Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2025-031 Resolution relating to land use; denying vacating a portion of N. 68th Ave. between Englewood Ave. and Scenic Dr. in the City of YakimaRESOLUTION NO. R-2025-031 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 RVVV#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 OP 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. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 4th day of February, 2025. ATTEST: anda Ibarra, City Clerk Patricia Byers,tlyor COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Bill Preston, P.E., Director Trevor maim MCP, Manager Pla ing Divisi kkorth S d Street 2nd Floor Yaki 'Washington 98 Phone (509)57 183 Fax *) 57 I E ankplonnia: NOTIFICATION OF HEA • I RECOMMENDATION TO THE Y G EXAMINER'S 41 • yokima gov 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: tNvor.martin@va imawa_gov. Eva Rivera Planning Technician Date of Mailing: October 22, 2024 Enclosures: Hearing Examiner's Recommendation Yakima 2015 1494 'FCEiVED 1' 1 1 8 2024 v OF YAth c; ANN! G lI 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 68' 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: Vacation of North 68"' Avenue Right -of -Way located between Englewood Avenue & Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 2 RECEIVE 1)C1 8 2024 CI1Y llr YAKIMA PLANNING DIV, 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 follovving 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: Vacation of North 68Avenue Right -of -Way located between Englewood Avenue & Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 4 'rrEIVE 111*1 I 8 ?,(J24. r YAKINiA PLANNING DIV, 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 Servietw Team (DST) Review. A Development Services Team Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: Vacation of North 68'1Avenue Right -of -Way located between Englewood Avenue & Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 6 TIFCEIVF :1111 .1 8 211121 V 148 V't,'.,!Vigq.N3 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, whcn 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 rcfer to the evidence relied upon for this recommendation. XI. Ri2ht-or-Way Vacation Findines. 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 arc 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 Hearing 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 Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to conduct public hearings on petitions and resolutions to vacate streets and public rights -of - Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: Vacation of North 68"Avenue Right -of -Way located between Englewood Avenue & Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 8 4i.r.80t2882:11‘,ED 20042.12 8 2024 20844 482 41A8814444 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(l)]. 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: Vacation of North 6811Avenue Right -of -Way located between Englewood Avenue & Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 10 Jr Ia CO24 sal I OF YAKtiviA PLAUNG[ihl 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 681^ 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 RBI110, 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 681th Avenue. [Attachment p. 14 §C(3)]. (10) Considering the evidence relative the effect of thc 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: Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right -of -Way located between Englewood Avenue & Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 12 aff:i Z024 CITY hammerhead or cul-de-sac in lieu of using North 68'h 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 §I(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 68'h 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 are 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 thc existing parcels, the conversion of 1,285 feet of public right - Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: Vacation of North 68' Avenue Right -of -Way located between Englewood Avenue & Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 14 r)(21 1 8 2024 VIVit..1).‘ 1\,,i;ililf; 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)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 68th 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: Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right -of -Way located between Englewood Avenue & Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 16 iiCi g /3 Z024 Of ci 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 coming 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 elTect 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 arca available for development contrary to the Growth Management Act and City Comprehensive Ilan 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: Vacation of North 68'1Avenue Right -of -Way located between Englewood Avenue & Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 18 • 0181,- i 81)24 tiF . PL.1888:8's 8_ 888 CONCLUSIONS Based upon the findings set forth above, the Hearing Examiner reaches the following conclusions regarding the requested right-of-way vacation of the portion of North 686 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 are not satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence submitted for this matter. Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: Vacation of North 6811' Avenue Right -of -Way located between Englewood Avenue & Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 20 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 yiz<5 9 r i.3 FFi.t 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. 66' 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-31: Our group strongly believes it would be a mistake to vacate North 68th. We believe it's critical to maintain N. 68" 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):_ 1 support the Active Transportation Alliance's position to maintain N. 68th for public non -vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Drive. N. 68' 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 0.5'30: Plan and support the transportation networks inthe[ityandregioninr— -- cuUuboradunwithYaNmoCuunty the City ofUnion Gap, the VVSDOT,and other neighboring jurisdictions. (9l1.9.1J'9.1.]). Transportation Systems Plan excerpts: 1.3.2 Healthy Communities - Recognizing among re ' sidents, 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 approache-s. The two amendments to the GMA require that communities: 1.Cunsider urban planning approaches that promote Physical activity in the Land Use Plan; and 2.Include abicycle and pedestrian component inthe Transportation Plan. Conclusion: For the reasons described above, Yakima has adopted these growth and development policies in order to create neighborhoods hhigh street co Vacating the subject section of North 681h Ave is inconsistent with these adopted comprehensive plan policies and therefore should bedenied. (9) An A ctive Transportation Allia ' nce 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 1. Wright, Emily Wright ?nd,Petle,DouRhertv (Document Index 10): Our group strongly believes it would be a mistake to vacate N. 681h. We believe it's critical to maintain N. 68th for public non - vehicular access from Englewood toScenic Drive and hope that acompromise could be reached before the public loses access tothis road. Per the "Outer Circle' concleot map, in our opinion N. 6gm is one of several critical connecting road options for the entire west side ofthe city tnaccess the newly constructed lower Cnxv|chetrail. The City Bike Master Plan has 661hasthe access but webelieve N. §8mismuch safer and a bit less ofo % climb for walkers and cyclists to access Scenic Drive and then Lower Cowiche Trail. One thing active transportation citizens in Yakima living west nf4OmAvenue lack is a safe access point to the Greenway. This area of N. 68t' could provide that critical safe access for thousands ofresidents. B. The Written Comments Submitted in Favor of the Requested Right-of-way Vacation either before or during the Hearing on Julv 25, 2024. The written comments submitted in favor of the requested right-of-way vacation either before or during the July 25,2U24,hearing are summarized asfollows: (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: xnxcxmENT roRECOMMENDATION ocrALMAnsnrpnnowFOR pIG*r-Opwx,VACATION-Page svfw0 OCT�82DZ� CITY C. designations. Future development of vacant property in the vicinity could still occur, possibly utilizing portions of the mad by incorporating it into new right-of-way dedications. Regardless, future development can provide for better connectivity that is less disruptive tothe 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 toberecorded tuaccommodate them. If the right -of -",ay is vacated' City staff agreed that no compensation would be expected to be required byYyN[ §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-vvayinthe City for atleast five years. C. Testimony Presented In OpposMoo to Reauested Right-of-WAV Vacation at the Hearing on July 25, 2024. The testimony presented atthe 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. [Nandn testified in opposition to the requested public right-of-way vacation at the July 25 hearing by reading the following portions of his moff report (Document Index x'1) which are formatted differently osfollows: A. Background: On January ][\ 2024` the City of Yakima Department of Community Development received apetition from Ted Pa|matierfor the vacation ofaportion ufright- of-way. The proponent has requested this vacation for the purpose of eliminating an approximately 1270-fout-|ong portion of right-of-way that is located in an existing residential neighborhood. C. Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: Technica||y, 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) PerYMC Table 5-2, the minimum lot size for the SIR zoning district is 6,000 square feet. Part of goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan are to encourage housing onsmall, more efficient lots Policy 2.3.1.C. ATTACHMENT roRECOMMENDATION xcpxLmmncxPETITION FOR ms*r-Or-Wmvv«onxON-Page 7uf4o • 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 iJCT CITY 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 ofJuly 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 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 68" 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 68'h, 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 66'h 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 Cityof Yakima Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee Phil Mattoot Mr. Mattoon expressed the following points in his testimony: 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 OCY] 8Z024 C-17Y,w�.� watch the street constantly. Some ofthe vehicles are speeding urdriving recklessly. He and his neighbors are concerned about the hazards ofthis traffic being that it isaprivate 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 problerns\ by making this explicitly a private road ratherthan 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 urtoo fast and someone onabicycle oronfoot. 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 | see no reason to provide their written comments. | also want to point out thatthere 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 atleast one ofthem may behere 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- 11.Theorigina|right'of-wayforNorth68^^Avenueisa4U-fnnt^widaright'of-waythatw'as 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-funt'vvide 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. 5u for the first dOOfeet or so' and that is all of the property adjacent to the short plats alluded to, you have right-of-way width of5O 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 nnthe east side. | don't know when that was dedicated, our surveyor might. The oldest | could find was that itappears on o survey that was recorded in 1974vvhich 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 281J5 feet where there is only 40 foot right-of-way. So that's a factual thing that needs tnbeinthe record. |amgoing to disagree with staff s statements that this right-of-way vacation limits development potential. There issome vacant property now, mostly unthe south vide of the street, that can be developed. I don't believe that the right-of-way vacation prevents ATTACHMENT mRECOMMENDATION RE PAmATIER PETITION FOR mGx�F-WAY VACATION -Page 15 of 40 0CY1 8/0g the existing developable parcels to the south if they are going toherequired mimprove the entire length of 6811 Avenue in order to provide that required street connection. With the approval of the short plat we have taken half ofthe length nf68th 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 tuthe 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 681h 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 14'2U23. Dr. Pa|maderand several ufhis neighbors met with City staff nnAugust 31*' about two weeks later, and they were told again that the City has no plans to maintain 68m Avenue. They were also encouraged at that meeting to petition for this right-of-way vacation. | guess the point | am making, and | 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 iswhat they are asking for relief from. At least D,. Pa|matier, 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 isthat ifthis were tubevacated 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 have been told isthat they are willing tu 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 i, that | am being told isthat 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 istuvoluntarily maintain the road. ATTACHMENT TO RECOM MEN DATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION -Page 17 of 40 (2) Petitioner/ad acentproperty owner/resident Ted Palma ta r: Mr. Palmatier expressed the following points in his testimony at the July 25, 2024, public hearing: live at 708 North 68th 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 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. 5o 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. 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 OCT 1 0 202 (4) Residen t/p rope rty owner who uses North 68" Alvenue 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 68mAvenue. | am a property owner but without direct frontage on 68m. But myonly access to my property, | have two plots there, is from 68m. | have nuother egsss or access. | am a retired physician, general surgeon, who had to take care cftrauma like car accidents. Sojust toreiterate, this all came about not about a gate' itcame about because ufinitial 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 duanything for either problem, safety nrmaintenance. Because oflack ofresources, and somewhat intent, has no plans to do so in the future was made clear to us when we met with the City. 3uthat's number one and those problems aren't going toguaway, 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 tuaccess from 6Dmexcept maybe having one gate for his property un 681nand had no intent or wish to have a public road there and did not want to have access to those other plots from there. 3othat's already been discussed. I am a bicyclist and I have taken care of people with bicycle accidents. I think this vvhu|e thing about a bicycle ring of development is a little bit of red herring. / mean | appreciate it, I would love to have more bicycle paths in Yakima, it would be safer. But we don't oven 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 5ummitview. You know, 68m 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 hDmosalink towhat? Tpunsafe 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 bespent making roads like Englewood and Scenic safer with more sidewalks and u 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. VVewould donothing tublock that. The owner of that southeast property that there was some concern about hasn't expressed concerns. Again our basic concern issafety and maintenance. VVedon't know where tuQowith itifwedon't get approva|.VVhuisgoing tumaintain it? Are vveexpected tocontinue that? ATTACHMENT mRECOMMENDATION RE PALwmIER PETITION FOR m��F-WAY VACATION 'Page 23 of 40 IOf i' i i '2024 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- .5); 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 68th 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 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 ©pposstion 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 Reciue ted Richt-of-14in Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8, 4: 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 Pairrsatier,, 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 0[[lUZ0� regarding the safety ofthe public hght-uf-wayare being ignored here. | know there bnot much I can do about it, but despite the recommendation for denial, I think I would like to take ittuthe City Council and see ifxvecan get adifferent 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. |thas been speeding. |thas been asituation where the current residents of the road are put in a dangerous situation sometimes conning out of their driveways. And the walkers and bicyclists could be put in o dangerous situation. There are some blind spots because ofthe steep hill. !fthe City isgoing tndonothing, then iguess vxeare powerless. But weare asking you tolift this denial and atleast allow the revocable license. |fyou doitfor others, why not for us? And the Fire District thing, as has been pointed out, there are gated communities all over town. Why iuthat an issue here and not in other places. | mean | would just appeal to logic and common sense here. We need to do something to help improve the safety ofthe road and weneed tomaintain the road. And what |omhearing is that there is no guarantee or no plan to du any of that in the immediate future. Meanwhile itiscrumbling. Potholes are developing. VVeare going tohave tugoahead and repair itagain ourselves without any help from the City. But yet weare being limited and w/eare being put in asituation where / guess there is no win here. |fee| like we're being let down byour government. Sorry to say that, but | would hope that we could come upwith abetter conclusion, abetter answer, something that would meet all needs rather than just one side here. H. Additional Written Information in Opposition �q the Reauested Right-of-Wav Vacation Submitted In Restionse to the I ' int ' erlm 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(Byto a Street Right -of -Way Vacation that_ Requires One or More Private Access Easements as a Substi - tution. 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) bset forth with different formatting asfollows: 2.QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1)What isthe applicability ufthe wording ofYMC14.I5.U40B)toastreet right- of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way? (I) 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 mREmmMEN DATIOwRE PALmATImPETITION FOR msHT-oF-WAY VACATION Page 29 of 40 , j� 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, orother official city plans and policies; 4. Whether the vacation is appropriate with existing and anticipated zoning and land use; and s. 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 tobereserved. YyWC14.21.05O(A). Specific to the Examiner's question, Y;NC 1425.040(8) is relevant to criteria 3 and 4. Criteria 3 evaluates consistency with existing official plans and policies. The City has a Pedestrian Master P|an, which has a goal ofcreating u safe' complete and connected pedesthannet"vorkthatsuppurtstrave|forpenp|enfa/|agesandabi|ides.z There isa 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.2 The Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, We are Yakima, has a number of sections that guide transportation, housing and development nfthe 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.' All ofthese plans and policies are tobeevaluated under Y,NC14.21.O5O(A)(3). in so doing, the restrictions associated with the creation nfa private easement for access for onarea should beanalyzed. 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 inthe 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 Ot/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 ofYyN[14.25.U4O(R)ononapplication tovacate aright'of-vvay. Here' the administrative official determined it was appropriate to evaluate Yw1C 14.35.040(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 ` ~ ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 31 of 40 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.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. 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 0[|L;13l1 regarding the applicability of YMC 14�.040(B) to this requested street vacation (Document Index 17) is set forth with different formatting asfollows: This responds tothe request for additional information made by the Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision to Reopen the Record issued onAugust 22' 2Ol4.VVewere asked turespond toone nfthe four questions posed bythe Interim Decision: The applicability of the wording of YYNC 14.35.040(8) 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-wayvacation and the effect that granting the ,ight-of-woyvacation 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 he corresponding. YYNC14.12.U2Odefinitions are not in the same order osthey are inthe 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 andfrontage 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. 14'10.020oeOnidons. "Street°means opublic orprivate road "Road, private" means a road not designed, built, or maintained by the city, :he 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 /smaintained and kept open bythe city ofYakima mrYakima County for public vehicular and pedestrian use. "Right-of-way, public" means land deeded u,dedicated tn or purchased by the city of Yakima or Yakima County for existing or future public pedestrian or vehicular access. "Easement" is a dedication by property owner tuspecific 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 ,edivision of land into men or more lots for the purpose of sale, |euso, o, transfer of ownership /n the present m,future except as expressly exempted bythis title. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 35 of 40 UC{131034 u^. b.The lot has atleast twenty feet offrontage on, oraminimum twenty foot -wide access easement to, apublic orprivate road; c. All other site design and development criteria other than the lot size requirements of Table 5-2are met. 4. Zero lot line, common wall, duplex or multifamily development is not allowed on such lots inthe 5R and R'1zones unless such development isthe replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use, as defined in YN1C Chaptar15.z9. 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 an existing legally established lots is exempt from the requirements of this section. Conclusions: 1. Existing non-agricultural land use ufthe property accessed by the right-of-way proposed for vacation isdetached single family residential. 2. Detached single family residences would be allowed on any of these parcels in accordance with Ykx[15.O5.O2Oeven ifYW1C14.I5.04U(8)were determined tube 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 beexempt from the minimum 20-footfrnntage and access easement requirements ofYN1Cz5.Os.U2U(H). 3. Two-family dwellings would also be allowed on any of these parcels in accor- dance with YK8[ 15.05.020 even ifYPNC 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 IO'footfrontage and access easement requirements ofYK4C 15.05.020(H). Duplexes would be limited to the replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use (detached single-family residence inthis 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 isanexisting non -conformity regardless nfthe applicability ofYN1C 14.25.040(o) to this case. It would also not apply to development on those properties that have frontage and direct access to u,that can gain direct access to Englewood Avenue, N. 66mAvenue or Scenic Drive or from an easement serving only one lot from those public streets or approved as Planned Development, mobile o, manufactured home park, condominium or binding site plan in accordance with YMC 15.09.3-00. Also, subdivision and the development of these ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 37 of 40 subdivide[d] and use 68' 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 Tots 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, 202 Staff report does not state whether or not the access street serving the develtapttiient is to be a public or private street: This is an important point since as a short subdivision, the development is that subject to YMC 14.25.040(B). ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 39 of 40 ITEM TITLE: SUBMITTED BY: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA TATE ET Item No. 8.D. For Meeting of: February 4, 2025 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 *Trevor Martin, AICP, Planning Manager Bill Preston, Community Development Director 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