included: (i) Mr. Martin's written Memorandum in opposition to the requested vacation of street right-of-way; (ii) a letter from Yakima Fire Chief Aaron J. Markham in opposition to the requested vacation of street right-of-way; and (iii) another letter from adjacent property owner/resident Maxine I. Farren and adjacent resident Jennifer J. Farren in opposition to the requested vacation of street right-of-way. (9) After further review of the written comments and testimony, the need for additional information to be considered by the Hearing Examiner in making a recommendation and by the City Council in making a decision became apparent and was requested by means of an Interim Decision issued on August 22, 2024. Additional information was requested regarding the applicability to street vacations of YMC §14.25.040(l3)which allows only one lot in a subdivision to be accessed by a private road easement; the timing and the result of including this street in a future maintenance schedule; the likelihood of this street right-of-way ever being improved to City street standards; and the current Fire Department position as to allowing Knox box gates or other types of emergency gates to be installed. (10) In response to the request for additional information, the following evidence was submitted: an Opinion of City Attorney Sara Watkins dated September 4, 2024; a letter from Thomas Durant of PLSA dated September 10, 2024; a Response to Interim Decision from Planning Manager Trevor Martin received on September 24, 2024; and a response to that information received from Thomas Durant on October 4,2024. (11) Since any attempt to summarize the many points and arguments set forth in the evidence submitted for this matter would likely leave out some of the points and arguments that were made,an attachment to this recommendation summarizes each of the written comments/exhibits and paraphrases the wording of the testimony at the hearing in Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 3 Vacation of North 68i1'Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 120 RECEIVED OCT 8 2024 lil I Y Ui= Yfli£iMA PLANNdC G OW. order to include all of the points asserted by the interested parties both pro and con. City Council members may prefer to review the actual exhibits in the record and view the YPAC videos of the July 25 hearing and the August 8 continued hearing in order to consider the evidence presented rather than read the attachment to this recommendation which is only submitted to illustrate the factors considered by the Hearing Examiner and to consolidate the evidence in one place for the convenience of the City Council. (12) This recommendation has been issued within ten business days of the date when the record for the open record public hearing was closed on October 4,2024. B. Basis for the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation. The following findings, conclusions and recommendation are based upon the Hearing Examiner's view of the site with no one else present on July 20, 2024, and several times thereafter; his consideration of the staff report, exhibits, testimony and other evidence presented during an open record public hearing and the period thereafter allowed for submission of additional information; and his review of the criteria for vacation of street right-of-way in Chapter 14.21 of the Yakima Municipal Code(YMC). FINDINGS I. The Applicants, Petitioners and Property Owners. The applicants, petitioners and adjacent property owners who signed the petition to vacate this portion of North 68th Avenue are Theodore (Ted) H. Palmatier and Alida Wall Palmatier, 708 North 68th Avenue; Matthew Sevigny and Michelle Sevigny, owners of adjacent Parcel No. 181317- 44401 with no assigned address; Sharlene Sloop, 6909 Englewood Avenue; Margaret A. Grimm, 6804 Scenic Drive; Carol Wagar, 710 North 68th Avenue; and Graham Snyder, Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 4 Vacation of North 68"'Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 121 '7CEIVED ('CT 1 8 2024 A i/ OF YAKiidi, °LANNING DIV. Kaulin Stavik and Gracie Snyder, 614 North 68`1'Avenue,Yakima, Washington 98908. II. The Representative of Applicant,Petitioner and Adjacent Property Owner Ted Palmatier. The representative of applicant/petitioner/adjacent property owner Ted Palmatier for this matter is Thomas Durant of PLSA Engineering & Surveying, 521 North 20th Avenue, Suite 3,Yakima Washington 98902. III. Location. The location of the right-of-way that is the subject of this application/ petition for vacation is the portion of North 68th Avenue between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue. The parcels adjacent to the right-of-way are assigned Assessor's Parcel Numbers 181317-43405,-43407,-43419,-43422,-43424 and-44401. IV. Application. The main aspects of this application/petition for vacation of street right-of-way are as follows: (1) The right-of-way vacation application/petition was received by the City of Yakima Department of Community Development on January 30, 2024. The petition requests vacation of approximately 1,285 feet of the street right-of-way. It is the North 68th Avenue right-of-way between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive. Document Index C-1 prepared by PLSA Engineering & Surveying shows the requested vacation area on two pages, one for the north half and one for the south half. The roadway has been paved and maintained by some of the property owners who use it,but the pavement is narrow,the asphalt is cracking and crumbling in places and a hill limits site distance. (2) This application/petition is being processed under the provisions of YMC Chapter 14.21 relative to right-of-way vacations. Those provisions require a Hearing Examiner recommendation to the Yakima City Council that is based on findings and Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 5 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 122 FCE WED t1G1 t 8 2024 kA 9 Y tit- YAKI MiA PLANNING OW. conclusions in accordance with YMC Chapter 1.43, YMC Chapter 14.21 and RCW Chapter 35.79. V. Notices. On July 2,2024,by means of Resolution No.R-2024-117,the City Council set the hearing for this Petition No. 24-09 for July 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. Notices of the open record public hearing were provided in the following ways: Mailing of notice to petitioners and abutting property owners: July 2,2024 Posting of notice in three public places: July 2,2024 Posting of notice on the right-of-way: July 4,2024 Publishing of notice in the Yakima Herald-Republic: July 6,2024 After the testimony was presented at the open record public hearing on July 25,2024,the hearing was continued on the record to August 8, 2024, in order for the City Planning Division and the petitioners to consider and report back as to whether a Revocable License Agreement to use the right-of-way should be recommended in lieu of continuing the status quo by denying the requested street vacation or in lieu of granting the requested street vacation. The Planning Division testimony at the continued hearing did not support the alternative of a Revocable License Agreement in lieu of a decision to either deny or grant the requested vacation of right-of-way. VI. Environmental Review. Street right-of-way vacations are categorically exempt from SEPA environmental review per YMC Chapter 6.88 and WAC 197-11-800(2)(i). VII. Traffic Study. The City of Yakima Traffic Engineer has determined that a traffic study is not required for this requested right-of-way vacation. VIII. Development Services Team (DST)Review. A Development Services Team Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 6 Vacation of North 68"'Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 123 RECEIVED O C T 1 8 2024 UilY OF YAliisVi t PLANNING DlV, meeting was held on May 21, 2024, to discuss the possible impacts of this requested vacation of right-of-way. The following DST comments were received: (1) Traffic Engineering: Traffic Concurrency Ordinance (TCO) review is not required as part of this right-of-way vacation request. (2) Nob Hill Water Association:Nob Hill Water has infrastructure within the entirety of North 68th Ave between Englewood and Scenic Drive. If the right-of-way is to he vacated, then the applicant will be required to grant Nob Hill Water Association a 20-foot-wide easement over the existing pipe. IX. Zoning and Land Use. The portion of North 68`h Avenue proposed for vacation is considered public right-of-way even though it has not been opened to be used for a public street as part of the City's street system and has only been allowed to be used as a private road to access properties needing that access. Surrounding properties have the following characteristics: Direction Zoning Land Use North none Public Right-of-Way South none Public Right-of-Way East Single-Family Residential(R-1) Detached Single-Family Dwellings, Orchard and Vacant Land West Single-Family Residential(R-1) Detached Single-Family Dwellings and Vacant Land X. Written Comments/Exhibits Submitted and Testimony Presented. The written comments/exhibits submitted for this matter are summarized in the order in which they were submitted and the testimony presented at the open record public hearing for Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 7 Vacation of North 68°i Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 124 lECE VED JCT 1 8 2024 YAKMTIA PLt.',iIN G 130U.. this matter is paraphrased in the order in which it was presented by means of the attachment to this recommendation. The purpose of including the attachment is for the convenience of those who wish to review the evidence consolidated in one place rather than review all of the exhibits in the record and all of the testimony on the YPAC hearing videos of the open record public hearing commencing on July 25, 2024, and concluding on August 8, 2024, together with the requested additional written comments/exhibits submitted from then until October 4, 2024, when the record was closed. All of the testimony and exhibits have been considered by the Hearing Examiner, but not all of them are repeated in the findings below which refer to the evidence relied upon for this recommendation. XI. Right-of-Way Vacation Findings. The Hearing Examiner's findings relative to this recommendation to the Yakima City Council regarding this petition/application for vacation of the portion of North 68th Avenue between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive are as follows: (1) City Council Resolution: The Yakima City Council by Resolution No. R- 2024-117 referred this street right-of-way vacation Petition No. 24-09 to the Ilearing Examiner to hold a public hearing on July 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. and to make a recom- mendation to the City Council regarding the petition. The petition was signed by the owners of 75% of the contiguous private property which is more than the requisite 66%. This recommendation has been issued and delivered to the City Planning Division within 10 business days of the date when the record of the open record public hearing was closed on October 4,2024. (2) Hearing Examiner Authority: The Ilearing Examiner has jurisdiction to conduct public hearings on petitions and resolutions to vacate streets and public rights-of- Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 8 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 125 RECEIVED OCT 1 8 ZI]14 tiI fY OF YAKIMA PLANNING[IIV. way pursuant to YMC §1.43.080(H) and YMC Chapter 14.21 which provide that the Hearing Examiner shall make a recommendation regarding such petitions to the Yakima City Council. (3) Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: Street rights-of-way arc not technically within any zoning classification. However, upon vacation they acquire the same zoning that is applicable to the contiguous property. In this case, the contiguous property is zoned Suburban Residential(SR). (4) Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040: Street rights-of-way likewise do not have an underlying Comprehensive Plan designation.But upon vacation the vacated area is likewise designated the same as the contiguous property. In this situation, the vacated right-of-way area would have a Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential. (5) Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 35.79: This chapter of state law prescribes the state's requirements for the process of vacating street right-of-way.All requirements of this chapter that can be accomplished prior to delivery of this recom- mendation to the Planning Division for the City Council's consideration have been fulfilled. State law provides that the property within the limits to be vacated shall belong to the owners of the lots abutting each side of the vacated area, one-half to the owners on each side of the vacated area(RCW 35.79.040). (6) Public Use of The Right-of-Way: The members of the public who live along this portion of North 68th Avenue use the right-of-way to travel to and from their property. Other members of the public use it to travel between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive even though the right-of-way has been privately improved and maintained by the owners of the property who use it for access rather than by the City. Even though the right-of-way has the 50 feet of width required for current City street standards some distance from the north and south ends and 40 feet of width in the middle,it is only paved wide enough for one lane of traffic. (7) YMC §14.21.050(A)(1): What is the public benefit, reason for, and limitations of the proposed right-of-way vacation? Since this criterion is quite general and depends upon the findings relative to the more specific criteria to be satisfied for Ted Pahnatier,Property Owner: 9 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RW V#003-24 126 RECEIVED OCT 1 8 2024 1;1 I Y.OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. approval of a right-of-way vacation request, the evidence relative to these general criteria will be addressed after the more specific criteria are addressed in this recommendation. (8)YMC§14.21.050(A)(2): Does the vacation deny any property sole access to a public street?This criterion does not appear to be disputed. The position of Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant is that a new easement would be executed and recorded for the vacated right-of-way to allow continued access to public streets [Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive] from all of the parcels that front on or have access to the right-of-way. [Attachment p. 6 §B(1)& 18 §D(1)]. The Planning Division's position is that such action would cause the lots to be nonconforming and would prevent them from further subdivision, but does not appear to be that existing parcels would lose their current sole access to a public street, namely to Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive. [Attachment ps. 32-33 §H(2)A]. The Hearing Examiner therefore finds relative to this criterion that the requested right-of-way vacation would not under the evidence submitted in this proceeding deny any property sole access to a public street. (9) YMC §14.21.050(A)(3): Is the proposal consistent with existing plans of the City such as the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan, the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan or other official City plans and policies?The Findings relative to this disputed criterion are as follows: (1) It is undisputed that the requested right-of-way vacation would not be inconsistent with the City's Six-Year Transportation Plan (TIP) since it is not listed on the TIP from 2024 to 2029. [Attachment ps. 6 §B(1)& 10 §C(1)C]. (2) The Planning Division's staff report figures were uncontradicted to the effect that there are 13.69 acres or 596,336 square feet of adjacent land that could potentially be developed into 69 residential lots in this Suburban Residential zoning district that will need access for the homeowners and emergency services. [Attachment p. 8 §C(1)C]. (3) Besides citing HB1110 and RCW 36.70A which seek to increase the development of housing on the vacant property around North 68th Avenue, the Planning Division cites Comprehensive Plan Goal 5.1 to encourage diverse and affordable housing choices and Goal 5.2 to preserve and improve existing residential neighborhoods to support its position that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would be inconsistent with City goals to increase the availability of housing in the City. Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 10 Vacation of North 68"'Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 127 ''ECE ED OCT )1 8 2024. +.; l Y OF YAKI4ViA Plldi'dl5l UV, (4)To support its position that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have an inappropriate adverse effect on transportation connectivity and usage, the Planning Division cites Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.3 to provide a transportation system that is consistent with specified plans,Policies 6.5.9, 6.5.12, 6.5.16, 6.5.18 and 6.5.30 to provide good connectivity for safe alternate routes, for more direct travel and for pedestrian and other facilities consistent with plans including the Bicycle Master Plan. [Attachment p. 8-9, §C(1)D]. In that regard, the Planning Division also cites the City's 2040 Transportation System Plan provisions 2.1.4, 3.5.1 and 3.5.4 which encourage bicycling and pedestrian routes and their connectivity throughout the overall system [Attachment p. 10, §C(1)C] and Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.4.7 which is to promote complete streets and trails to interconnect Yakima's neighborhoods and promote walkability. [Attachment p. 33, §H(2)A]. (5) The written comment from Phil Hoge for Yakima Bikes and Walks also opposed the requested right-of-way vacation as contrary to Comprehensive Plan transportation provisions 6.5.9, 6.5.12, 6.5.16, 6.5.17, 6.5.18 and 6.5.30 and as contrary to the 2005 Growth Management Act Healthy Communities amendment to promote physical activity in the Land Use Plan and to include a bicycle and pedestrian component in the Transportation Plan. [Attachment ps.3-5 §A(8)]. (6) The position of Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant is that the requested right-of-way vacation would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan transportation provision 6.5.9 regarding connectivity because as a private street not being maintained by the City it is not a good or safe alternative for nearby routes that are constructed to City street standards and would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.3.2(C)which expresses an intent to preserve and enhance established residential neighborhoods by prioritizing the upkeep and improvement of streets because it would make it easier for the property owners served by the street to provide such upkeep and improvement in a manner that better protects the neighborhood and with more clear authority to do so. [Attachment p.6§B(1)]. (7) It is also Mr. Durant's position that the potential effect on connectivity could possibly be resolved by future development and that North 68th Avenue is only two blocks west of a collector arterial,North 66"'Avenue. He questions whether connectivity calls for a straight road that connects other streets only two blocks from a collector arterial and thinks that connectivity can be accomplished in other ways.He indicates that Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 11 Vacation of North 68'h Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 128 1.1(,1 } u 1024 elI If OF Yi fi irr Nl./lmwo"'d6Ye( 1 iv there are not many straight connections on a two-block interval in the City, especially in the west side of the City. [Attachment p. 16 §D(1)]. (8) Considering the evidence relative the effect of the requested right-of-way vacation on future development from both perspectives, it is important to note that there are not just two or three small lots that could be affected by the inability to use North 68th Avenue for access in the future if this requested right-of-way vacation is granted. The fact that there are 13.69 acres of undeveloped property in this area that can be developed as residential lots in the future makes it likely that the conversion of this public right-of- way into private ownership would reduce at least to some extent the number of residential lots that could otherwise be developed because other street right-of-way will probably have to be dedicated to take its place in some instances. Even though it is impossible to predict the extent, type or timing of future development, to be consistent with HB 1110, RCW 36.70A and Comprehensive Plan Goals 5.1 and 5.2,the number of residential units that can be developed in this area needs to be increased rather than reduced. (9) Even though the public right-of-way is only two blocks to the west of a collector arterial that connects the same two streets, that street is said to be more dangerous and congested for bicyclists and pedestrians than North 68th Avenue. [Attachment p. 14 §C(3)]. (10) Considering the evidence relative the effect of the requested right-of-way vacation on street connectivity from both perspectives, even though the petitioner and current owners indicate that they would only limit vehicular traffic by means of one gate on the north end of the right-of-way, that would adversely affect both the present and future street connectivity for vehicles, including emergency vehicles as noted by the Yakima Fire Chief. And even though the petitioner and current owners indicate that they would provide an opening in the gate to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to use the road, there would be no guarantee that current or future owners of the properties would continue to have only one gate in place or to have an opening that allows use by bicyclists and pedestrians in order to preserve that connectivity for them. The City would have no control over how the vacated right-of-way would be used in the future if the right-of-way is vacated. The loss of connectivity would be permanent for all time contrary to Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan provisions. Converting the property back to a public right-of-way if the need should arise would require a negotiated purchase of the property or a taking of the property through eminent domain. Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 12 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 129 RECEIVED '11;7 1 d 2024 (11)Lastly as to consistency of the requested right-of-way vacation with the City's street connectivity plans and policies, the Hearing Examiner's view of the right-of-way and surrounding area as an aid to understanding the evidence in this regard indicated that the North 68th Avenue right-of-way is in a location that foreseeably might be improved to City street standards in the future in order to accommodate vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic since the nearest street connection to the west between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive is North 80th Avenue which is about 7/10ths of a mile west of North 68th Avenue and about 8/10ths of a mile west of North 66th Avenue. (10)YMC §14.21.050(A)(4): Is the vacation request appropriate with existing and anticipated development in the area, based on zoning, current use and long range plans? The Findings relative to this disputed criterion are as follows: (I) The Planning Division's position in this regard is that approval of the requested right-of-way vacation would severely limit the development potential of the adjacent properties by requiring any future development to either acquire or reacquire the right-of-way or limit access at a time when recent State legislation(HB 1110)requires the City to allow more housing, up to four or six new housing units, on residential lots. [Attachment p. 10 §C(1)D]. (2) The Planning Division's position in this regard is also that approval of the requested right-of-way vacation would pursuant to YMC §14.25.040(B) cause seven of the eight homes using this right-of-way for access to become nonconforming because the access easement(s) established in lieu of the public right-of-way would serve more than one lot and that no new parcels or driveways would be permitted to have access to North 68th Avenue in the future. [Attachment p.25 §E(3)]. (3) The Opinion of City Attorney Sara Watkins submitted in response to the Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision requesting additional information was to the effect that YMC §14.25.040(B)which states that access easements within a subdivision cannot serve more than one lot does not per se require denial of the requested right-of-way vacation, but may be considered by the administrative official under YMC §14.21.040 as relevant to criteria 3 and 4 of the right-of-way vacation criteria. Those criteria pertain to the consistency with existing official City plans and the effect the requested right-of-way vacation would have on subdividing 10 or more lots that do not abut a public street other than North 68th Avenue or on other development that would be required to substitute a Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 13 Vacation of North 68'Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 130 RECE9VF.o OCT 1. 8 2024 CITY Of PLANNING Dlv. hammerhead or cul-de-sac in lieu of using North 68th Avenue for access. [Attachment Ps. 30-32 §H(1)3A]. (4) Petitioner Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant agrees with the City Attorney's Opinion except for the implication that the requested right-of-way vacation would restrict future growth and development in a significant way; indicates that developers always face limiting constraints such as the need for hammerheads or cul-de- sacs that reduce the number of lots that can be created; and adds that the only effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses would be on future subdivisions (10 or more lots) that do not have frontage on a public street, on duplexes that are not replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use and on other permitted non-agricultural land uses other than detached single- family dwellings. [Attachment p. 38 §1(2)]. (5) Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant takes issue with the Planning Division's position that the requested right-of-way vacation would prevent the existing lots from being subdivided or from using North 68th Avenue as their primary access because that would be allowed under the following circumstances: (i) The lots being subdivided have frontage on and direct access to one of the perimeter streets which are Scenic Drive, Englewood Avenue or North 66th Avenue (this could include where more than one lot is involved in a proposed subdivision,such as lots that do not now have frontage on any improved City street where the subdivision is developed with dedicated City streets extending to the interior properties; (ii) Subdivision or the development of existing lots where a private road is extended to serve no more than one lot per YMC 14.25.040(B); and(iii)Development, including subdivisions,with private roads approved as a Planned Development,mobile or manufactured home park, condominium or binding site plan in accordance with YMC §15.09.100. [Attachment ps. 38-39 §I(2)]. (6) Petitioner Ted Palmatier testified that the requested right-of-way vacation would not limit development and there arc ample streets already available in the immediate vicinity for connectivity. [Attachment p.20 §D(2)]. (7) Considering both sides of this controversy, even though there are possible ways for some of the property to be developed by using Scenic Drive or Englewood for access and/or by selecting certain types of development over others and/or by reconfiguring some of the existing parcels, the conversion of 1,285 feet of public right- Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 14 Vacation of North 68'Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 131 RECEIVED OCTI82.024 sl Ika �° 41i: rd. of-way into private ownership is likely to have at least some adverse effect on the number of residential lots that could be developed on the vacant land in this area. The fact that developers always face limiting constraints such as the need for hammerheads or cul-de- sacs that reduce the number of lots that can be created does not cure the inconsistency with plans and policies that seek to increase the number of housing alternatives available in the City. (11) YMC §14.21.050(A)(5): Are there any public or franchised utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated and if so, will they be relocated? This criterion is not disputed. On-line documents show a 6-inch Nob Hill domestic water line in the existing right-of-way and short plats indicate that irrigation lines are in the right-of-way. Power poles and title documents indicate that power,telephone and cable television utilities arc in the right-of-way. There is no need to relocate any existing utilities and future utility extensions will be accommodated by the easement or easements to be recorded to accommodate them. [Attachment p.7 §B(1)&p. 11, §C(1)E]. (12) YMC §14.21.070(A)(4): Whether compensation should be required in return for vacation of the right-of-way? YMC §14.21.070(A)(4) provides: "No compensation may be required if the city has not purchased, maintained, or made any improvements to the public right-of-way, there is no planned or anticipated public purpose existing for maintaining the public right-of-way as determined by the planning commission or development services team(DST), and the public right-of-way has been a dedicated right-of-way in the city for at least five years."Although the Planning Division staff report quotes this provision without a Staff Response and although Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative indicates that if the right-of-way is vacated, City staff agreed that no compensation would be expected to be required by YMC §14.21.070(A)(4), the Hearing Examiner makes the following finding relative to this criterion: Even though the City has not purchased, maintained or improved the area proposed for right-of-way vacation and the public right-of-way has been a dedicated right-of-way in the City for at least five years,nevertheless the Hearing Examiner finds in view of the position taken by the Planning Division, City Engineer and Fire Chief described above that the record lacks a determination of the City Planning Commission or of the members of the City Development Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 15 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 132 11C r 1 8 2024 Y 4 a YAKILh i � Services Team to the effect that no anticipated public purposes exist for maintaining that portion of the right-of-way. [Attachment p. 7 §B(1)]. This finding is likely irrelevant since the requested right-of-way vacation would not typically be granted without such a determination unless it is made by the City Council. (13) YMC §14.21.050(A)(1): What is the public benefit, reason for, and limitations of the proposed right-of-way vacation? The Findings relative to this disputed criterion are as follows: (1) The limitations of the requested right-of-way vacation would be about 1,285 feet of public right-of-way that is 40 to 50 feet in width for the portion of North 68t1' Avenue between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive. (2) The Planning Division staff report states that the requested right-of-way vacation does not benefit the public because it would require future development to dedicate or reacquire the right-of-way and reestablish multiple points of ingress/egress which would reduce future development potential in the area and therefore be inconsistent with the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan goals to provide additional housing in the City. [Attachment p. 9 §A]. (3) A resident/property owner and a resident of the same property located toward the southern part of the subject right-of-way opposed the requested right-of-way vacation because it would allow the right-of-way to be gated in a way that would make it difficult for the handicapped resident to open the gate if it failed to operate remotely and would also interfere with crucial deliveries and emergency services to their home. [Attachment p.2 §§A(2)&A(3)and Attachment p.24 §E(1)]. (4) Commenters associated with the Active Transportation Alliance, Yakima Bikes and Walks, the Yakima Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee and/or the Yakima Basin Velo cycling club opposed the requested right-of-way vacation if it would allow gating that would prevent non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Drive because it is safer to use than North 66th Avenue for bicyclists and pedestrians to access the Lower Cowiche Canyon trail and the Greenway; because the requested right-of-way vacation is not supported by any traffic data to establish a safety problem; and because it would be contrary to provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan. Many of the commenters expressed hope that a compromise can be reached before Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 16 Vacation of North 686 Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 133 117.CEIVED Ot:l e 2024 the public loses access to this road. [Attachment ps. 2-5 §§A(3)-A(9) and ps. 12-14 §§C(2)-C(3)]. (5) City Fire Chief Aaron Markham commented that the Yakima Fire Department opposes the requested right-of-way vacation due to the already limited access to areas of Scenic Drive from Englewood and because gates significantly increase response times during times of emergency. [Attachment p.24-25 §E(2)]. (6) The Planning Division opposed gating the right-of-way that would limit through traffic and opposed a Revocable License Agreement that would allow an agreeable manner of gating the right-of-way until it is improved to City street standards or until it becomes clear that it will not likely ever be improved to City standards and may therefore be vacated. [Attachment ps.25-27 §E(3)]. (7) Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant indicated that the requested right-of-way vacation would benefit the public by relieving the City of the obligation to improve the road and of the liability for its use; by allowing the property owners who use it for access to take actions to limit its use to those property owners, residents and their guests; and by allowing connectivity to be provided by future development in a way that provides better safety, better traffic circulation and less neighborhood disruption. [Attachment p.6 §B(1)]. (8) Petitioner Ted Palmatier and his representative Thomas Durant both indicated that the evidence indicates that this street is not going to be improved to City standards in the foreseeable future because: (i) the short plat approved in 2023 adjacent to the east side of North 68th for about half the distance south from Scenic Drive was not required to have an access onto North 68th Avenue or to improve that street with full-street or half- street improvements; (ii)the staff report for that short plat stated"The City has no current or future plans proposing the full build out of North 68th Avenue in order to connect Scenic Drive to Englewood Avenue;" and(iii) about two weeks thereafter Petitioner Ted Palmatier and several of his neighbors met with staff and were told again that the City has no plans to maintain North 68th Avenue and were encouraged at that meeting to petition for this right-of-way vacation which they have undertaken at a considerable expense. [Attachment ps. 17-19 §§D(1)&D(2)]. (9) Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant also expressed the view that a continuance of the hearing would be helpful to allow the owners a chance to Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 17 Vacation of North 68(h Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 134 FrEC°"I E 0E1 A. d ?OM CY' C,' l'1u.k w9•�2ad4'je.Jd U'. consider their position relative to a Revocable License Agreement with the City to use the street with an agreeable type of gating until it can be improved to a City standard or until it is known for certain that it can be vacated because it will never likely be improved to a City standard, an approach which was requested by Petitioner Ted Palmatier as a last resort in lieu of a denial of the petition. [Attachment ps. 18 §D(1)&29 §G(2)]. (10) Petitioner Ted Palmatier testified that the requested right-of-way vacation would benefit the public by allowing the property owners to address a dangerous situation where vehicles speed and drive in a reckless manner on the narrow single-lane road so as to endanger the other users of the road, including bicyclists and pedestrians. The dangerous situation would be addressed by means of a gate that could be opened remotely from vehicles or emergency vehicles with an opening for bicyclists and pedestrians to pass through. [Attachment ps. 19-21 §D(2)]. (11) Other petitioners and a property owner using North 68th Avenue for access also indicate (i) that gating at the north end of the right-of-way would not prevent bicyclists and pedestrians from using the road and would not prevent emergency vehicles from coining from Englewood or opening the gate;(ii) that their concerns are safety and maintenance; (iii) that the road now needs re-paving because it has holes and alligator cracking; and(iv)that their frustration is that they pay for the road but have no ability to limit its use as to vehicle traffic. [Attachment 22-24§§D(3)-(5)]. (12)The Planning Division's position is that the reasons for the requested right-of- way vacation to address safety and maintenance concerns do not outweigh the right-of- way vacation's potential effect of reducing development potential in the area due to a need to dedicate or reacquire right-of-way and reestablish multiple points of ingress! egress or provide new right-of-way that would reduce the area available for development contrary to the Growth Management Act and City Comprehensive Plan provisions. [Attachment p. 9 §C(1)A]. (13) The Planning Division indicated that the right-of-way would be added to the City's street maintenance and improvement schedule; that plans for the development would be included in future updates to the City's Engineering documents without an exact date when it would be improved to City standards; that future development would be required to dedicate needed additional right-of-way; and that the City would likely look at paving the 32-foot-wide section of residential street prior to the installation of Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 18 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 135 1ECE VFF OCT 1 8 2014 frontage improvements such as curb, gutter and sidewalk. [Attachment ps. 33-34 §H(2)C]. (14)The main stated reason for the requested right-of-way vacation is safety. The safety concern would he addressed by allowing the residents who are using the road to he in a better position to control the problems by making this explicitly a private road rather than a private road in a public right-of-way so that it could possibly be gated as a physical means to discourage or stop nonresident traffic and make it safer for the users, including bicyclists and pedestrians. [Attachment ps. 15 §D(1)& 19 §D(2)]. (15) An additional stated reason for the requested right-of-way vacation is to address the maintenance problem by limiting the maintenance obligation by limiting the usage of the road. The road is now in need of re-paving and the petitioners who pay for its maintenance are frustrated by the fact that they are paying to maintain the road for the benefit of the general public. [Attachment ps.22 §D(3)&29 §G(2)]. (16) Considering all of the evidence regarding the potential permanent adverse effects that the requested right-of-way vacation would have upon development and upon street connectivity in the vicinity of the right-of-way,the requested right-of-way vacation would not be consistent with provisions of the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan or Transportation System Plan or appropriate with anticipated development in the area. (17) Since the requested right-of-way vacation does not satisfy two of the specific criteria for its approval, it also would fail to satisfy the general criterion requiring it to benefit the public and to be supported by a sufficient reason to allow for its approval. (18) Several interested parties requested the consideration of a Revocable License Agreement because it would allow the City to specify and control the manner of gating the property until such time that the right-of-way is either improved to City standards or is vacated due to the certainty that it will never be improved to City standards. That certainty does not appear to exist at this time. Nor do the expert City personnel who provided input wish to see a gate installed in the right-of-way which leaves the petitioners with the City's commitment to place the right-of-way upon a maintenance schedule and perhaps at some point on the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. Since those experts no doubt have many streets in need of similar attention, any additional details regarding this commitment of the City arc beyond the scope of this recommendation. Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 19 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RW V#003-24 136 rcnvr? OCT 1 8 2024 Gil Y OF Yi.. : .,, L 1. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the findings sct forth above, the Hearing Examiner reaches the following conclusions regarding the requested right-of-way vacation of the portion of North 68th Avenue right-of-way that is about 1,285 feet long between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue: (1) Petition signatures for this requested vacation of right-of-way were obtained from the owners of more than the necessary two-thirds of the linear frontage of the contiguous private property abutting the area proposed for vacation. (2) A traffic study was not required for this proposal. (3) The area of the requested right-of-way vacation is 50-foot-wide at both ends and 40-foot-wide in the middle of the 1,285-foot-long right-of-way. (4)If this requested vacation of right-of-way is approved,the vacated right-of-way will have the same Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation as the contiguous private property and the same Suburban Residential(SR)zoning classification as the contiguous private property. (5)This public right-of-way vacation would be inconsistent with provisions of the Growth Management Act, provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and provisions of the Transportation System Plan. (6) This public right-of-way vacation would not be appropriate with anticipated development in the area based on zoning. (7) This public right-of-way vacation would not result is sufficient public benefit and is not based on sufficient reasons for its approval. (8) Three of the requisite criteria for approval of the requested right-of-way vacation prescribed by RCW Chapter 35.79 and YMC Chapter 14.21 arc not satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence submitted for this matter. Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 20 Vacation of North 68"'Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 137 ' JVED oC( 1 8 2024 L.11 Y RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends to the Yakima City Council that this Petition No. 24-09 for vacation of the portion of public right-of-way designated as North 68th Avenue between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue be DENIED. DATED this 18 day of October,2024. ((Adak-- Gary j.?1--- M. C'nillier, Hearing Examiner Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 21 Vacation of North 68'1'Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue&Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 138 ATTACHMENT TO PALMATIER RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIZING THE WRITTEN COMMENTS/EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AND PARAPHRASING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED Table of Contents Pages A. The Written Comments Submitted in Oppositionto the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation either before or during the Hearing on July 25,2024: 2-5 B. The Written Comments Submitted in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation either before or during the Hearing on July 25,2024: 5-7 C. Testimony Presented in Opposition to the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation during the Hearing on July 25,2024: 7-14 D. Testimony Presented in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Hearing on July 25,2024: 14-24 E. Written Comments Submitted in Opposition to the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8,2024: 24-27 F. Testimony Presented in Opposition to Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8,2024: 27-27 G. Testimony Presented in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8,2024: 27-29 H. Additional Written Information in Opposition to the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation Submitted in Response to the Interim Decision: 29-34 I. Additional Written Information in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation Submitted in Response to the Interim Decision: 34-40 ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 1 of 40 139 ATTACHMENT TO PALMATIER RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIZING THE WRITTEN COMMENTS/EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AND PARAPHRASING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED A. The Written Comments Submitted in Opposition to the Requested Right-of- Way Vacation either before or during the Hearing on July 25, 2024. The written comments submitted in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation either before or during the hearing on July 25,2024, may be summarized as follows: (1) City of Yakima Planning Manager Trevor Martin (Document Index A-1): The Planning Division staff report set forth reasons why the requested right-of-way vacation should be denied which were summarized by Mr. Martin as his testimony at the July 25, 2024,hearing set forth below in Section C(1)of this attachment. (2) Adjacent property owner Maxine I. Farren (Document Index G-1, G-4 and G- 11): I am a widow living on a fixed income and do not have money to pay for fees for an association or a gate. My family has owned acres on this hill for over 125 years and have never needed a homeowners association or gates. Our mailbox is at the top of 68th and access would be blocked by a gate there. We would not be able to get crucial deliveries to our house if there were a gate at the south end of 68th. Gates would be an inconvenience and hardship for myself and my daughter who is handicapped. She would not be able to get out to open the gate if there were a power outage, and emergency services could not reach our house in case of an emergency. (3) Resident of adjacent property Jennifer J. Farren (Document Index G-2,G-5 and G-11):The suggestion that the new subdivision east of 68th will increase the traffic on 68th is unlikely. Due to poor health and accidental falls in recent years,my mother and I have had to call the fire department and an ambulance which need to be able to get to our house. Technology fails after awhile and I do not want to gamble on whether the gate would work in an emergency.I am a handicapped person who would have trouble getting in and out of a vehicle if the automatic gate failed to work, and that would be dangerous for us in the winter when surface water flows down the hill and freezes at the bottom. The Americans with Disabilities Act was not intended allow barriers to be erected to stop handicapped people from getting around. (4) Torn Robinson of the Active Transportation Alliance, Yakima Bikes & Walks (Document Index G-3):Our group strongly believes this is a mistake to vacate N. 68th and will provide written and in person testimony. We believe it's critical to maintain N. 68th for non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Dr.and hope that a compromise could be reached before the public loses access to this road. Per the attached "Outer Circle" concept map, N.68th in our opinion is a critical connecting road for the entire west side of the city to access the newly constructed lower Cowiche trail. The City bike master ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 2 of 40 140 iE plan has 66th as the access but we believe N. 68th is much safer and a bit less of a %climb for walkers and cyclists to access Scenic Drive and then Lower Cowiche Trail. One thing active transportation citizens in Yakima living west of 40th Avenue lack is a safe access point to the Greenway. This area of North 68th could provide that critical safe access for thousands of residents. See the attached close-up map of Tieton Drive to Cowiche Trail to see our vision.This is an example of a change to the City's Bike Master Plan we hope to propose when updates and public input become possible. (5) Phil Mattoon, Vice Chair of City of Yakima Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Document Index G-6): I am against this petition as this public right-of-way serves as a valuable route for walkers and cyclists to by pass 66th Ave. 66th has no shoulders and you take your life in your own hands to walk this section of 66th. The petitioner has offered no data to support that cut-through traffic has ever been or ever will be a problem on 68th. I walk this route once or twice a week and there is virtually no traffic.The City needs to preserve City owned right-of-way and not vacate for no apparent reason. (6) Coleen L. Anderson, volunteer with the Active Transportation Alliance (Document Index G-7 which is similar to Document Index G-3): Our group strongly believes it would be a mistake to vacate North 68th. We believe it's critical to maintain N. 68th for non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Dr.and hope that a compromise could be reached before the public loses access to this road. In our opinion N.68th is one of several connecting road options for the entire west side of the city to access the newly constructed Lower Cowiche Canyon trail. The City's Bike Master Plan currently shows 66th as the access, but we believe N. 68th is much safer and a bit less of a steep climb for walkers and cyclists to access Scenic Drive and the Lower Cowiche Canyon Trail. One thing the citizens in Yakima living west of 40th Ave.lack is a safe active transportation access point to the Greenway. This area of N. 68th Ave. could provide that critical safe access for thousands of residents. (7) Cyrus Philbrick (Document Index G-8): I support the Active Transportation Alliance's position to maintain N. 68th for public non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Drive. N. 68th could be a critical connecting road for bicyclists and pedestrians to use to cross the City safely from west to east, and especially to access the Greenway. (8) Phil Hoge, for Yakima Bikes and Walks! (Document Index G-9): Vacating the subject street section should not be approved because it would be contrary to Yakima's Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Transportation Systems Plan. These plans establish the City's policy to ensure a street network with high connectivity as it grows and develops. The reasons causing the City to establish such policies are described in Planning for Street Connectivity (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 515, American Planning Association, May 2003, page 13 and page iv): • Decrease traffic on arterial streets; ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 3 of 40 141 OCT 1 13 2024 • Provide continuous and more direct routes that facilitate travel by nonmotorized modes such as walking and bicycling and that facilitate more efficient transit service; • Provide greater emergency vehicle access and reduce response time, and, conversely, provide multiple routes of evacuation in case of disasters such as wildfire; • Improve the quality of utility connections, facilitate maintenance, and enable more efficient trash and recycling collection and other transport-based community services;and • Create more livable and sustainable communities. Comprehensive Plan 2040 policy excerpts: Transportation Network Efficiency—A multimodal transportation network moves people and goods safely through the city and nearby areas. These policies include implementing standards that improve safety and efficiency for all roadway users, and maintaining design standards. 6.5.9: Ensure that the city transportation network (all travel modes) have good connectivity to provide safe alternate routes and more direct travel. Where possible,encourage small block sizes. (2.1.2); 6.5.12: Reduce growth in vehicle travel demand through transit, active transportation, and other Commute Reduction strategies. This postpones the need for capital roadway projects. (5.1.4,8.1,1,8.1.3). Active Transportation includes pedestrian, bicycling and other modes that promote healthy lifestyles and provide alternative modes to private vehicles for commuting. These modes depend on increasing network connectivity and constructing non-motorized facilities within the city. 6.5.16: Require new development,infill development,and redevelopments to provide pedestrian facilities and transit facilities along their street frontage consistent with adopted street design standards, ADA Transition Plan,Bicycle Master Plan,and Transit Development Plan.(2.1.3,3.1.1,3.1.3, 3.4.1,3.4.2,3.4.3,8.1.4, 10.2.2, 11.2.3); 6.5.17: Give high priority to projects that create or improve safe "Walk to School Routes", provide access to activity centers, provide linkages to transit,and connections to trails for pedestrians and bicyclists.(3.1.6,4.1.2); 6.5.18: Work to improve pathway linkages to regional and off-street trail systems as identified in the ADA Transition Plan and Bicycle Master Plan. (3.1.8,4.1.4). Interjurisdictional Coordination—Encouraging coordination between the City and public/private partnerships to help create a cohesive regional transportation network. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 4 of 40 142 s 6.5.30: Plan and support the transportation networks in the City and region i'ri collaboration with Yakima County, the City of Union Gap, the WSDOT, and other neighboring jurisdictions.(9.1.1,9.1.2,9.1.3). Transportation Systems Plan excerpts: 1.3.2 Healthy Communities— Recognizing the growing need for physical activity among residents, the Washington State Legislature amended the GMA in 2005 with the Healthy Communities Amendment, ESSB 5186. Comprehensive Plans are directed to address the promotion of Healthy Communities through urban planning and transportation approaches. The two amendments to the GMA require that communities: 1.Consider urban planning approaches that promote physical activity in the Land Use Plan;and 2. Include a bicycle and pedestrian component in the Transportation Plan. Conclusion: For the reasons described above, Yakima has adopted these growth and development policies in order to create neighborhoods with high street connectivity. Vacating the subject section of North 68th Ave is inconsistent with these adopted comprehensive plan policies and therefore should be denied. (9) An Active Transportation Alliance letter similar to the one submitted by Tom Robinson and Coleen L.Anderson was submitted and signed by Tom Robinson, Neil Barg, Ryan Kallis, Phil Mattoon, Edward A. Lisowski, Phil Hoge, Bobby J. Wright, Emily Wright and Pete Dougherty (Document Index 10): Our group strongly believes it would be a mistake to vacate N. 68t". We believe it's critical to maintain N. 68" for public non- vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Drive and hope that a compromise could be reached before the public loses access to this road. Per the"Outer Circle" concept map, in our opinion N. 68t" is one of several critical connecting road options for the entire west side of the city to access the newly constructed lower Cowiche trail. The City Bike Master Plan has 66th as the access but we believe N. 68th is much safer and a bit less of a %climb for walkers and cyclists to access Scenic Drive and then Lower Cowiche Trail. One thing active transportation citizens in Yakima living west of 40' Avenue lack is a safe access point to the Greenway. This area of N. 68th could provide that critical safe access for thousands of residents. B. The Written Comments Submitted in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation either before or during the Hearing on July 25, 2024. The written comments submitted in favor of the requested right-of-way vacation either before or during the July 25,2024, hearing are summarized as follows: (1)Tom Durant of PLSA Engineering&Surveying (Document Index E-1):Mr.Durant expressed the following points in the Narrative Statement he submitted for this application/petition which is formatted differently as follows: ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 5 of 40 143 UC,i ti 2024 cl iv FLVL The proposed right-of-way of North 68th Avenue between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive is 40 to 50 feet wide and improved with a hard-surfaced privately maintained road that provides access to 12 parcels of land and sole access to 8 parcels. An easement would be recorded to provide access to all of the parcels and to allow continued maintenance by the parties that use it. The easement would also provide for the extension of utilities and the maintenance of existing utilities within the private road. The petition has been signed by the owners of six adjacent parcels with 75%of the linear frontage on the right-of-way so as to satisfy the 66%requirement. The right-of-way is not maintained by the City or improved to City standards. But it attracts traffic to use it as a short cut between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive. As the area grows and traffic at nearby intersections increases, there is a potential for this additional traffic to increase as well. The public benefit would be that the City would have no obligation to improve the road or liability for its use. Maintenance would be the responsibility of the property owners who use it for access and they would be able to take actions to limit its use to those property owners, residents and their guests.The right-of- way is not appropriate to provide connectivity without being accepted, maintained and improved to minimum public road standards. Connectivity could be provided by future development of these and neighboring properties in a way that provides better safety, traffic circulation and less neighborhood disruption. Eight existing parcels of land have sole access to the public street network using the existing road and four of them front on the right-of-way.The properties that do not front on the road access it by way of easements documented in the title report and on recorded short plats. None of the easements would be affected by the proposed vacation. A new easement will be executed and recorded for the vacated right-of-way to allow continued access to public streets from all of the parcels that front on or have access to the right-of-way. The proposed right-of-way vacation would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City has no plans to improve or maintain the road. It is not on the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program from 2024 to 2029.The proposed street vacation would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.3.2C which expresses an intent to preserve and enhance established residential neighborhoods by prioritizing the upkeep and improvement of streets because it would make it easier for the property owners served by the street to provide such upkeep and improvement in a manner that better protects the neighborhood and with more clear authority to do so. The vacation would also be consistent with Policy 6.5.9 of the 2040 Transportation System Plan regarding connectivity because as a private street not being maintained by the City it is not a good or safe alternative for nearby routes that are constructed to City street standards. The proposed right-of-way vacation is consistent with the existing Suburban Residential zoning and Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation because it does not prevent future residential development at densities contemplated by both ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 6 of 40 144 cm/ designations. Future development of vacant property in the vicinity could still occur, possibly utilizing portions of the road by incorporating it into new right-of-way dedications. Regardless,future development can provide for better connectivity that is less disruptive to the neighborhood. On-line documents show a 6-inch Nob Hill Water Association domestic water line in the existing right-of-way and short plats show irrigation lines are in the right-of-way. Power poles are in the right-of-way and title documents indicate that power, telephone and cable television utilities are in the right-of-way. There is no need to relocate any existing utilities and future utility extensions will be accommodated by an easement or easements to be recorded to accommodate them. If the right-of-way is vacated, City staff agreed that no compensation would be expected to be required by YMC §14.21.070(A)(4) because the City has not purchased, maintained or made any improvements to the public right-of-way; it would in that event be determined by the City Council that there is no planned or anticipated public purpose for maintaining the public right-of-way;and the public right-of-way has been a dedicated right-of-way in the City for at least five years. C. Testimony Presented in Opposition to Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Hearing on July 25, 2024. The testimony presented at the July 25, 2024, hearing in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation may be paraphrased as follows: (1) City of Yakima Planning Manager Trevor Martin: Mr. Martin testified in opposition to the requested public right-of-way vacation at the July 25 hearing by reading the following portions of his staff report (Document Index A-1) which are formatted differently as follows: A. Background: On January 30, 2024, the City of Yakima Department of Community Development received a petition from Ted Palmatier for the vacation of a portion of right- of-way. The proponent has requested this vacation for the purpose of eliminating an approximately 1270-foot-long portion of right-of-way that is located in an existing residential neighborhood. C. Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: Technically, street rights-of-way are not designated with an underlying zoning district. However, if a vacation is recommended and approved by the City Council, the previously underlying right-of-way is zoned the same as the properties to which they are immediately contiguous. In this case,the contiguous zoning is Suburban Residential (SR). If the right-of-way is vacated it will be zoned SR upon vacation,consistent with the zoning that is currently located along the right-of-way. 1)Per YMC Table 5-2,the minimum lot size for the SR zoning district is 6,000 square feet. Part of goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan are to encourage housing on small, more efficient lots Policy 2.3.1.C. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 7 of 40 145 OCT 1 8 2o74 crP! .. 2) HB1110 Requires the City to allow for up to four dwelling units per parcel for future subdivision in all residential zoning districts. 3)Currently there are approximately 13.69 acres of vacant land adjacent to N.68th Ave. a. Examining the potential housing development of the adjacent land,13.69 acres 4 596,336 sqft - —178,900 sqft (30%) for roads and right of way dedication, that leaves 417,436 sqft or potentially 69 residential lots that could be developed on the vacant property surrounding N 68th Ave. b.While these lots have not been created at this time,the City needs to be aware of the development potential and the availability of access to right- of-way and access for emergency services and ingress/egress for building development. Reducing access to public streets reduces development potential. D.Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040: Street rights-of-way do not contain an underlying Comprehensive Plan designation. Upon vacation they will obtain the same Comprehensive P►an designation as the properties to which they are immediately contiguous. The subject portions of right-of-way, once vacated, will have a Future Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential. 1) Referencing C above, the City of Yakima has to be compliant with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A)which allocates the City only a certain amount of residential land for development,vacating this portion of right-of-way would limit the development potential of the surrounding properties, and require future development to reacquire right-of-way for emergency services and potential secondary access points. 2) Removing potential developable property would be contradictory to the purpose or the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan.Goal 5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan is Encourage diverse and affordable housing choices. Removing access to City right-of-way would be contradictory to this goal and remove the potential for housing within the City. 3) Finally, Washington state, along with a significant portion of the US, is experiencing a spike in housing prices and lack of inventory. Ensuring residential property maintains its development potential is within the City's best interest to address the lack of housing. 4) The proposed vacation directly contradicts the following goals and policies of the comprehensive Plan: •Goal 6.3. Provide a transportation system that supports the city's land use plan and is consistent with the Washington Transportation Plan, Yakima Valley Metropolitan and Regional Transportation Plan, and Yakima County Comprehensive Plan. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 8 of 40 146 OCT 1 8; Z0Z4 DIV. • Policy - 6.5.9. Ensure that the city transportation networks (all travel modes) have good connectivity to provide safe alternate routes and more direct travel. Where possible, encourage small block sizes. • 6.5.12. Reduce growth in vehicle travel demand through transit, active transportation,and other Commute Reduction strategies.This postpones the need for capital roadway projects. • 6.5.16. Require new development, infill development, and redevelopments to provide pedestrian facilities and transit facilities along their street frontage consistent with adopted street design standards, ADA Transition Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Transit Development Plan. (2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 8.1.4, 10.2.2, 11.2.3). ▪6.5.18.Work to improve pathway linkages to regional and off-street trail systems as identified in the ADA Transition Plan and Bicycle Master Plan. (3.1.8,4.1.4). • Interjurisdictional Coordination — Encouraging coordination between the City and public/private partnerships will help create a cohesive regional transportation network. • 6.5.30. Plan and support the transportation networks in the City and region in collaboration with Yakima County, the City of Union Gap, the WSDOT, and other neighboring jurisdictions. (9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3). CRITERIA FOR VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY:YMC Ch. 14.21 provides specific guidelines for right-of-way vacations.These guidelines include five criteria that must be met in the granting of vacation petitions. They are as follows —Applicant and Staff responses are listed: A. The petition must explain the public benefit of the project, the reasoning of the proposed vacation,and the limits of the vacation. Staff Response—Removing potential connectivity points removes future property from its full development potential. This action contradicts the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan, and actively works against Yakima's housing shortage. In order to develop the adjacent properties to the highest use, right-of-way would have to be re acquired and multiple points of ingress/egress would need to be reestablished. Per the Growth Management Act, the City needs to be conscious of the amount of developable space within the City and ensure that proposed land use actions do not contradict and work against the goals of providing additional future housing. While the street has been maintained in a limited capacity,as future development occurs in the area,the City would increase the amount of maintenance on the street. B.The vacation of right-of-way does not deny sole access to any property. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 9 of 40 147 • O C,I' 1 6 2024 CITY (;F Staff Response — vacating this right-of-way would severely limit future development potential. Per the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, the City is required to encourage development within the existing City limits before expanding into the Urban Growth Area.Vacating this portion of right-of-way would limit development potential and potentially cause a reduction in possible new units due to limited access to a public street. C. Petitions should be consistent with the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan, Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and other official city plans and policies. Staff Response—While this section of the City right-of-way is not on an existing plan,this street feeds into Scenic and Englewood Avenues,which are Collector Arterials, and mentioned within the City's Planning Documents. As this area develops, the City is interested that 68th Ave. is developed to residential street standards and appropriately ties in the adjacent street network. The City also needs to consider the overall goals of the transportation network in the Transportation Plan. Currently the 2040 Transportation System Plan outline lists the following concepts: • 2.1.4 Bicycle Facilities — Bicycling is an important and growing mode of travel for people in cities across the country. When appropriately planned, bicycle routes have a role in reducing congestion, improving air quality, providing travel choices, encouraging exercise and recreation, and providing greater mobility for those without access to a vehicle. Existing bicycle facilities and descriptions are coordinated and consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan. • 3.5.1 Maintain Connected Networks — The Transportation System Plan specifically identifies the primary and secondary routes for each of the major travel modes within the city. When layering these separate network plans together, urban corridors were classified as "Auto Priority", "Bike/Ped Priority", or"Shared Priority". • 3.5.4 Bridge Non-Motorized Gaps — A review of the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities shows that there are major gaps in connectivity throughout the overall system... Additionally, several comments were received by the Active Transportation Alliance discussing current efforts to preserve an outer ring biking transportation route around the City,siting 68th Ave. as part of the route. D. Vacation requests should be appropriate with existing and anticipated development in the area,based on zoning,current use and long range plans. Staff Response — Listed in 3.0 above, the vacation would severely limit the development potential of the adjacent properties and would require any future development to reacquire right-of-way, limit access, and directly contradicts the City's Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, there are new rules from the State (HB1110) that all lots allow up to four new units to be built, up to six in specific circumstances.These new ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 10 of 40 148 ill':a lots and units would still be required to meet the City's design standards, but the action to build additional housing on historically single family lots will be permitted in the City. E. Are there any public or franchised utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated and if so,will they be relocated? On-line documents show a 6-inch Nob Hill domestic water line in the existing right- of-way and short plats indicate that irrigation lines are in the right-of-way. Power poles and title documents indicate that power, telephone and cable television utilities are in the right-of-way. There is no need to relocate any existing utilities and future utility extensions will be accommodated by the easement or easements to be recorded to accommodate them. Staff Response—Nob Hill water is currently located in the street. PUBLIC NOTICE: The Yakima City Council set the date of this public hearing for street vacation on July 25, 2024, by Resolution No. R-2024-117, in accordance with RCW 35.79.010. Other notices of this hearing were provided for in the following manner: Adjoining property owners notified July 2, 2024 Legal ad published July 4, 2024 Posting of right-of-way July 4,2024 Posting in three public places July 2, 2024 PUBLIC COMMENTS:Seven comments were received from the public as of July 17, 2024, generally opposing the vacation or addressing concerns about outcomes of the proposed vacation. Comments are generalized below,to review the full comments, please see the City File: • Coleen Anderson, with Active Transportation Alliance, submitted a letter in general opposition to the vacation of the street siting removing potential multimodal access routes from the City. • Cyrus Philbrick, with the Active Transportation Alliance, submitted a comment opposed to limit the street to through traffic. • Jennifer Farren submitted a comment generally opposed to the vacation, citing access for first responders and citing opposition to gating a vacated street. • Maxing [Maxine] Farren submitted a comment generally opposing any potential gates and restricted access. • Phil Hoge, With Yakima Bikes and Walks, submitted comments generally opposing the vacation,siting several goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Transportation Systems Plan. • Phil Mattoon submitted a comment generally opposing the vacation. • Tom Robinson, with the Active Transportation Alliance, submitted comments generally opposing the vacation of the street and submitted maps of the proposed outer ring route. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 11 of 40 149 CONCLUSION 1. Petition signatures for this vacation were obtained from the necessary two- thirds of the property owners fronting this vacation. 2. N. 68th Ave. appears to have been established through a series of meets and bounds and subdivisions. 3. City of Yakima Planning Division is recommending denial of this vacation request. 4. Vacation of this right-of-way significantly limits development potential of the surrounding properties, limiting potential new housing. 5. The petition for vacation of this public right-of way currently conflicts with the Active Transportation Alliance effort to establish an outer ring bicycle route. 6. A traffic study for this proposal was not required. 7. Seven letters of opposition were received. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends the petition for the vacation of a portion of N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. &Scenic Dr. be denied. (2) The Representative of Several Organizations, Tom Robinson: Mr. Robinson expressed the following points in his testimony: I am here representing the Active Transportation Alliance and Yakima Bikes and Walks and the Yakima Basin Velo cycling club. My original letter to the City Engineers and Planners was as stated in there essentially that we believe there should be some kind of compromise, and listening to Ted and Carol and Barry speak it sounds like we all want to work together to a compromise so that they can have the safety they need, but also the cycling and pedestrians in Yakima would still be able to have access.So it sounds like that is everybody's desire. Just a few things that I wanted to point out that haven't been discussed today— the first of all I think one of the most critical points that hasn't been brought up is the whole reason this problem has existed is the 66th and Englewood intersection. The reason that people are cutting through that North 68th is because 66th gets backed up with all the thousands of residents west of 66th. And they are all trying to get to the freeway or to shopping, etc. So I would propose that the City of Yakima needs to address the 66th and Englewood intersection because if there is a roundabout or light or something there would be far fewer cars cutting through that road. Eastbound vehicles specifically, because I can tell you I drive that road a lot and I tend to be in that line.And I have been tempted to think I know I can go up through there, but I don't because I know it's a small private road and I don't want to do that to these great people. This is difficult for me because Ted and Carol, I know them personally. They are great people.And I want them to be able to get the safety they want on that road. But I also have a duty to the active transportation community and that is, although as Barry has pointed out we don't have all of the infrastructure for the correct cycling and walking, ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 12 of 40 150 C. and Englewood is on the Bike Master Plan as planned bike lanes, our goal as the Active Transportation Alliance is to actually be that vehicle to begin to fund raise to build the matching funds and apply for grants.So we hope in the next ten to twenty years you will see a much greater growth in the active transportation ability for people in this community. Some of the biggest concerns of Yakima citizens is the health and safety of our citizens.The reason we are here to talk about North 68th is right now we look at there is only about five or six access points to thousands and thousands of residences up to the Scenic area. Why is the Scenic area so important? Well it is the connectivity as has been mentioned here a lot. And the connectivity is our biggest concern. We have the Upper Cowiche Conservancy access point trail-heads,we have the Lower Cowiche Trail,and the newly completed Lower Cowiche Trail and eventually our goal along with WSDOT and the City and the County is to have River Road access points to the Greenway as well. And we look at access from Englewood up and over as a critical, critical part of our, as has been mentioned here,we call it the Outer Circle at the moment. And we haven't had a chance to sit down with the City Planners and the Bicycle Master Plan, this next year and year and a half we are going to be working with them, but in the meantime we just hope that North 68th can be at least maintained for pedestrians and bicyclists to have access. It sounds like the residents agree that that's an important thing to take place. The only thing lastly I would say is that we would like to see, if it is approved for vacation,that there is some kind of agreed contract that bike access would be continued because what could easily happen is that OK these residents all agree to it, but new residents who purchase it might say we don't want all of those cyclists and pedestrians walking through here. So that's concerning if we do do some kind of a compromise. So again, bike and walk safety,yes,we are using North 68th,those of us who do a lot of riding and walking in that area. And I am here also, I know several residents who live on 64th and 63'd who do walk across that crazy 66th and Englewood intersection to get to North 68th. So I hope that you take into consideration that even though the Bike Path and Master Plan isn't completed,we do need to maintain that access. One other note that I thought was discussed, I worry about a gate not being close down to Englewood also would get a lot of people driving up that would have to turn around. And that also presents a bike path safety issue if you do have people walking in that area. (3) Vice Chair of the City of Yakima Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee Phil Mattoon: Mr. Mattoon expressed the following points in his testimony: I am Vice Chair of the City of Yakima Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee became aware of this petition and we brought it up at our last meeting and had a fairly long discussion about it. And after discussion we basically voted to oppose this petition. And for the reason that we want to make sure that this is maintained as a bypass route to 66th because of what has been brought up before, that ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 13 of 40 151 lC .024 66th has no shoulders,traffic is fairly busy, and it is a high traffic volume and it basically is unsafe.The Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee is entirely interested in pedestrian and cycling use.We would propose that anything that could be done to limit that use is not something we would be in favor of. However, we would certainly be in favor of the neighbors reducing the traffic on that street if it can be done in such a way that didn't require vacation of that right-of-way. Now from a personal note, I actually walk that route once or twice a week. When I started walking, I started walking down 66th and I have noticed that the traffic has increased over the last few years to the point it is basically take your life in your own hands walking down 66th.So now I have started walking primarily across the intersection of 66th and Scenic and walking 68th which I have done once or twice a week. One of the things I have noticed on 68th is virtually no traffic. I think over the period of time that I have been walking I have seen two cars. They are coming up the street, it looks like local traffic, usually waves. I appreciate the fact that the landowners need to control the street. Obviously if they feel it is unsafe,that is something that needs to be addressed. I also feel that it is in the public's interest not to vacate a right-of-way that exists for future use. I feel that possibly something can be worked out with the local residents to mitigate traffic concerns on the street without actually vacating the right-of-way. If you were to look at the traffic- counting program that the Engineering Department has, if you did traffic counts on that street and speed, the street probably would not qualify for traffic mitigation. So I think that if there was quantifiable data that shows that there is enough cut-through traffic to warrant mitigation,that would be one thing. But the petitioner has not demonstrated in quantifiable data collection on that street. I also feel that there has got to be a way to mitigate traffic on that street without actually having to give up public right-of-way. D. Testimony Presented in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Hearing on July 25, 2024. The testimony presented at the hearing in favor of the requested right-of-way vacation may be summarized as follows: (1) The representative of the petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier for this matter, Tom Durant of PLSA Engineering & Surveying: Mr. Durant expressed the following points in favor the requested right-of-way vacation in his testimony at the July 25, 2024, hearing: The right-of-way proposed for vacation is a private road in a public right-of-way that was paved to a width of between 11 to 16 feet by the property owners that use and maintain it. It does not meet City street standards or fire code standards. Since it is a straight road between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive,it is attractive to motorists to use as an alternative to North 66th Avenue,particularly when there is any reason for delay on 66th Avenue. Dr. Palmatier has personally observed 15 to 20 nonresident cars and pickups during the day using 68th and he suspects there are more because he doesn't ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 14 of 40 152 OC I 1 3 21?2I watch the street constantly. Some of the vehicles are speeding or driving recklessly. He and his neighbors are concerned about the hazards of this traffic being that it is a private road, and also about maintenance. It is being maintained by and at the expense of the property owners. The purpose of the requested right-of-way vacation is so that the residents who are using the road would be in a better position to control the problems\by making this explicitly a private road rather than a private road in a public right-of-way.There has been talk about possibly gating it as a physical means to discourage or stop nonresident traffic. Our client personally has no objections to the use of the road by bicyclists or by pedestrians. In fact part of the concern is the potential for a mishap by someone driving recklessly or too fast and someone on a bicycle or on foot. I want to make sure there are some things on the record that I think are important. First, based on some of the statements made by staff, one of the things that is just an observation I want to make, is that he mentioned that all of the letters are in opposition and of course he also referenced the fact that several of the petitioners are presumably in favor, so I see no reason to provide their written comments. I also want to point out that there are a number of properties served by this private road that don't have frontage. My impression is that they are also in favor. I can't speak for all of them, I don't know, but at least one of them may be here today. The other thing I want to make clear is the right-of-way width because I think there is some inaccurate information in the record about that.The site map that is technically not a survey but was prepared by a surveyor shows the right-of-way[Document Index C- 1].The original right-of-way for North 68th Avenue is a 40-foot-wide right-of-way that was dedicated by a plat that was recorded in 1907. It was dedicated by the Yakima Orchards Highlands Company Orchard Tracts Plat recorded in 1907. It was a 40-foot-wide strip. South of Scenic Drive for a distance of 656.9 feet according to the surveys I have looked at is a 10-foot-wide dedication of right-of-way on the west side. It was dedicated by short plats in 1989 and 1990. So for the first 660 feet or so, and that is all of the property adjacent to the short plats alluded to, you have right-of-way width of 50 feet which the City considers full right-of-way width for residential use. On the south end of the dedication, north of Englewood for 345 feet there is another 10-foot right-of-way dedication on the east side. I don't know when that was dedicated,our surveyor might. The oldest I could find was that it appears on a survey that was recorded in 1974 which shows it as an existing dedicated right-of-way. So it is at least that old. So you have 50 feet of right-of-way for about 345 feet from Englewood north. And there is a strip in the middle that is 281.75 feet where there is only 40 foot right-of-way. So that's a factual thing that needs to be in the record. I am going to disagree with staff's statements that this right-of-way vacation limits development potential.There is some vacant property now, mostly on the south side of the street,that can be developed. I don't believe that the right-of-way vacation prevents ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 15 of 40 153 it. It would have to be developed in some fashion that conforms to City standards. To make the argument that this substantially limits development potential such that it is in violation of the Growth Management Act is a little like crying fire in a crowded theatre. I don't agree that that is really the case. I do recognize that it potentially limits the connectivity, but again I think we need to think about how serious that is and I am not certain that that couldn't be resolved in the future if there were development. 68th Avenue is two blocks to the west of the arterial, it's a collector arterial, 66th Avenue. I am not sure that connectivity calls for a straight road that connects to other streets that close to another arterial. I think you can accomplish connectivity in other ways. If you look at a map of how especially the west side of Yakima has been developed, you are not seeing straight connections between arterials on a two-block interval. I think probably the best argument about connectivity is that it does potentially create an issue for bicyclists and pedestrians. Something else I want to get in the record so that it is in the record is a map from the Yakima Bicycle Master Plan which as I understand is an adopted document. It is referenced in the Comp Plan and the staff report.The Bike Plan shows North 66th Avenue to be part of a bicycle route. It's labelled climbing lane and shared roadway. North 66th Avenue is a Collector Arterial, it is designated as a Collector Arterial.As it is constructed now, it is a rural road. It does not have curbs, gutters or sidewalks. It is not constructed to the level that City standards would say is appropriate for an urban Collector Arterial. And it doesn't have any bike lanes. I understand why the bicyclists don't want to use it. But the important point is that it is not currently constructed to standards either. What else do I want to get in the record? Let's talk about the short plat [of the property abutting the east side of the right-of-way southerly from Scenic Drive]. It was mentioned and I was going to put that in the record too.The condition for the short plat requires a dedication of right-of-way if it is necessary to bring it up to 50 feet.50 feet is there. There is no need for additional dedication. I think it is possible to bring 50 feet between the two sections without having to require additional right-of-way,That would be engineering. You might just have to angle the road slightly to keep it within the alignment. There are several large vacant parcels to the south that could be developed. They may not have a connection to Scenic, but to say that they can't be developed or it is substantially limited I think is a bit exaggerated. We may be limiting connectivity, but I don't think we are necessarily limiting developability. Condition D says 68th Avenue is designated as residential requiring a total of 50 feet of right-of-way, 25 feet each side of centerline. Applicant shall determine existing right-of-way along the frontage and dedicate any right-of-way necessary. My point is the 50 feet is already there.The short plat was approved without any required access to 68th Avenue and without any improvement of 68th Avenue. I don't say that that was necessarily wrong given the design and size of the lots in the short plat. They all had frontage on and access to Scenic Drive and 66th Avenue. But what that does is that it potentially creates a difficult situation for ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 16 of 40 154 1C:1' 11 a ?ON the existing developable parcels to the south if they are going to be required to improve the entire length of 68th Avenue in order to provide that required street connection.With the approval of the short plat we have taken half of the length of 68th that was not improved at that time. So that potentially becomes the responsibility of the relatively small parcels to the south if they were to develop if they were required to improve that entire length because it is apparent that the City is not going to build the street. The City's typical approach is to require the developers to improve it. So now we're asking the developers of the properties to the south to basically improve the entire street length. The evidence is that this street is not going to be improved to City standards in the foreseeable future. And that leads us back to the situation the property owners have. They are trying to maintain basically a private street and they want to have some way of controlling some of the traffic that is using it.In the staff report for the short plat on page 9 is the following statement: "The City has no current or future plans proposing the full build out of North 68th Avenue in order to connect Scenic Drive to Englewood Avenue." That was one of the Findings in the 2023 short plat. The short plat was approved on August 14,2023. Dr. Palmatier and several of his neighbors met with City staff on August 31St, about two weeks later, and they were told again that the City has no plans to maintain 68th Avenue. They were also encouraged at that meeting to petition for this right-of-way vacation. I guess the point I am making, and I guess we may proceed to the City Council depending upon what happens as a result of this hearing,is that there is no evidence that this street will be ever improved as a City street in the foreseeable future. And so my clients are stuck with having to maintain it and having to deal with the traffic on it.That is what they are asking for relief from. At least Dr. Palmatier, I can't speak for the others, he has told me that he has no objection to use of the street by bicyclists. That is not his concern, or pedestrians. We mentioned the gate. What they are talking about now is that if this were to be vacated and they were to gate it, it would be to gate somewhere near the north of the street because that is where most of the support for the gate is. All of the opposition is at the south end of the street, so they would gate it at the north end of the street. That would discourage motor vehicles from using that as a through street.And anybody who lives on the street who doesn't want to deal with a gate because of concerns about accessibility or what have you,they can exit onto Englewood and avoid using the gate.The other thing that I have been told is that they are willing to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians by allowing a way of accessing around the gate.The gate details are really not before the City,just the issue of vacation of the right-of-way.The other thing that is not before the City but has been brought up is that I am being told is that there are no plans to form a homeowners association or a road maintenance association.They plan to deal with it as they have done which is to voluntarily maintain the road. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 17 of 40 155 I wanted to get to your question about one of the maps in the record because I think I had a similar question when I first looked at it and I think I understand it. It was attached to one of the comments.There is a map in the record and my impression after looking at it is that it is not an official map that has been prepared or part of a document of the City of Yakima.It has a City insignia on it as if taken out of an official document, but was likely just printed off of the City's website [Document Index G-3 Outer Circle ATA Network map].The main problem is that 66th Avenue is not constructed to the standard it should be. If it were completed with curb,gutter,sidewalk and a bike lane as stated in the bicycle plan,it may not be as bad as it is perceived to be now. One more detail is that I want to take issue with the staff report on page 5,Criterion B. The criterion is that the vacation of right-of-way does not deny sole access to any property.The answer to the question that this vacation of right-of-way does not deny sole access to any property is No.This vacation of right-of-way as proposed does not deny sole access to any property. We will provide easements to make sure that anybody who has sole access to this street will continue to have sole access to the street. That would be expected to be a condition of the vacation of the right-of-way. Access to property that is adjacent to the North 68th right-of-way and to Englewood Avenue could still access Englewood west of North 68th right-of-way. That would be the same as the recent short platted Sevigny property on the northeast corner of the North 68th Avenue right-of-way and Scenic Drive that was developed into eight lots with no access to this right-of-way. I don't think it was the City's intent when that was approved to continue this street as a public street,or it should have been done as part of that short plat. They could have required it to have frontage on 68th. They could have required 68th to be built maybe as a half street or as a full street.They could have improved the street at that time, and they didn't. A continuance of the hearing is helpful because that gives the owners a chance to think about and to maybe talk about it among themselves as to whether a Revocable License Agreement with the City to use the street with an agreeable type of gating until it can be improved to a City standard street or until it is known for certain that it can be vacated because it will never likely be improved to a City standard street sounds interesting to them. Another thing, I just wanted to make a point, we heard some conflicting opinions about how serious of a problem this is. I am a little concerned about the recommendation that we try to quantify and determine that we meet some kind of a level before any mitigation is done. I hope we don't get to a point where we are applying a standard that would normally be applied to the City on a City street on these homeowners with limited resources. We have already established that this street isn't built to the current standards. I hope we don't go to the Traffic Engineer and try to raise the bar so high that we can't do anything. I thank you for coming up with some ideas that we can think about. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 18 Of 40 156 (2) Petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier: Mr. Palmatier expressed the following points in his testimony at the July 25, 2024, public hearing: I live at 708 North 68' Avenue. I moved there in 1978. The road has been an orchard access road and a private road with a public right-of-way since, according to my neighbors who have been there forever,the late 1800s.Yakima County and then the City of Yakima following annexation of our area has never maintained or improved the road. When I moved to the area it was a dirt road. A group of cooperative neighbors paid to apply dust abatement and grade and re-gravel the road. Somewhere around 20-25 years ago, a group of cooperative neighbors with property on the road paid to have the road paved. We paid to have the snow plowed in the winter. We paid to seal cracks and seal coat the road.The road is essentially a single lane and is not built for two-way traffic. It is not built according to County specifications and it is not safe for excess vehicular use beyond that needed by the neighbors who live on that section of the road. Nonresidents of the road frequently use the road as a shortcut between Englewood and Scenic. This at times includes people driving at excessive speed and in a reckless manner. This endangers those who live on the road when they are using their own vehicles to come and go from their homes. It also endangers walkers and bicyclists who use the road for recreational purposes.This use also creates a nuisance for property owners along the road when cars approaching oncoming traffic pull off of the road to let another vehicle pass,often damaging landscaping and irrigation sprinklers.This happened to me last week. A group of neighbors living on the road expressed concern about this dangerous situation. All the neighbors along the road were notified in writing and by personal visits regarding the issue. And some of us came to the City of Yakima Planning Department about a year ago and met with the Director at the time, Joseph Calhoun, and the City Engineer, Bill Preston. We were assured that the City had no plans to ever improve the road or to provide maintenance for the road. It was suggested that we file a petition to vacate the public right-of-way so that we could enact any needed safety measures. We followed that advice and spent close to$6,000.00 now completing the requirements for the petition. The Planning Department staff in response to 7 letters protesting our petition has recommended denial of the petition. Had we been aware of this as a possibility even,we would not have undertaken this expensive process. The Planning Department staff concern is also that maybe sometime in the future the City may wish to improve the road bringing it to City or County specifications,doing such things as installing sidewalks,curbs and gutters as population density increases to provide the needed housing.This contrasts with what we were told when we first met with the Planning Department staff. It also appears unlikely when you consider the over one century history of County and then City lack of maintenance of the section of the road and lack of any interest in improving it.The ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 19 of 40 157 21)2/1 area around there on 66th Avenue, Englewood and Scenic does not have any improvements such as curbs,gutters and sidewalks. This recommendation to deny our petition and further concerns by the Planning Department is inconsistent based upon that recent approval of the short plat by the Sevignys adding 7 added homes in the subdivision on the north part of the road 6 months ago. That short plat was approved without requiring any improvements on North 68th Avenue. It seems inappropriate to allow that and now to tell us that we have to not do the vacation for the safety issues and for the maintenance issues that we stated. The City Planning staff implies that this vacation of City right-of-way would reduce public access to development potential in the future for the parcels that perhaps could be subdivided in the future. But this doesn't make any sense in deciding this vacation petition since all the available building lots or parcels affected would have access to the road and have the right-of-way by virtue of the easement provided for that purpose. There are ample streets already available in the immediate vicinity for connectivity.And that would satisfy the Washington Transportation Plan cited without conversion of this non-City-maintained road into some kind of a major highway. The utility easement concerns were already satisfied in the vacation agreement. The statement on [page] 5 [section] A [of the staff report] that the street has been maintained, implying that the City has done so, in a limited capacity is not true as far as I am aware. From a historical perspective,the restatement on page 5 [of the staff report] of the findings of fact by the Planning Department alleging that vacation of public right- of-way would somehow limit future development for potential building of homes in undeveloped acreage adjacent to the street is again not true as far as I can see because there is no limitation in access or right-of-way that would affect those potential lots available on the road. The concerns of those citizens who wrote protests are easily addressed. The walkers and bicycle rider groups are welcome. It was never our intent to block their access or use of the road. The only two neighbors living on the road who are not in favor of our petition to vacate the right-of-way raised objections to a possible HOA and a possible future barrier on the road such as an automatic gate.No HOA has been proposed. None is deemed needed by the neighbors who support this petition. We have been able to maintain the road for 46 years since I have lived there without an HOA.The possibility of a future automatic gate installation is not currently a definite planned action. If that was decided in the future, these same neighbors who object would not have a gate installed on their section of the road anyway and would have unlimited access to Englewood Avenue to gain egress and ingress to their property. If they wished to have access to drive through the gate potentially placed on the north part of the road, they could easily purchase a remote to open and close the gate from their vehicles like any of the adjacent property owners would use. Emergency vehicle access would always be guaranteed by compliance with area requirements to provide that access. These two ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 20 of 40 158 neighbors have not participated in payment for this petition and have not been mandated by anyone to participate financially in any road improvements or in payment for preparation of the petition. Participation has always been voluntary. If a barrier or gate was installed in the future, there would be open access for walkers or bicyclists. Only automobiles or trucks or motor vehicles would need to use the gate for through traffic. There are only two neighbors in opposition, the Larsons and the Ferrans on the south side on the east side of the street.There is no plan to have a gate on the south side of the street. The only plan if there ever was one, and again, that hasn't been put in writing and there has been no contract for anything like that for a gate. It would only be on the north side. It would just be a barrier so that if someone were to drive up the road, they would only do it once because it is usually only local traffic. So they would drive up and see the gate and go back down and go around on 66th which is the official access anyway. There is plenty of room to do a three-point turn.If you are able to drive,you can do that.There are some circular driveways that they can turn around in. They could turn around in my driveway.They could turn around in Wagar's driveway if they had to. Those are both circle drives out front. I probably wouldn't want it, but it would be okay for the occasional person who came there.And again this is local traffic mostly and those people would learn that the road is blocked for through traffic. They wouldn't come again, so I don't think that would go on as an ongoing issue of importance. I don't ever see this becoming a City street. After living there for 46 years and seeing no action in that regard. And hearing my neighbors talk about going back to the late 1890s,there has been no action by the County or the City to do that and at this point no plans to do so that I am aware of. And that came from the Planning Department. I do believe that this is for safety. Our main concern is for the safety of the walkers, the bicyclists and the people who use the road to access their properties. I think currently it is unsafe the way it is, and there has been no solution offered by the City other than recommending that we apply for a vacation of the public right-of-way which we have done,faithfully expecting a different result than we have gotten so far. This isn't necessarily about a gate. We would love to consider other options,you know speed bumps, better signage. But we need the City to commit if they don't grant a vacation. So that's the problem. And the City didn't seem to have the resources or interest in being able to do anything for 68th. Where are we left where we are concerned about safety and maintenance? What can we do? What are we allowed to do? So we need to have some sign that the City has some interest in doing that. And it is more than a couple. I know it isn't very frequent,but I have encountered just coming up my driveway to hit 68th numerous times people speeding and coming over, and that happens several times a week. And it just takes one accident and then it is sorta like 66th and Englewood. It took how many accidents before we put up more impressive stop signs. I remember taking care of accidents from 64th and Nob Hill. And it took how many deaths before a stop light was put in there? So I think prevention is a lot better than reactive planning. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 21 of 40 159 OCT 1 8 2024 CITY Cr- Aith.,., (3) Petitioner / adjacent property owner / resident Carol Wagar: Carol Wagar expressed the following points in her testimony at the July 25, 2024, public hearing: I live at 710 North 68th Avenue. My front door is about 30 feet from the road. I am actually the closest to the road. I am directly across from the orchard. I have the dark brown house with the semi-circular driveway.The first thing I would like to say is that the road is busy. One of the letter writers commented that because they walk on it that it is dead. Well I live there, it is busy. Just the other night I was out there and four cars in a row at relatively high speed came up the road. The letters of opposition mostly were from people that want to use it for biking and walking. And as has been said numerous times, there is no opposition to that. We welcome bikers and walkers and we would certainly make an opening in the gate to let bikers and walkers continue to use the road. As far as I know,there has been no discussion of gating the south end. I understand the Ferrans' concern about emergency vehicles and that would not be a problem. My mother until April lived at 714 North 68th right below me and she passed away in April. We had numerous emergency vehicles at her house and they all came from Englewood. That's the way they come.So that wouldn't be an issue that I can see. I just don't really understand the details of what the City says that gating one end of it would hinder development because the developments that I have observed rarely have a through street. Most developments you go in one entrance and you turn around and come out the same entrance. I guess my biggest complaint is that the City has never paid to maintain or develop the road. Not all of the neighbors, but most of the neighbors have joined together to pay for paving and re-paving that road,and the road right now needs to be re-paved again. It has got holes and alligator cracking. And so the frustration for us is that we pay for the road, but we have no ability to limit its use as to vehicular traffic. We are only trying to restrict nonresidents' use of the road as a shortcut.There is a new development as you know up on Scenic that will only increase the number of people that are trying to use our road as a shortcut. I see it all the time. I walk every night. And people are regularly cutting down our road. I feel like stopping them and saying you know this doesn't have access. When 66th was under construction for at least 6 weeks, the traffic on our road was unbelievable and I think people at that point got used to using it as a shortcut.The main opposition seems to be from the bicyclists and I would say they are welcome. And I would be willing to have people turn around in my semi-circle driveway at 710 North 68th because if it is only gated at the north end you can't see that from the bottom.So there will be people the first time come off and go oh I can't get through.I guess we would for sure be putting up some type of sign at the south end that not only said dead end but probably said this is no longer through access to Scenic. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 22 of 40 160 OCT r r'!)"l.4 ;„y,,. (4) Resident/property owner who uses North 68th Avenue as his sole access,Barry Bernfeld: Mr. Bernfeld expressed the following points in his testimony at the July 25, 2024, public hearing: My address is 718 North 68th Avenue. I am a property owner but without direct frontage on 68th. But my only access to my property, I have two plots there,is from 68th I have no other egress or access. I am a retired physician, general surgeon, who had to take care of trauma like car accidents. So just to reiterate,this all came about not about a gate, it came about because of initial concerns about safety and maintenance, neither of which the City or County before were really addressing.And that's why we approached the City. And really the City has been unable, maybe because of resources or choice, to do anything for either problem,safety or maintenance. Because of lack of resources,and somewhat intent, has no plans to do so in the future was made clear to us when we met with the City. So that's number one and those problems aren't going to go away, safety and maintenance regardless. Another point, the development of that land on the northeast side has already been subplotted and the developer who I have spoken to had said his intent was to build a house for himself and these other lots would be accessed from Scenic. He had no plans to access from 68th except maybe having one gate for his property on 68th and had no intent or wish to have a public road there and did not want to have access to those other plots from there. So that's already been discussed. I am a bicyclist and I have taken care of people with bicycle accidents. I think this whole thing about a bicycle ring of development is a little bit of a red herring. I mean I appreciate it,I would love to have more bicycle paths in Yakima,it would be safer. But we don't even have safe access to our schools. Like with Apple school they didn't build a sidewalk all the way, and now they maybe are going to do it, a full sidewalk from Tieton to Summitview. You know, 68th connects two roads that are unsafe for bicycling, especially Englewood.There is no sidewalk,there is a blind hill there,there is no shoulder. And we're talking about preserving 68th as a link to what? To unsafe roads. Scenic is safer because it's flat and there is some visibility, but it's not designed particularly for biking either. So I think from my point of view,resources to develop that in the future as a public road could better be spent making roads like Englewood and Scenic safer with more sidewalks and a safe walking path there. Anything we do just to control safety and maintenance on this road would not interfere with people walking or if they choose to bicycle on this very steep hill. Most people walk their bicycle up. They might bicycle down,but they walk them up. We would do nothing to block that. The owner of that southeast property that there was some concern about hasn't expressed concerns. Again our basic concern is safety and maintenance. We don't know where to go with it if we don't get approval.Who is going to maintain it?Are we expected to continue that? ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 23 of 40 161 OCT 4 2024 (5) Petitioner/adjacent property owner Matthew Sevigny:The testimony of Mr. Sevigny at the July 25,2024, public hearing may be summarized as follows: I am Matt Sevigny, 7402 Scenic Drive. I own the orchard and am developing that short plot. I don't think anyone has any intent or desire to shut off any access to anybody walking or bikes for that matter.The general consensus is safety.The road is not built nor designed for anything but local use for that matter.There is really no.reason for any other traffic besides local traffic to be using that road. The only other thing I had was it talks about there being potentially 6 to 9 residential units or lots to be developed,but that's not really a very accurate statement if you take into consideration that my subdivision takes over half of that property away and we are only adding 6 lots over and above the one that is already there. Our intent when we did that subdivision was for no access onto 68th. All of our access was either to 66th or Scenic Drive. The gate onto 68th was more just for maintenance, a lawnmower or whatever,it was not necessarily a driveway per se. Because the road isn't wide enough, everybody drives in the orchard over sprinklers and everything else. It isn't wide enough for two cars to pass without actually going into the grass and up against trees. E. Written Comments Submitted in Opposition to Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8, 2024,. The written comments submitted in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation at the continued hearing on August 8,2024,are summarized or set forth with different formatting as follows: (1) Additional letter received August 5, 2024, from adjacent property owner/resident Maxine I. Farren and adjacent resident Jennifer J. Farren (Document Index G-13). This additional letter expressed the following points: A gate at the north end of North 68th Avenue would block their access to their mailbox located at the north end. The City is requested to collect data on actual road traffic. If the vacation or a license agreement is granted, it should include a stipulation that there cannot be a gate at the south end of North 68th Avenue or along the Farren property that blocks access. ADA rules should be evaluated as to how they apply to the proposed gates since Jennifer Farren is physically disabled and she would not be able to get out of her car and open a gate by hand if there were a power outage. A gate on the south would block deliveries of crucial supplies and emergency services if there were a power outage. Even though it has been said that there is no plan for a gate yet, that is actually the whole purpose of having 68th vacated so that a gate could be installed to reduce traffic. (2) City of Yakima Fire Chief Aaron J. Markham (Document Index G-14): A Memorandum from Fire Chief Aaron Markham dated July 30, 2024, expressed the following points: ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 24 of 40 162 ioc r I ; 1,r)24 The Yakima Fire Department is in opposition to this requested right-of-way vacation due to the already limited access to areas of Scenic Drive from Englewood Avenue. The installation of gates or other barriers to fire department access roads significantly increases response times during times of emergency when every minute counts. (3) City of Yakima Planning Manager Trevor Martin (Document Index G-15): Mr. Martin submitted and summarized his Memorandum dated August 7,2024,in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation at the continued hearing on August 8,2024,which is set forth with different formatting as follows: The City of Yakima Planning Division is responding to several of the items mentioned in the July 25,2024,initial hearing for the proposed Right-of-Way vacation for a segment of N.68th Ave., in between Englewood Ave.and Scenic Dr. Regarding the gate and Revocable License Agreement, the City may enter into a Revocable License Agreement if there is a shared benefit between the grantor and grantee. The City would be required to charge the property owner for the license agreement, finding that the agreement is not going to hamper any City or Utility operations. If a license is entered into, it would be on the City's terms, if no such agreement can be found, then an agreement will not be entered into. At this time, the agreement would be for a traffic limiting gate at the northern end of 68t' Ave., which is not favorable for the City. The proposed gate would limit through traffic for emergency services in between Englewood and Scenic,and limit the use of a public right-of-way.The City of Yakima Fire Chief has provided a letter against the proposed vacation, included in the file. Next, the concept of vacating a section of right-of-way and forming an access easement outside of a platting process - the Planning Division highly discourages this action due to the potential creation of new lots and the creation of a nonconforming use. Per YMC§ 14.25.040.E Lot Design—"All lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement. Access easements cannot serve more than one lot. Minimum street frontage and/or access easement width shall be at least twenty feet. Lots intended for residential use should not access a principal or minor arterial." Additionally, the creation of a nonconforming situation is contrary to the City's Municipal Code under YMC§ 15.19.080.1-2: "The following procedures shall be followed to change a nonconforming use to a different nonconforming use; expand a nonconforming use throughout a structure;and/or expand a nonconforming structure or use throughout a lot or onto an adjoining lot. These procedures shall be used to expand a nonconforming structure throughout a lot; provided,a structure that is nonconforming only by reason of excessive building height or substandard setbacks, or is a nonconforming single-family dwelling, may be altered or expanded under the modification provisions of YMC 15.17.020 when the alteration or expansion: ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 25 of 40 163 (2)Complies with development standards of the district in which it is located;" Seven of the eight homes will be considered nonconforming, and no new parcels or driveways will be permitted to have access to 68th Ave in the future, including parcel# 18131744401,which is the vacant orchard at the intersection of Scenic and 68th Ave.This further reinforces the argument that future housing and subdivision within this area will be substantially limited, negatively affecting the City's vacant land use inventory as it relates to the Growth Management Act(RCW 36.70A.115). The proposed Vacation also contradicts Chapter 8.96—Complete Streets Policy,of the Municipal Code. Per YMC§8.96.010 Purpose—"The purpose of the complete streets policy is to ensure all users are planned for in the construction of all city transportation improvement projects as outlined in the comprehensive plan and detailed in the soon to be adopted bike master plan and Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)transition plan. By enacting the ordinance codified in this chapter the city of Yakima encourages healthy, active living,reduction of traffic congestion and fossil fuel use,inclusion and maintenance of trees and appropriate landscaping,and improvement in the safety and quality of life of residents in the city of Yakima by providing safe, convenient and comfortable routes for walking, bicycling and public transportation. The complete streets policy will improve street connectivity for all modes." Establishing a gate over a portion of the City right-of- way removes connectivity opportunity for vehicles and first responders to adjacent residential properties. Finally, it is important to mention the importance of public right-of-way and the purpose of the street system. As mentioned in the Compete Streets Policy, streets are intended to provide conveyance for a variety of people from all different walks of life, regardless of whether or not they live in a certain neighborhood,the type of vehicle they drive, or their socioeconomic status. Maintaining and improving connectivity within the City helps reduce trip times, reduces air and noise pollution, increases exercise opportunities, makes it easier for people to access services,and helps first responders by providing open routes to a call. It was mentioned in the public hearing that people who did not live in the area were observed using the right-of-way,which is the purpose of the public right-of-way, it is intended for the public to use.The City of Yakima has provisions for a Master Planned Development and the creation of a private street system in a private neighborhood,this is not the case for this situation.The City understands that there has been limited maintenance on the right-of-way, but that is the case with many streets and different rights-of-way within the City.The City has a certain amount of money allocated for maintenance, and the status of this street/right-of-way will be updated and included in a future maintenance schedule. Vacating this right-of-way may potentially establish a precedent allowing other people to apply to vacate their street simply because they are bothered by limited through traffic. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 26 of 40 164 For the reason stated above, the Planning Division still maintains denial of the proposed Vacation and that no Revocable License Agreement be established in lieu of vacating the right-of-way. F. Testimony Presented in Opposition to Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8, 2024. The testimony presented at the continued hearing on August 8, 2024, in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation includes the following: (1) City of Yakima Planning Manager Trevor Martin: Mr. Martin testified in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation at the continued hearing on August 8, 2024, by summarizing his Memorandum dated August 7, 2024, which is set forth above in Subsection E(3)of this Attachment to the recommendation(Document Index G-15). He also testified as follows in response to questions as to whether the street can ever be public in the future and regarding the Fire Department's position as to gating the street: From my understanding is that this right-of-way was platted back in 1907 and the concept of a private street in a public right-of-way is something that was created in the County awhile back, but as far as I understand it this is a public right-of-way. And as I mentioned in the Memorandum, the street would be added to our maintenance schedule. We will have to figure out a time to improve the street and start maintaining the street, but part of the expectation is also that as the properties adjacent to the street develop more in the future,that there would be improvements installed as well and right- of-way that is dedicated. So everything leads me to believe that a street that meets the local street standards could be created in this area. I have had conversations with the acting City Engineer that it would be added to a maintenance schedule,depending on the outcome of this proceeding it could be put on a maintenance schedule. I don't exactly know the Fire Department's position on the Knox box gates at this time. I know that we have allowed them to be installed in the past,but I don't know their exact position on them at this point in time. G.Testimony Presented in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8, 2024: The testimony presented at the continued hearing on August 8, 2024, in favor of the requested right-of-way vacation includes the following: (1)Representative for petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier, Thomas Durant of PLSA Engineering&Surveying: I think one of the questions you asked the City to answer was not answered. I would be curious to find out which I think is key is to ask the City Engineer what the prospects of this street being improved to a City street are because as you recall from the last hearing one of the points we made is that the street has not been improved and a ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 27 of 40 165 0r1' ..4 3 ?Dm large portion of it was platted without any requirement for street improvement and there is really a question about whether it would even be possible for the remaining owners of the vacant land to subdivide and if there is the rational nexus that they could even be required to improve the street. I would still be interested in knowing what the answer to the question is—what are the prospects of this street being improved to City standards? I think we should at least take that to the Council before denying this application. I haven't had a chance to look at the City Code because I only got this Memoran- dum a couple minutes ago. But YMC 14.25.040(B)says all lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street— "upon a dedicated public street." I don't know what the definitions are in Chapter 14. I would say this is not a dedicated public street. It is a dedicated right-of-way and a private street. So the argument that we are creating a nonconforming situation, I would say that the nonconforming situation is already there. And"lots within a subdivision,"does that mean all lots within a new subdivision,a new plat being proposed under the City Code? Again, I haven't had a chance to look more closely at the City Code with respect to that. And finally with regard to the Fire Department's concern about blocking access with a gate, there is a number of developments that have been approved over the last few years that are gated communities. It seems to be possible to install gates that satisfy access requirements of emergency responders. And we have said that we would be willing to do whatever it takes to make this available for that purpose. And my client had a question. I think I know the answer, but I am going to ask it so that everybody is clear and it is on the record. He was saying that he thought this property was within Fire District 12. I guess if we could get that clarified as to what the City's jurisdiction is with regard to fire services. Those are the questions that I have. (City Attorney Sara Watkins responded to Mr. Durant's question as follows: When I looked up the property on the Yakima County Assessor's site, and then I compared it with my own property within Fire District 12, the property is not being assessed Fire District 12 assessments,so I think that would indicate that they do fall under the Yakima Fire Department jurisdiction.) (2) Petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier: Mr. Palmatier expressed the following points in his testimony at the August 8, 2024, continued public hearing: I live at 708 North 68th Avenue and I am one of the neighbors of the neighborhood trying to do something about road maintenance and safety which was our primary concern. And it seems like the outcome of this particular hearing thus far does not address that to our satisfaction. I mean it is all very nebulous. Right now the road is crumbling from overuse. We are the ones that pay to maintain it and we have done so for the last 46 years that I have lived on the property. It's at that point that if the City is going to deny us the opportunity to control the road, then the City needs to maintain it. We pay property taxes for that purpose and I find it very disappointing that our concerns ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 28 of 40 166 regarding the safety of the public right-of-way are being ignored here. I know there is not much I can do about it,but despite the recommendation for denial, I think I would like to take it to the City Council and see if we can get a different opinion. We have no problem with walkers,bicycle riders,recreational use of the road. The only issue again has been vehicular traffic and at times it has been excessive. It has been reckless driving. It has been speeding. It has been a situation where the current residents of the road are put in a dangerous situation sometimes coming out of their driveways. And the walkers and bicyclists could be put in a dangerous situation. There are some blind spots because of the steep hill. If the City is going to do nothing,then I guess we are powerless. But we are asking you to lift this denial and at least allow the revocable license. If you do it for others,why not for us? And the Fire District thing, as has been pointed out, there are gated communities all over town. Why is that an issue here and not in other places. I mean I would just appeal to logic and common sense here. We need to do something to help improve the safety of the road and we need to maintain the road. And what I am hearing is that there is no guarantee or no plan to do any of that in the immediate future. Meanwhile it is crumbling. Potholes are developing. We are going to have to go ahead and repair it again ourselves without any help from the City. But yet we are being limited and we are being put in a situation where I guess there is no win here. I feel like we're being let down by our government. Sorry to say that, but I would hope that we could come up with a better conclusion,a better answer,something that would meet all needs rather than just one side here. H. Additional Written Information in Opposition to the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation Submitted in Response to the Interim Decision.The additional information submitted in opposition to the proposed right-of-way vacation in response to the Interim Decision includes the following: (1) Opinion of City Attorney on the Applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to a Street Right-of-Way Vacation that Requires One or More Private Access Easements as a Substitution. The opinion of City Attorney Sara Watkins dated September 4, 2024, regarding the applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to this requested street vacation (Document Index G-16) is set forth with different formatting as follows: 1.QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) What is the applicability of the wording of YMC 14.25.040(B)to a street right- of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way? (2) If applicable, what is the effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access? ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 29 of 40 167 OCT Y ?NA 2. BACKGROUND Applicant submitted a request to vacate the portion of North 68th Avenue from Englewood Avenue to Scenic Drive. There are 8 parcels that abut North 68th Avenue,and, based on aerial mapping, an additional 3 parcels currently use North 68th Avenue for access, or would need to use North 68th Avenue for access if developed. Some of the properties adjacent to North 68th are not yet developed,while others are large enough to be subdivided if a property owner wished. These properties all appear to be part of the 1907 Plat of Orchard Highlands Orchard Tracts, which divided a large portion of the area into tracts. Over time the tracts have been further subdivided. After the public hearing and review of the City staff report recommending denial of the application, the Hearing Examiner left the record open for additional information, including the City Attorney's opinion on the applicability of the wording in YMC 14.25.040(B)to a street right-of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way,and,if applicable,what is the effect that granting the requested right- of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access. 3. ANALYSIS A.YMC 14.25.040(B) is applicable to street right-of-way vacations that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way if the administrative official determines that it is applicable. The administrative official can evaluate any ordinance requirements, or other information that the administrative official determines is appropriate to review and evaluate when determining their position in the staff report. YMC 14.21.040 states: The administrative official shall prepare a report concerning the proposed vacation for the hearing in front of the hearing examiner.The staff report shall evaluate the advisability of the proposed vacation based on a development services team (DST) meeting and/or submitted application materials. The report shall address the criteria to be considered in determining whether to vacate the public right-of-way, and such other information as deemed appropriate by the administrative official. YMC 14.21.040(B). The administrative official is tasked with evaluating the application in light of the criteria and formulating a staff report and recommendation. Id. Therefore, the administrative official has the opportunity to evaluate any information relevant to the following criteria: 1. The public benefit, reason for, and limitations of the proposed right-of-way vacation; 2. Whether the vacation would deny sole access to a public street or alley for any property; ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 30 of 40 168 Or,;l' _I. 20211 3. Whether the proposal is consistent with existing plans of the city, such as the six-year transportation improvement plan,the urban area comprehensive plan, or other official city plans and policies; 4. Whether the vacation is appropriate with existing and anticipated zoning and land use;and 5. Whether there are any public or franchised utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated and,if so,whether they will be relocated,or whether an easement will need to be reserved. YMC 14.21.050(A). Specific to the Examiner's question,YMC 14.25.040(B) is relevant to criteria 3 and 4. Criteria 3 evaluates consistency with existing official plans and policies. The City has a Pedestrian Master Plan, which has a goal of creating a safe, complete and connected pedestrian network that supports travel for people of all ages and abilities.' There is a City of Yakima Bicycle Master Plan, Bike Yakima, which has a goal of improving bicycle transportation throughout the city of Yakima and to guide planning, development, and management of existing and future bicycle connections within the City.' The Urban Area Comprehensive Plan,We are Yakima, has a number of sections that guide transportation, housing and development of the City.' The City adopted a Housing Action Plan to promote affordable housing options for all community members across the city's neighborhoods, including encouraging diverse housing development within existing neighborhoods.4 All of these plans and policies are to be evaluated under YMC 14.21.050(A)(3). In so doing, the restrictions associated with the creation of a private easement for access for an area should be analyzed. Those restrictions include any possible future impacts on the goals and policies of the plans caused by removing a street from the public streets of the City. Criteria 4 evaluates whether the vacation is appropriate with existing and anticipated zoning and land use. The existing and anticipated land uses in the area are single family residential. However, with upcoming mandated changes to the law regarding the types of housing which will be allowed in single family zones, the City's desire to increase affordable housing and the goals of the City's Housing Action Plan,and transportation needs, it is appropriate for the administrative official to evaluate the effects of YMC 14.25.040(B)on an application to vacate a right-of-way. Here, the administrative official determined it was appropriate to evaluate YMC 14.25.040(B), and the affect it would have on future development in the area. The language is applicable when looking at the long-term plans and policies of the City and 'httpsliwww.yaki mawa.gov/services/planning/files/2021/09/Ya ki m a-Pedestrian-M aster-PI a n-Design-Guide_-Pu bl ic- Draft_20210915-2.pdf z hops://www.ya kimawa.gov/services/p Ian n i ng/files/2018/03/Bicycle-Master-PI an_Fina I_11.29.2017red uced.pdf 3 hails://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/files(2018/07/Yakima-Comprehensive-Plan-20170612-FINAL.pdf 4 hops://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/files/2021/O8/Yakima-Housing-Action-Plan-FINAL-Plan_June-2021.pdf ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 31 of 40 169 ;If OCT Z82024 r : :' anticipating the land uses of the properties abutting the road. Any future subdivisions would be subject to YMC 14.25.040(B), and the restrictions found therein could have an impact on the City's ability to carry out its housing, growth, bicycle, pedestrian, and transportation plans. B. If approved,the right-of-way vacation could limit growth and development of the area due to the restrictions of YMC 14.25.040(B). If approved, any property that seeks further subdivision is subject to YMC 14.25.040(B)which states that"all lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement. Access easements cannot serve more than one lot." "Subdivision" is defined as the division or redivision of land into 10 or more lots. YMC 14.10.020. Therefore, the approval of vacating the right-of-way will preclude properties that do not abut a public street other than North 68th Avenue from subdividing into 10 or more lots. Although some of the larger lots abut Scenic, North 66th, or Englewood, there are large lots that are only accessible by North 68th Avenue.Not having access to North 68th Avenue also may require designs that reduce the number of lots that can be created, such as if a hammerhead or cul-de-sac is required rather than a street that intersects with North 68th Avenue. A restriction in subdivision ability could limit the possible growth and development in the area. Although the current owners may not be interested in subdividing their properties,future property owners may want to create subdivisions. The administrative official is required to look at all of the possible outcomes of the vacation when making their determination,including speculative future growth opportunities,and how vacating a right-of-way could limit growth in the future—especially in light of the long-range plans of the City. 4. CONCLUSION Based on the language of the Yakima Municipal Code, the administrative official has the authority to evaluate any information deemed appropriate when evaluating an application for a right-of-way vacation. As such,YMC 14.25.040(B)can be applicable to a right-of-way use vacation in some circumstances. Since the section is applicable,it should be considered when evaluating whether the right-of-way vacation petition should be recommended to City Council. (2) City of Yakima Response to Interim Decision for Petition for Right-of-Way Vacation. Planning Manager Trevor Martin's Response to the Interim Decision received on September 24, 2024, (Document Index 15) is set forth with different formatting as follows: RESPONSE TO INTERIM DECISION: A. Information that is as specific as possible from Mr.Durant and either Mr. Martin or City Attorney Sara Watkins regarding the applicability of the wording of YMC §14.25.040(B)to a street right-of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way and, if applicable,the effect that ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 32 of 40 170 01.1 1 3 2024 granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access. Staff Response:YMC§ 14.25.040.B—All lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement. Access easements cannot serve more than one lot. Minimum street frontage and/or access easement width shall be at least twenty feet. Lots intended for residential use should not access a principal or minor arterial. Currently 68th Ave.is designated as a public right-of-way,which currently provides access for the surrounding residents.Technically, the adjacent residential lots have access to a public right-of-way, meeting the criteria within YMC Chapter 14. Removing the public right-of-way would make the existing lots non-conforming and prevent them from further subdivision because the lots would not have access to an adjacent public right-of-way. This action has a direct contradiction to the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Goal 5.1. Encourage Diverse and Affordable Housing Choices. Goal 5.2. Preserve and Improve Existing Residential Neighborhoods. Policy 5.4.7. Promote complete streets and trails to interconnect Yakima's neighborhoods and promote walkability. The City has an obligation to ensure that land can continue to be used to its highest potential. Finally, removing developable residential land from future development actively contradicts the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires cities to account for the amount of residential developable space within the existing City limits, and design a plan that best addresses the development of existing City limits (RCW 36.70A.140.2). Ultimately, removing this portion of right-of-way would mean that no existing lots along 68th Ave. would be allowed to subdivide and use 68th as their primary access in the future. B. Information from Mr. Martin provided to him by engineering that is as specific as possible regarding the expected timing and result of including this street in a future maintenance schedule if the requested right-of-way vacation is denied and whether the expected type of maintenance would likely include any improvements to the street,and if so, whether the expected type of improvements would make it safer for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians to use. Staff Response:The right-of-way would be added to the City's street maintenance and improvement schedule. There is not an exact date on when this street would be developed at this time. Plans for the development of the street would be included in future updates to the City's Engineering documents. C. Information from Mr. Martin provided to him by engineering that is as specific as possible regarding the prospects or likelihood of this street right-of-way ever being improved to City street standards. Staff Response: Portions of the right-of-way meet the City standards for a residential street,specifically,the approximately 350 feet of the southern portion of right- ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 33 of 40 171 of-way. Other parts of the right of way would need additional right-of-way dedication in order to meet the standards of a residential City street. Right-of-way is usually requested during development applications of parcels adjacent to the subject right-of-way. This would more than likely be the strategy for acquiring the necessary right-of-way for the complete residential street development of 68th Ave. At this time, the City would likely look at paving the 32 foot wide section of residential street prior to the installation of frontage improvements such as curb,gutter,and sidewalk. D. Additional information from Mr. Martin provided to him by Fire Chief Markham as to whether Chief Markham considers Knox box gates or other types of emergency gates that have been approved for residential development in the past in order to discourage the use of unimproved public street right-of-way to be of a type which significantly increases response times and should no longer be allowed even to make a street safer (See e.g., A DLT Investment Group LLC, PD#002-21, CL2#019-21, PLP#002-21, SEPA#010- 21 dated October 7, 2021). Staff Response:The intent of the denial for this specific request is because it was to block off a public street.Although access gates into private secured neighborhoods can still be reviewed and approved as necessary, the occupants of these neighborhoods choose security over a delay in emergency response agencies.The blocking of a street will have an effect of reducing responses to residential properties that are not adjacent to the closed road but may be along the best travel path to get to the incident address. In addition, PD#002-21 is a Planned Development, and was designed as a private development from the start, which included private streets. There are currently specific conditions addressing access to 92"d Ave. and if those conditions are to change in the future,the applicant will be required to go through another Class 3 Review to analyze the impact on 92"d Ave. Additionally access to 92nd Ave. was removed from the DLT development because the applicant did not agree to the installation of frontage improve- ments along the 92"d right-of-way. In addition,access to the residential properties in the DLT development is coming from the North in both scenarios. The total distance an emergency vehicle would have to travel in this instance is approximately 1,400 feet. In the case of the properties along 68'Ave.,which was not initially constructed as a private development,the furthest distance would be approximately 3,800 feet. I. Additional Written Information in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation Submitted in Response to the Interim Decision.The additional information submitted in favor of the requested right-of-way vacation includes the following: (1) Letter of Thomas Durant dated September 10, 2024, Relative to the Applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to this Requested Street Right-of-Way Vacation. The letter from Thomas Durant of PLSA Surveying and Engineering dated September 10,2024, ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 34 of 40 172 regarding the applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to this requested street vacation (Document Index 17) is set forth with different formatting as follows: This responds to the request for additional information made by the Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision to Reopen the Record issued on August 22, 2024. We were asked to respond to one of the four questions posed by the Interim Decision: The applicability of the wording of YMC 14.25.040(B) to a street right-of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way and, if applicable, the effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access. We are responding to this request in two parts:Applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B)to the right-of-way vacation and the effect that granting the right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses. All emphasis (bold-faced italics) in the following code citations has been added and emphasis in the conclusions is intended to be corresponding. YMC 14.12.020 definitions are not in the same order as they are in the Municipal Code.Their order corresponds to the analysis being presented. A. Applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B)to the right-of-way vacation. 14.25.040 Lot design Each lot within a subdivision shall comply with the following design standards and requirements: B. All lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement.Access easements cannot serve more than one lot. Minimum street frontage and/or access easement width shall be at least twenty feet. Lots intended for residential use should not access a principal or minor arterial. 14.10.020 Definitions. "Street"means a public or private road. "Road, private" means a road not designed, built, or maintained by the city, the Washington State Department of Transportation, or any political subdivision of the state. "Road,public"means the physical improvement of the public right-of-way,including,but not limited to, surfacing, curbs, gutters and drainage facilities, which is maintained and kept open by the city of Yakima or Yakima County for public vehicular and pedestrian use. "Right-of-way, public" means land deeded or dedicated to or purchased by the city of Yakima or Yakima County for existing or future public pedestrian or vehicular access. "Easement" is a dedication by a property owner to specific persons or to the public to enter onto,cross,or otherwise to use land for a specific purpose or purposes. "Subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into ten or more lots for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership in the present or future except as expressly exempted by this title. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 35 of 40 173 , 4.J Conclusions: ' ._.' 1. While N. 68th Avenue does meet the YMC definition of "street" as a "private road",it is not a "public street"as that term is used by YMC 14.25.040(B)because it is not maintained by the city of Yakima or Yakima County. 2. The lots accessed from N. 68th Avenue conform to YMC 14.25.040(B) to the extent that they either have frontage on and access to or they are accessed by an easement to Scenic Drive, N. 66th Avenue or Englewood Avenue,all of which meet the definition of"public road"and are public streets under YMC 14.25.040(B). 3.To the extent that the lots accessed from N. 68th Avenue are nonconforming to YMC 14.25.040 (B) because they are served by easements that serve more than one lot, such nonconformity would not be increased by the right-of-way vacation because the number of lots that are accessed from the public streets:Scenic Drive, N. 66th Avenue and Englewood Avenue, does not change. It appears that YMC 14.25.040 may not be applicable to this property at all because it applies to subdivisions at the time they are considered by the City and not subdivisions or short subdivisions approved and recorded in the past. All of the lots served by N. 68th Avenue were part of a subdivision that was recorded in 1907, although all of those lots have since been reconfigured and further subdivided; none of them exist today in the exact configuration from 1907. Seven of the present lots were created by short subdivision in the 1980s and 1990s.That YMC 14.25.040 may not be applicable is based on the following: 1. YMC 14.25.040 states that"Each lot within a subdivision shall comply with the following design standards and requirements:" 2. "Subdivision" is defined as the division or redivision into 10 or more lots. It apparently does not include short subdivisions. 3. The definition of"Subdivision" is the division or redivision of land for the pur- pose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership in the present or future. It apparently does not include such division or redivision that has occurred in the past. B. Effect that granting the right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses. 15.05.020 Site design requirements and standards. B. Development on Nonconforming Lots. Development on nonconforming lots is governed by this section and YMC 15.19.040. Except as limited by this title,any permitted use may be allowed on any lot legally created prior to the adoption of this title. Such development and structures are subject to the following additional provisions: 1. Detached single-family dwellings erected on nonconforming lots must meet the following criteria: a.The setback dimensions of the structure conform to the regulations of this title; ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 36 of 40 174 01,I. :l a ?OM b.The lot has at least twenty feet of frontage on, or a minimum twenty- foot-wide access easement to,a public or private road; c. All other site design and development criteria other than the lot size requirements of Table 5-2 are met. 4.Zero lot line, common wall, duplex or multifamily development is not allowed on such lots in the SR and R-1 zones unless such development is the replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use, as defined in YMC Chapter 15.19. H.Access Required. All new development shall have a minimum of twenty feet of lot frontage upon a public road or be served by an access easement at least twenty feet in width. The purpose of this standard is to provide for vehicular access to all new development; provided, the construction of single-family and two-family dwellings on existing legally established lots is exempt from the requirements of this section. Conclusions: 1. Existing non-agricultural land use of the property accessed by the right-of-way proposed for vacation is detached single family residential. 2. Detached single family residences would be allowed on any of these parcels in accordance with YMC 15.05.020 even if YMC 14.25.040(B)were determined to be applicable to this case subject to setbacks and other site design and development criteria except for lot size requirements of Table 5-2. New detached single-family residential development would be exempt from the minimum 20-foot frontage and access easement requirements of YMC 15.05.020(H). 3. Two-family dwellings would also be allowed on any of these parcels in accor- dance with YMC 15.05.020 even if YMC 14.25.040(B) were determined•to be applicable to this case subject to setbacks and other site design and development criteria except for lot size requirements of Table 5-2. New two-family residential development would be exempt from the minimum 20-foot frontage and access easement requirements of YMC 15.05.020(H). Duplexes would be limited to the replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use (detached single-family residence in this case). 4. Multiple family residential, subdivision and other land uses permitted in the Suburban Residential zone would generally not be permitted on these lots. However,this is an existing non-conformity regardless of the applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to this case. It would also not apply to development on those properties that have frontage and direct access to or that can gain direct access to Englewood Avenue, N. 66th Avenue or Scenic Drive or from an easement serving only one lot from those public streets or approved as a Planned Development, mobile or manufactured home park, condominium or binding site plan in accordance with YMC 15.09.100.Also, subdivision and the development of these ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 37 of 40 175 OI;I 1 3 2021 land uses would be allowed when right-of-way is dedicated and developed as a public street. (2) Letter of Thomas Durant dated October 4,2024,Submitted Relative to the City Attorney's Opinion and the Planning Manager's Response to the Interim Decision. The letter dated October 4, 2024, from Thomas Durant of PLSA Surveying & Engineering addressing the City Attorney's Opinion and the Planning Manager's Response to the Interim Decision is set forth with different formatting as follows: I reviewed the City Attorney opinion requested by the Interim Decision to Reopen the Record and offer the following comments in response: For the most part, I agree with the City Attorney's findings and interpretation of the Municipal Code provisions that were analyzed,specifically: Any future subdivisions would be subject to YMC 14.25.040(B), (p. 5). [A]ny property that seeks further subdivision is subject to YMC 14.25.040(B)..."subdivision" is defined as the division of land into 10 or more lots....Therefore, the approval of vacating the right-of-way will preclude properties that do not abut a public street...from subdividing into 10 or more lots, (p.5) Where I don't agree is the implication that this right-of-way vacation would restrict growth and development in a significant way.The City Attorney's response also includes a statement that not having access to North 68'Avenue may require designs that reduce the number of lots that can be created,such as if a hammerhead or cul-de-sac is required rather than a street that intersects with North 68" Avenue (p. 5). While this is true, developers always face limiting constraints that could include such things as the possible number of lots or housing units due to hammerheads and cul-de-sacs as well as a myriad of other things. The short subdivision of the Sevigny property is an example of where there may have been a limitation of the number of housing units because it is improved with a hammerhead or cul-de-sac. Yet, the City approved it without requiring intersection to abutting North 68th Avenue. The City Attorney opinion did not confirm Trevor Martin's testimony and Memorandum that if this right-of-way is vacated, then YMC 14.25.040(B) would make [any] of the homes non-conforming or would prevent any other property in the future from using the access easement[s] substituted for the vacant right-of-way. (Hearing Examiner Interim Decision, p. 3,Sec.A(9)(a)).The only effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses would be on future subdivisions(10 lots or more)that do not have frontage on a public road, duplexes that are not the replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use and other permitted non-agricultural land uses that are not detached single family dwellings. I have the following comments on reviewing Trevor Martin's statements: Mr. Martin's statements that vacating the public right-of-way would prevent the existing lots from further subdivision or that they would not be allowed to [be] ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 38 of 40 176 subdivide[d] and use 68th as their primary access are inaccurate. Subdivision, use of N. 68th Avenue or both would be allowed under the following circumstances: a. The lots being subdivided have frontage on and direct access to the perimeter streets: Scenic Drive, Englewood Avenue or N. 66th Avenue. This could include where more than one lot is involved in a proposed subdivision,such as lots that do not now have frontage on any improved City street where the subdivision is developed with dedicated City streets extending to the interior properties. b.Subdivision or the development of existing lots where a private road is extended to serve no more than one lot per YMC 14.25.040(B). c. Development, including subdivisions,with private roads approved as a Planned Development, mobile or manufactured home park, condominium or binding site plan in accordance with YMC 15.09.100. The Sevigny Short Plat(City File PSP#006-23) demonstrates that it is possible to develop property fronting N.68th Avenue without access to the N.68th Avenue right-of-way.The proposed development is to be improved with presumably a City streets. None of the proposed lots have access to N. 68th Avenue and its improvement was not required for the short subdivision. There should be no reason that a similar development could not take place on any of the other vacant or partially vacant lots that have frontage on or are otherwise served by N. 68th Avenue. These lots could include 181317-43405, 43406, 43407, 43418, 43419 and 44412. All or some of them could be developed individually, combined or reconfigured using boundary line adjustments, subdivided and developed with public or private streets connecting existing nearby City streets as provided for by the Municipal Code. Mr. Martin did not really answer the question about maintenance of the existing private street, or it was his intent for the answer to be inferred. He refers to the street being developed.Development is not the same as maintenance.The inference being what I have always understood, that the City will not maintain a street until it has been constructed to City standards and accepted into the street system. If that is the case,then the street could not be added to any maintenance and improvement schedule until after it has been built to City standards and accepted. No documentation was provided of how this would be accomplished. If necessary to improve the street before it can be put on a maintenance schedule, it would seem that it would first have to be put on a 6-year Transportation Improvement Program. The response to the question regarding the likelihood of N.68th Avenue ever being improved to City standards seems to suggest that the City may be willing to improve the street. However, this response is stated in hypotheticals. It seems to describe what the City would do, if it were to improve the road, rather than what the City intends to do. 5 The August 14,2023 staff report does not state whether or not the access street serving the development is to be a public or private street.This is an important point since as a short subdivision,the development is not subject to YMC 14.25.040(B). ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 39 of 40 177 Our experience that the City relies on developers to bring existing streets up to standards would indicate that such improvements should not be expected anytime soon. An "unintended consequence" of the Sevigny short subdivision is that one half of the length of the right-of-way remains unimproved and if it was not the City's intent to require that developer to make the improvement, it certainly would not be required for any development of the vacant or partially vacant properties that front on the southern half of the right-of-way, Mr. Martin's response about whether the Fire Chief still considers the use of gates in private communities does indicate that gates can still be considered,the answer to the question being asked. However, referring to this as the "denial" of a "specific request" is not accurate. Staff requested and received an opinion from the Fire Chief. While it may very well be his intent to not allow a gate in this situation, it is not a "denial". In fact,the Fire Chief's letter characterizes his statement as a "recommendation" indicating that the decision may not be under his authority to make. If what he meant was that the right-of- way vacation should not be approved, it misses the point that gating the road after the right-of-way is vacated would not"block off a public street",the stated intent of making the recommendation because with approval of the vacation it would not be a public street or a public right-of-way, Likewise, we did not make a "specific request" with respect to the right-of-way vacation. The application stated what the petitioners intend to do, if the vacation is approved, subject to the agreement of other property owners and any other required approvals. While my understanding is that the City will typically not allow a public street to be gated, private streets can have gates as allowed by the International Fire Code. Concerns raised about reduction of response time seems to overlook the installation of a "Knox Box" and more sophisticated automated systems that open the gate on approach of an emergency vehicle. If the vacation were approved and it were determined that the gate cannot be approved under applicable laws and requirements,the petitioners would simply have to consider other means of addressing their concerns, basically that they are trying to control safety and other adverse effects on a road, the maintenance of which they continue to be responsible for and notwithstanding the input received from the City, there is no certainty that they will not have to continue to have this responsibility indefinitely. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION-Page 40 of 40 178 RIGHT OF WAY ( ROW) VACATION RWV#003 - 24 • v Niiiiiit4 N "..---.1410 . . ., _ ,. i , ,4 ..„....„::_,...... , .,. 0.,..,...,_ .,,. .w. . , . I l'i i .1 ii,, „1-, . - I,: `, . 3 ,,,,, ,i .1 1 , , , 414 i, - - .1 R,. vi • tQl$ri if I S L !• I `L L r ull ! r T YY ' it , II.j. Harlan OtisI , .L r L 4 r. _ 4 i, ii, `it„:, $, ,i r _. ,7,, _ ., , ...,,_,,,,,t4„ ., % 4.40 . ,„ , 1 ., i., __:.......... fcif#7111164 '47 -.'-'';-''. ;'.. ' =�:� 4 i �• ey µ T L3�{Zt:r t c=)1 51 i wood L�7� _ __ . . ---,v4 _ T , J �'- • —- k t` . - n ti,'ik,,,y 'per �1 1CY'`�.� 'l ?� — j - , .. '' ', iii 180 IECE!VED APR 2 2 A024 SCENIC DRIVE Glagnr *20'j'J PARCEL NO. \Y 181317-4 3 42 4 LOT SNORT FL/AT MOO. BC-132 N//i� Di �u 20„/ �� ON THEHPLAT OF YAK MI RATED• lkik, ' 77- 10'RIGHT OF WAY --�'�p�/' • r L DEDICATED TO YAKIMA 7 ORCHARD HIGHLAND CO'S. COUNTY ON SHORT \ ORCHARD TRACTS w'`11 •:� .v PLAT NO.90-132 \ LOT t W z MO. 6o=T*C PARCEL NO. 181317-43422 \ / �' si i =so s I FEET z20' , H PARCEL NO. SCOLS 1 181317-4 4 401 co IE3nC Sg \ `D TRACT 34- S AG{U A W/1 ORCfRD x S'IAG�11n A ORCHARDD -U�MD OO°s E. HEQUILAHDD CO'S ORCHARD TRACTS I 0 ORCHARD TRACTS \ z 4 z" LOTT c / gym © s SHORT PLAT Y I O ^ a a g' OO C . £3D-1g0 PARCEL NO. \ .1 E �+ 181317-4 3 419 �£m' �� w \ / l'R;N1Z3 rc 10'RIGHT OF WAY—.-\ E¢i-. . I DC 0 E, CC DEDICATED TO YAKIMA COUNTY Z Z Q V.o H- F F ON SHORT PLAT . / On r Q o wE NO'S.89-85 AND \vl' / W N >_ i 89-150 \ / r$5 Q \1 Q ¢3 a y E p - \220 p- ~ - / Lin E2 \�1 I _�1 N ¢\N aIF = I 181 G am.^rI E'D J ,,, , r.1vc Y, eta SLAT m zo' zo' PARCEL NO. Z. 181317-4 4 417 PARCEL NO. ,> �� TF 181317-43 40 5 • %Vill - y/ TRr'M' 44 j-, , TUNA, ORCHARD F 20'1P fD�1CC'IILA o CO'S0 ' 4GRQcG1Y 477 0so FFET ORCHARD TRACTS z / 'YG,I 7ECA OnCm.IUD SCALE,°_ HICHLADDD CO'S ORCHARD TRACTD "'--A/ }`\ 40'RIGHT OF WAY DKAATED /\ ON THEAPLAT OF D YAKIMA ?O ORCHARD HIGHLAND CO'S. ORCHARD TRACTS X -4 ( J„ // PARCEL N0. g 0 m / 181317-4 4 412 i a . w> � PARCEL N0. \ j L N -ro 181317-43 4 07 �-10'RIGHT of WAY 3 n Z rc I \ DEEDED TO YAKIMA COUNTY § t' ZZQ a1,z L M —— za'�zo',ha' ENGLEWOOD AVENUE J —o " I rc\m N a 'I N z G N i 3 $ r 182 REASONS FOR DENIAL SUMMARY Adjacent neighbors submitted comments citing concerns about first responders ability to access homes after a gate has been established along the former RoW. All lots along RoW become Nonconforming Lots PerYMC 14.25.040.E -All lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement.Access easements cannot serve more than one lot. Minimum street frontage and/or access easement width shall be at least twenty feet. Lots intended for residential use should not access a principal or minor arterial. Property along the RoW cannot be further subdivided RCW 36.70A.070 Required the City to maintain a vacant land inventory.This vacant land inventory is incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan,ensuring the City has enough buildable space for residential housing in the future. There are approximately 13.69 acres adjacent this right-of-way that could not be further developed for future housing 68th Ave. is one of 4 roads connecting Englewood Ave.to Scenic Dr. removing a connecting right of way directly contradicts the City's complete streets policy and could hinder emergency vehicle response times. There have not been any accidents and the intersections of 68th and Englewood or Scenic within the past 5 years. The City has a process inYMC 15.28 and 12.06 to establish private streets within gated and private neighborhoods. 183 ... t • - • I f'.4... ,z:--,_ ' ,.,-.'N''TP i, - ---* T ' 1 ,I.'.,F,,,, ... • L 7 ‘ ".i.-.----.A. '4xe -P,.., for____ -T._ '1'•, _ It rt._A....-,•.,4-,',.-•:•:,..,...--,t,i--'1J, , fiK.•.1 _-,.., ,..• , .4,--1 ., 1 -.,- a • , . i ••••,, . • --_,• - -- •-• ;.--,.:1- N,V,/• - - ..../1 'to . •I., •- i ,, .\ , • ,••••. 7_ -..7' if 'y .. ; '.'- t''''' 1 ' , . . 5‘,.,.,1c Dr '- '.:,,,,_cr,:c Dr ,'. 040,-- __ . A . ,A, .1 _ (C -14%--,•,,,- 41.0,-,,,, ...,?e,....4641,1))11,7,,,'t,l' , ''' --_ . . 14, '-.4 • .1,, ' . :' ;.: ;.li.% , -• - .,.,,..‘ . ,_ , ..i . .----N —t. 1 •••„• , • 1 , -•- ._ i 1411'1 , , , _Is • . -- J (4-.•,_. , . -N, 1 . ---Ar . v . . . . iijoiogijot , = • . '.1•,,' J . y'11 , , '; -4-....-.44.'- ,, k ,-,,, , • a ._ i , .,,, .,, . ' _. I . ,. • , 1 , . , , 4.:1411100 ' .T.' '',.. , .... ' • :. - - . Vt.- 4- • -' c- "'aill ,_ - • • •-• IP 4r.- it.' ,---4, . • • Q .7*, 5.$: ' 'ti''''.:. kk,. — ,4i ,.. .- •I.. IV 1.-5. , ' ,', 0 ' .! ,„‘ ..e3 c ,c. - -- . - :' \ \ 1+ •,-Y ' ,-‘.. :,- -,,.1 '... - - /.. '',,;Ii-4' 84, P.,r. _ I' - ,, .. ., . * 'r ' 10 c. 14 -‘ 41, , ‘,.., , 7, 'N .- -- •••',I-•, ' N••••-, 0 - _ -..-1, •••., '-- . ., . * - -...., . .. . . 4 • - , / ...--, INV. -' L .4: •••.,,"•;,',..1.- N,..!'. • _ . _ . Sac . _ .-.... 41 1 _ , %9—''-r , • -=----- I -- ..,..,Alt. .,:_.-,,1 .• . ', 41. 1 • -- .,_.,,1 1,Englewood Ave _.,- ..--.. ,- n-4.rty,,$).0qn`„,,.._I . - _ Englewood CM E n I°wood Ave . __ -= ... - -- - - ' ' - • Pr '' I ir ,,, - e'. .:` Sliti, ' ._ . ,.," '` • '.'7,._..,,,• l',4 ‘."-- -----rt ' '-'''' . ' 1.1°'' ' I In, ,. ..,... •.,....,.., , ,.. ., 7,....,.... . . . .•., .. ..... .... .. ..1-.1-) 1 c . - IN"- , , . ' : :Vire,' ..!"' '' '''2:1-.' •.-. - - l".:Itk 1 -4-' . -, . . ,...,,, :,),...4.4:0.„,„:f.„. , .,,•.- _, : : .• . .:. -....,..._! .,---_ ., 'ci@ii --i q -#..,., ..,,,..c:- , . ',. _•_.-,--t ,, :).,-- . !', • ,, -., - 44, Ad ,f-,„,•,-, •„._ t,,•,--.—, — ..___ , _ ‘.. . . 1: -I -- _ .- -1,,, • f-,- aiit 1,- -• -• - ' 4''1 k-- r'il • , --,i--,---T • 4! .%,. ' -AS 111115 - ,,-4IP. ' . -':",;."-. , .",• 4 '''`JI ,' 7 - .s/ ....,,, . _. 0 o_Mo 1.0_ 1— - 1 w' '' ''' * i'.41/7•.*:::.1;401 4.Y"—..i. 1 84 • a €` ;�� tii ' d. . --, ' t . j am _ .. Yf fIrC 1. 1 _ - --. �� '+' } ' :—:7-:1''' ''''',0•4--CP- -N-15 C1/41.1114017- `t Ra._ _ • 3 • .L ���y y y IT �.J-I•u7'i, a = + �,. a i ,r" s-" .t , d - a "�'L II ,i_..LA. _ F r••la.n'O��:I Avc •.En II oad.7.c I Waodav-'., , / -1 r 9 a , - _ x a 1 �� Sulam F I 7 _' Glacier WL.s•gtI • Y' 185 Distributed at MeetinQI 2-�/-ZD25"Item# D Tom Durant PLSA Engineering, Surveying, and Planning City of Yakima City Council Presentation-Right-of-way Vacation#003-24 N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. &Scenic Dr. The right-of-way proposed for vacation is improved with a privately constructed and maintained road that has been in existence for more than a century and was probably in existence when the property was originally platted in 1907. It has been improved and maintained by the property owners that make use of it. Suffice to say that it is not a public street being maintained by the City. The private road is paved to a width of between 11 and 16 feet. It does not meet City street standards or fire code standards. Since it is a straight road between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive, it is attractive to motorists to use as an alternative to N. 66th Avenue, particularly when there is any reason for delay on 66th. Dr. Palmatier has personally observed 15 to 20 non-resident cars and pickups during the day using 68th and he suspects there are more because he doesn't watch the street constantly. Some of the vehicles are speeding or driving recklessly.According to Carol Wagar, people who live on Scenic Drive west of 68th routinely use our street as a shortcut to go from Scenic Drive to Englewood and head west, bypassing 66th Avenue and the dangerous Englewood/66th Avenue intersection.Similarly, eastbound traffic on Englewood Avenue uses our street as a short cut to Scenic Drivel. The petitioners are concerned about the hazards of this traffic being that it is a private road, and also about its maintenance. It is being maintained by and at the expense of the property owners2. The purpose of the requested right-of-way vacation is so that the residents that are using this road would be in a better position to control the problems by making this clearly a private road, rather than a privately maintained road in a public right-of-way.While one of the alternatives that has been talked about is gating one end of the road to discourage or stop non-resident traffic,this isn't necessarily the approach that would be taken. Other means would be considered if they will work. Also, there are no plans to form a homeowners association, an objection raised by a neighbor who did not sign the petition. 1 Carol Wagar December 13,2024 letter to Yakima City Council 2 In Trevor Martin's testimony to the Hearing Examiner, he made the statement that a concept of private road in a public right-of-way was"invented by the County."That this concept is clearly the case in the City of Yakima is demonstrated by the definitions in Title 14 of"Street"; "Road, private"; "Road, public"and "Right-of-way,public". The existing roadway of N.68th Avenue is not maintained by the City of Yakima or the County,so it does not meet the definition of"Road, public".Since it is not maintained by the City, Department of Transportation or any other political subdivision of the State,it does meet the definition of"Road, private".The definition of"Right-of-way, public" does not specify any improvements. The question that was posed to City staff at both hearings before the hearing examiner and never satisfactorily answered in our opinion is what are the prospects of N. 68th Avenue being improved as a City street. Especially in light of the fact that the City had just approved a short subdivision fronting on one half of the total length of the street without requiring any improvement, or even access to N. 68th Avenue from the subdivided lots. Because of this there is a question of whether it would be feasible for the owners of any of the remaining vacant land on the right-of-way to subdivide and improve the entire street or if the City could even require the improvement of the north half of N. 68th Avenue, when it was not required for the developer of the property that fronts on it. The un-dated staff report submitted in response to the Hearing Examiner's request for additional information makes unspecific responses about street development being scheduled in the future and mostly describes the manner in which right-of-way would be acquired. It does not answer the question of the likelihood of the right-of-way being improved as a City street in the foreseeable future. A follow up question that could be asked at this time is this: Assuming it is not feasible for developers to improve N. 68th Avenue in its entirety, which we believe to be the case,will the City make the improvement at its expense and if so,when will this likely happen? Conclusion The petitioners request that the City Council consider the likelihood that N. 68th Avenue will not be improved in its entirety as a City street in the foreseeable future and the current and future residents will be in the position of having to maintain at least part of the street and continue to contend with unwanted traffic indefinitely. In the event that it is determined that the right-of-way petition will not be improved, the petitioners would like the City to respond to their initial inquiry as to how to control the unsafe conditions that they are being required to address on their own without assistance. They respectfully request that City staff be instructed to provide necessary assistance to address these concerns. Tom Durant PLSA Engineering, Surveying, and Planning- Points for City Council to Consider-Petitioners Issues, Concerns, and Points of View 1. It is unlikely that N. 68th Avenue will be improved to City standards in the foreseeable future.This leaves the petitioners in the position of having to maintain the street and deal with its impacts on their own. 2. Approval of the short subdivision of Parcel 181317-44401 (Sevigny) refutes staff statement that the proposed right-of-way vacation will substantially limit residential development and subdivision in this area. 3. Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan 4. The petitioners went to City staff for advice on how to resolve their problem with unwanted traffic and were advised to petition for right-of-way vacation. If the petition is not approved,the petitioners are again seeking advice about how to address their problem. 1. In my 45 years of professional planning in this area I learned of a principle that is unwavering by all Cities and Counties in this area: Cities and Counties do not maintain privately built roads. In order for a City or County to maintain a road it 1. has to be constructed to city or county public road standards and 2. must be accepted by the City or County. A second principle, maybe not as unwavering as the first, but substantially so especially for residential streets: Streets are built by private developers at their expense. Therefore, in order for a road to be constructed to public road standards, it would have to be built by a private developer(as part of a project). The Sevigny short subdivision fronts on about 660 feet or half of the total length of N. 68th Avenue and project approval did not include the improvement to City standards of any of the right of way. With the principles described above, it would not be feasible for developers of any of the remaining vacant property on N. 68th to improve the entire street. If there was a tack of proportionality or nexus for the Sevigny property to improve the portion of the street along its frontage, there would certainly be none for other vacant properties to improve that part of the street. The parcels of land on the west side of the north half of the right-of-way(across from the Sevigny short subdivision) are not vacant, but are substantially built-out as single-family residential lots. It is unlikely that these properties would be redeveloped at a higher density in the foreseeable future. Consequently, there is no foreseeable pathway to the north half of the right-of-way being improved to City standards through property development. At most, only the south half of the right-of-way would be improved, leaving the property owners in the north half of the area with continuing responsibility for the existing substandard roadway and having to address the safety and livability concerns of the additional traffic that they are describing. 2. Reference map exhibit of the site and surrounding properties. a. The Sevigny subdivision was approved without any access to N. 68th Avenue, even though the site borders one half of the total right-of-way length. This contradicts staff statements that the right-of-way is necessary to develop the area. It clearly was not needed to develop this short subdivision which consists of all of the north half of the property fronting on the east side of the right-of-way proposed for vacation. b. The other existing vacant portion of the property accessed from N. 68th Avenue fronts on both sides of the south half of the right-of-way extending to Englewood Avenue.There is no reason that it could not be developed in the same manner with access from that street. Development of this area to a higher density than that approved for the Sevigny short subdivision is also possible and could be accomplished in compliance with current City subdivision standards. 3. We continue to dispute staff's claim that the right-of-way vacation would render existing homes and lots nonconforming and that no new driveways would be permitted to have access to N. 68th Avenue in the future (Hearing Examiner decision, p. 13 of decision, Right of Way Vacation Finding XI (10) (2)).This is based on the following(already in the record): a. YMC 14.25.040(B) does not apply to short subdivisions or already existing lots (YMC 14.25.040; YMC 14.10.020 definition of "subdivision"). b. Detached single-family residences are permitted on nonconforming lots with at least 20 feet of frontage on, or a minimum twenty-foot-wide access easement to a public or private road (YMC 15.05.020(B)) and the construction of single-family and two-family dwellings on existing legally established lots is exempt from the Development on Nonconforming Lots requirements of YMC 15.05.020 (YMC 15.05.020(H)). Additional comprehensive plan policy considerations. a. Plan policies cited in the hearing examiner decision regarding bicycle access and bicycle path development is contradicted by Table 4-2 in the City of Yakima 2040 Transportation System Plan, labeled "Street Design Guidelines"which provides that "Bike Facilities" are not recommended on local access streets. This is consistent with N. 68th Avenue not designated as a bicycle route by either the Transportation System Plan or the current comprehensive plan.While members of the bicycling community submitted documents supporting their desire to have N. 68th Avenue so designated, in fact it is not. As I testified at the first hearing held by the Examiner, the problem is that N. 66th Avenue,which is designated a bicycle route by the various plans, is itself not improved to current City standards for a collector arterial,which if it were, would include curb, gutter, sidewalk and bicycle lanes. Arguably such improvement along with appropriate improvements of the intersection of Englewood and N. 66th Avenues would reduce the hazards that are now being faced by bicyclists that prefer to use N. 68th Avenue. Notwithstanding the above,the petitioners continue to stand by their position that they have no objection to continued use of the vacated right-of-way by bicyclists and pedestrians and their willingness to make provisions allowing for such continued use. This could be viewed as mitigation for the current substandard condition of the N. 66th Avenue—the designated bicycle route, until it is improved in the future. 4. The petitioners identified a problem and safety concerns due to the use of the privately maintained road by non-resident motorists and were advised by City staff to pursue this petition to vacate the right-of-way. If the City decision is now to not approve the vacation petition, the petitioners now return to the City with same inquiries that were brought to staff in the first place. Consider the following statement from pages 7 &8 of the 2025 Yakima Urban Area Transportation Plan: Traffic speed and volume have become a concern on many neighborhood streets. Citizens regularly express concern regarding "cut-through" traffic within neighborhoods, and vehicles with excessive speeds that threaten safe and quiet residential areas. Well thought-out initial design of neighborhood streets will consider and incorporate principals of traffic control that will reduce speeds and "cut-through"traffic. In so many areas of the Yakima community, these principals were not observed with initial construction and residents now seek to retrofit solutions to the existing streetscape problems....The need for traffic calming to address neighborhood livability is widespread in Yakima and throughout urban America....The relationship of pedestrian safety to the citizen concerns to "calm"traffic is clear. Many cities have implemented programs to assist neighborhoods in re-claiming their streets. Common traffic calming measures include traffic circles at intersections, narrowing devices, such as chicanes and chock-points, one- way streets, barricades, and other physical measures. All successful programs also include community education and enforcement measures. Provision of access for emergency services is a primary consideration for retrofitting neighborhoods with traffic calming measures. The City Council established a citizen-based petition program to initiate traffic calming measures in 1995. However, due to budget limitations,program funding or cost sharing is not available to neighborhoods wishing to implement traffic calming. Therefore, few petitions have been processed, and neighborhoods generally do not pursue the program due to the costs. New neighborhood residential streets should be designed for low travel speeds to discourage cut-through traffic....Wide, straight residential streets invite speeding and generally do not promote a pedestrian friendly environment. This describes precisely the situation the petitioners are facing. In the absence of likely improvement of N. 68th Avenue in its entirety by the City or future developers as a result of the partial development that has occurred in this area and the apparent lack of public funding available for traffic calming, the logical solution is to allow the residents who remain responsible for maintaining the existing road to take measures to improve its safety and reduce adverse impacts that existing traffic is having on them. Public benefit of the right-of-way vacation The petitioners have identified a problem with non-resident motor vehicle traffic using an existing substandard road. This includes quality of life impacts on the residents and safety concerns for not only residents but bicyclists and pedestrians using the existing road. Given that improvement of the entire road to City standards is unlikely in the foreseeable future, due to factors that include the neighborhood being partially developed without road upgrades and that City or private developer improvement of the entire road is unlikely, that the right-of-way vacation is in the public interest because it would allow the private sector to implement its own traffic calming measures. Conclusion The petitioners request that the City Council consider the likelihood that N. 68th Avenue will not be improved in its entirety as a City street in the foreseeable future and the current and future residents will be in the position of having to maintain at least part of the street and continue to contend with unwanted traffic indefinitely. In the event that it is determined that the right-of-way petition will not be improved, the petitioners would like the City to respond to their initial inquiry as to how to control the unsafe conditions that they are being required to address on their own without assistance. They respectfully request that City staff be instructed to provide necessary assistance to address these concerns.