HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-057 Summitview Vineyards Preliminary Plat & Vacation of unbuild portion of North 33rd Avenue Return To:
Yakima City Clerk
129 North Second Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Document Title: ORDINANCE NO.•2002 -57
Preliminary Plat of Summitview Vineyards
(unbuilt portion of North 33` Avenue)
Grantor:. City of Yakima
Grantee: Jim Fickel
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Replat of Shuman
Addition, according to the official plat thereof recorded in Volume "0"
of Plats, page 37, Records of Yakima County, Washington
And •
Lot 2 of the Short Plat filed under Yakima County Auditor's File
No. 7277123. Situated in Yakima County, State of Washington.
Parcel Numbers: 181322- 14493, 14494, 14495, 14496, 14497, & 14515.
•
110110111 0011 I 1111 1111111111 735562
Page 1 of
68128/2 04: 01P
(JAII,UA A PMII AAA AP11 AA U.1.: .._ A_ IIA
. t
ORDINANCE NO. 2002- 57
AN ORDINANCE concerning land use regulation and planning, conditionally
vacating an unbuilt portion of North 33rd Avenue, approving, with
conditions, the preliminary plat of Summitview Vineyards, with
Jim Fickel as applicant therein, and preserving the density
limitation of not more than seven (7) dwelling units per net
residential acre for the portion of said preliminary plat located
within the R -1 zoning district.
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner for the City of Yakima issued a
recommendation on October 3, 2002, recommending that the City vacate an unbuilt
portion of North 33 Avenue, approve, with conditions, the preliminary plat of
Summitview Vineyards, and limit density for certain proposed residential structures in
the R -1 zoning district to not more than a density of seven (7) dwelling units per net
residential acre, all as more fully described herein, which requests were sought by
applicant Jim Fickel; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the findings of the Hearing Examiner
with respect to the Summitview Vineyards preliminary plat and in response to the
requirements of Yakima Municipal Code ( "YMC ") §§ 14.20.120 and 14.20.110 and RCW
§ 58.17.110 are correct and appropriate, and that the same should be adopted by the
City Council as its findings herein; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner recommended that the associated application
for Class (2) review for the construction of residential structures exceeding a density of
seven (7) dwelling units per net residential acre for the portion of the Summitview
Vineyards preliminary plat located in the R -1 zoning district be denied as inconsistent
with the residential density standards set forth in the Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner recommended that a certain portion of
unbuilt right of way for North 33 Avenue be vacated without compensation to the
City of Yakima; and
Page l of 3
73
111 110 II 11 1111 111111
Pag 5672 2 of 19
Val/1140 MVPU M rem ,,,,� ,,,� ,,,, 9912912093 94:61P
. i
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City of
Yakima to enact the following; now therefore:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA,
WASHINGTON:
Section 1. The preliminary plat of Summitview Vineyards shall be, and the
same hereby is, approved with the conditions set forth in the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation in this matter dated October 3, 2002, and set forth at pages 12 -14 of
said recommendation, which conditions are incorporated by this reference as if fully set
forth herein.
Section 2. The unbuilt right of way for a portion of North 33 Avenue legally
described on the attached Exhibit A shall be vacated without compensation to the City
of Yakima, which vacation shall be strictly conditioned on the subsequent recordation
of the final plat of Summitview Vineyards, and which vacation shall be null and void in
the event that said final plat is not recorded as provided for by applicable law.
Section 3. The proposed Class (2) land use for residential structures exceeding
the density of seven dwelling units per net residential acre for any portion of the
preliminary plat located within the R -1 zoning district shall be, and the same hereby is,
denied.
Section 4. The findings of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation in this
matter are hereby adopted by the City Council as its findings in support hereof, and are
incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
Section 5. Severability: If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause
or phrase of this ordinance is declared invalid or unconstitutional for any reason, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its
passage, approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL at a regular meeting and signed and
approved this 26th day of November, 2002.
Page 2 of 3
11110111101111 11111 1111111111 7355672
Page; 3 of 19
08/28/2003 04 :91P
YAKIMA CITY CLERK ORD $37.00 Yakima Co, WA
/0,4 te-C-C,
Marye, Mayor
ATTEST:
7l Qh - 1.,
City Clerk
Publication Date: 11 - 29 - 2002 Effective Date: 12 - 29 - 2002
Certified to be a true and correct copy of the
original filed in my office. $--(9.9,67:1,
i ITY CLERK
By ‘q111116,
Deputy
SEAL
KING _
Page 3 of 3
II II II 11 1111 11 I 7355672
Rage: 4 of 19
YAKIMA CITY CLERK OR �7 qp Y
Yakima eA a1P
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Replat of Shuman Addition, according to the official
plat thereof recorded in Volume "0" of Plats, Page 37, Records of Yakima
County, Washington
And, ,
Lot 2 of the Short Plat filed under Yakima County Auditor' File No. 7277123.
Situated in Yakima County,. State of Washington.
7355672
Page $ of 19
08/28/2993 04:91P
YAKIMR CITY CLERK am 117 AA Yakima Cep WA
In the Matter of the Applications by ) City File Nos. Pre -Plat #2 -02, UAZO
) CL(2) #22 -02, UAZO ADM ADJ #10 -02,
) RIW VAC #3 -02
Jim Fickel )
RECEIVED
HEARING EXAMINER'S
For the Summitview Vineyards Long ) RECOMMENDATION OCT 0 9 2002
Subdivision, Class (2) review of Duplex )
Development in the R -1 Zone, ) CITY OF YAKIMA
Administrative Adjustment of Setback ) PLANNING DIV.
Requirements, and Right of Way )
Vacation ) No. IUO2-4-12
Jim Fickel submitted a master application comprising applications for the (1) long
subdivision of 4.5 acres located on the west side of N. 32n Avenue north of Summitview
Avenue, (2) zoning review for construction of duplexes in the R -1 Zone, (3) adjustment
to the rear setback standard applicable in the R -1 Zone, and (4) vacation of the platted,
undeveloped right of way for N. 33` Avenue. After public notice, the City of Yakima
issued a Determination of Nonsignificance pursuant to the State Environmental Policy
1 Act. No appeals of the DNS were filed. The Hearing Examiner visited the site on
September 11, 2002, and conducted an open record land use review hearing on
September 12, 2002.
Summary of Recommendation: The Plat of Summitview Vineyards, the application for
vacation of the N. 33` Avenue right of way within the platted area, 'and the application
construction of duplexes in the R -1 zoning district should be APPROVED, SUBJECT
TO CONDITIONS set forth more fully below, including linl'itation on density of
residential development in the R -1 zoning district.
From the site visit, a review of the staff report and other exhibits, information received at
the hearing, and a review of Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and the Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the subject application, the Hearing Examiner
makes the following
Filed
Hearing Examiner
EXH O Dabs, /6-49-02- ,
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 1 SIB / VA
Ell 11 11 11111 111 1111 11 1 1 1111 72
Page 6 of
0812812 04 19 012
VAIR fM® MTV r rQI! non 477 AA Yak{ma Ce, UJR
FINDINGS
1. Applicant. Jim Fickel, 221 S. 19 Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902
2. Owners. Jim Fickel and Bill Lynch
3. Location. This property is located on the west side of N. 32 Avenue,
approximately 400 feet north of the intersection with Summitview. Avenue.
4. Parcel Numbers. 181322 - 14493, 14494, 14495, 14496, 14497, 14515.
5. Application. Preliminary long subdivision of 4.5 acres into 17 residential lots
and associated applications.
6. Current zoning and Land Use._The current zoning for the N. 33` Avenue right -
of -way and property to the east is R -2, two- family residential. The zoning for the
property to the west of the N. 33 Avenue right -of -way is R -1, single - family residential.
At the time of hearing, the subject property was vacant except for an old shed.
7. Property description. The subject property comprises six existing lots. It was
earlier used for a fruit orchard. The Department of Ecology has noted the possibility of
soil contamination on the property due to that earlier agricultural use. It also includes a
platted but largely undeveloped right of way for the northward extension of N. 33`
Avenue from the terminus of the street's current extension off of Summitview Avenue to
the southern boundary of the subject property. The developed portion of N. 33` Avenue
stops abruptly at the south boundary of the subject property. The northern end of the
platted right of way is evidenced by a curb cut on Jefferson Avenue and graveled
southern extension that stops at a large tree roughly at the centerline. The eastern-most lot
fronts on N. 32 Avenue, but has no road approach. Otherwise, the property is bounded
on all sides by the back lot lines of single family residences. Various degrees of fencing
and vegetation screening have been developed on the back lot lines. The subject property
slbpes slightly upward east to west, affording a modest view to the east from the single
family residences on the west boundary line. All municipal services are available to the
property. Irrigation water is available through the Jefferson Irrigation System, which has
an easement on the property.
8. Project description. The proposal is to subdivide the six existing lots into 17
new lots ranging in size from approximately 7,000 to 9,500 square feet. Within the plat
BEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 2
• 11111111 II 11 1111111 7355672
Page: 7 of 19
98128/2993 94 :91P
VoVtMG MTV n roar non 07 AA i+altima Coy WA
there will be five lots that are zoned R -1 and the remaining 12 lots are zoned R -2. The
existing undeveloped right -of -way for N. 33` Avenue would be vacated. The vacated
ROW would be replaced with a newly aligned ROW for a north/south road ending in a
cul -de -sac. The applicant proposes to dedicate a new east/west road intersecting with N.
32 Avenue and interconnecting with the realigned N. 33r Avenue ROW at a point
immediately to the west of the proposed cul -de -sac. Thus the development could be •
entered from two points served by different arterials. Duplexes would be built upon the
five R -1 zoned lots. The applicant states an intent to construct duplexes on the R -2 lots
as well.
Modifications to the project proposed at the open record hearing. The applicant
initially requested an administrative adjustment that would reduce the rear yard setback
for the five R -1 lots from 20 feet to 15 feet. The applicant orally withdrew the
application for the administrative adjustment at the open record hearing. Also at hearing,
the applicant declared that the duplexes in the R -1 would be limited to one story in
height, and that a six -foot fence would be installed on the same lots' rear lot lines where
no similarly effective screening was already present. The withdrawal of the
administrative adjustment request and height limitation and fencing declarations were
offered as mitigation for concerns about compatibility between the R -1 duplex
development and the rear lot line neighbors.
9. Environmental Review. On August 22, 2002 a Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued by the City of Yakima. This DNS was issued under
WAC 197 -11 -355. No appeals were filed within the five -day appeal period.
10. Notices. Public notice of the application and hearing was provided in accordance
with: YMC Title 14, Subdivision Ordinance; YMC Title 15, Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance, YMC Title 6.88, Environmental Policy and YMC Title 16, Development
Permit Regulations.
11. Analysis. Each of the elements of the master application is subject to different
review criteria. The subdivision, Class (2) review, and vacation of the right of way are
each analyzed in turn below. The administrative adjustment application is not analyzed
because of the applicant's declaration at hearing that the adjustment request was
•
withdrawn.
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 3
111111 II II I It 1111111N 7355672
Page 8 of 18
08/28/2903 04:91P
AA4 an VftlAms PA. HQ
a. Subdivision review. The criteria to be applied in making a
recommendation on an application for a subdivision are set out in YMC 14.20.100. The
proposed subdivision must be consistent with the provisions of the comprehensive plan,
the urban area zoning ordinance, and the subdivision ordinance. Appropriate provisions
are also to be made for public health, safety, and general welfare, open spaces, drainage
ways, streets or roads, alleys, and other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies,
irrigation and other water suppliers, sanitary waste disposal, parks and recreation,
playgrounds, schools and school grounds, sidewalks, and other planning features that
assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. See RCW
58.17.110. To recommend approval of a subdivision application, the hearing examiner
must find that the public use and interest will be served by the approval of this
subdivision.
Consistency with the comprehensive plan. Future Land Use map III -3 of the
Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan ( YUACP) designates the larger potion of the
subject property as Medium Density Residential and the smaller westerly portion as Low
Density Residential. The subdivision application provides for the subdivision of the
subject property into lots that are of a size similar to other lots in the vicinity. See
YUACP Policy G9.3 (p.II-13). It contemplates extension of roadways and utilities into
the property to provide municipal services customary in urban residential neighborhoods.
The principal question that arises in applying this criterion is the consistency of the
subdivision with the transportation and traffic- related elements of the YUACP. The
proposal would alter the point of ingress to the interior of the subject property. YUACP
Policy G4.5 (p. 11.8) mandates the integration of subdivisions into the collector and
arterial system. However, the purpose of the integration is to assure connectivity. There
appears to be no material difference in connectivity between the proposed street layout in
the preliminary plat and the current intersection of the N. 33` Avenue ROW with
Jefferson.
Perhaps more importantly, YUACP Objective T3 and associated policies provide
for consideration of traffic safety and congestion in the design of new development.
Residents of N. 33 Avenue state that they have difficulty entering Summitview during
periods of high - volume traffic. In addition, the intersection with Summitview Avenue is
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 4
II Ell I II 7355672
Page: 9 of 19
•
08/28/2903 04:01P
YAKIMA CITY CLERK ORD 537,09 Yakima Co, WA
seasonally hazardous because of the grade of N. 33` as it approaches the arterial in
combination with unplowed snow. They believe that the hazards would be worse with
traffic generated by the development of the lots within the subdivision. Other public
comments indicate that N. 32 °d Avenue is substandard. Nevertheless, the transportation .
capacity analysis indicates that the development of the subdivision will not exhaust the
capacity of the arterials. In addition there is no evidence that there is anything unique
about the intersection with respect to waiting time during high traffic periods. With
respect to winter conditions, the access to N. 32 " Avenue will provide an alternative to
battling unplowed snow on the approach to Summitview for current N.,33` Avenue
residents and subdivision residents alike. There is no evidence that the subdivision of the
property will unacceptably detract from accomplishing the transportation goals and
objectives of the YUACP.
Furthermore, based on lot size, the subdivision furthers various other goals and
objectives set out in the plan including:
(1) Goal H1- Encourage diverse and affordable housing choices.
(2) Objective H1.2- Encourage a range of affordable home ownership options.
(3) Policy H1.2 - Facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single family
lots, condominiums, clustering and other options that increase the supply of
affordable home ownership options.
Consistency with the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance regulates land uses.
The mere subdivision of the property into lots amenable to residential development in an
area zoned for residential development is consistent with the zoning ordinance,
presuming that the land itself is suitable for residential development. In this case, the
land has no features that make it unsuitable for residential development.
Subdivision design standards and other requirements are set out in Tables 5 -1 and 5 -2 of
the ordinance. A review of the preliminary plat against the standards and requirements
shows it to be consistent. There is no evidence that the subdivision is inconsistent with
any provision of the zoning ordinance. The compliance of the proposed duplex
development in the R -1 zone with zoning ordinance requirements is analyzed later in this
recommendation.
}
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 5
II 110 111111111 I 111 111 1111 1111 7355672
Page: i0 of 19
0 8 , 2 8 / 2 0 9 3 0 4 : 9 1 P
YAK T MA CITY CI ERK t1R[1 7 AA Yakima Co, WA
Consistency with the subdivision ordinance. The purposes of the subdivision
ordinance include protection and preservation of the public health, safety and general
welfare in accordance with standards established by Chapter 58.17 RCW; to prevent
overcrowding land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to promote effective
use of land; to promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways;
to provide for adequate light and air; to facilitate adequate provision for water, sewerage,
utilities, drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and school grounds and
other public requirements; and to provide for proper ingress and egress. These factors are
analyzed below.
It should be noted that preliminary plats must contain certain information not
included on the documents submitted with the master application. In particular, a plat
map including information required by YMC 14.20.050A, -C, -F, -I, and -J, was not
included in the staff report or among the other exhibits. These omissions do not appear
prejudicial, since subdivision approval can be conditioned upon the necessary
dedications, and slope issues are not significant on the property.
Conformity with RCW 58.17.110. For the most part, the statutory criteria are
adequately addressed by the preliminary plat or by operation of the development
regulations. Generally, utilities are available in the area and may be readily extended
through the platted easements. Irrigation water is available, and an easement must be
dedicated to allow irrigation water delivery to all the designated lots. The subject
property is within the Yakima School District, which provided no comment suggesting
any school - related issues. Parks and recreation issues are dealt with on a citywide basis
through the YUACP and the adopted Parks and Recreation Plan. Open space is
addressed through the application of subdivision development standards.
Street and sidewalk designs are addressed by design standards established in Title
12 of the Yakima Municipal Code. The on -site platted streets must consist of a dedicated
50 -foot right -of -way with 32 feet of asphalt paving, rolled curb, controlled drainage and
streetlights. The curb returns at the intersection of N 32n Avenue must be barrier curb.
The cul -de -sac must be improved with an 80 -foot diameter right -of -way, rolled curbs, a
paving diameter of 65 feet, 5 -foot wide sidewalk, controlled drainage and streetlights.
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 6
111111111111 1111 I 111 7355672
Page f
08/28/2993 11 o 04 0 1P
VAKOMA CITY CLERK ORD 1:37.60 Yakima Co, WA
Public safety requires that street naming and lot addressing be integrated with the
naming system applied to streets. The preliminary plat indicates that the east -west
street would be named Vineyard Way. Public safety requires that the street be designated
as Folsom Avenue, consistent with the city's street naming system:
Finally in regard to RCW 58.17.110 and YMC 14.20.100, a subdivision may be
recommended if it is in the public interest. The subdivision will further housing goals
and objectives set forth in the YUACP. It will do so consistently with the traffic and
transportation elements of the plan. It complies with subdivision standards, and so long
as any issues of incompatibility are resolved in zoning review, it is consistent with the
public interest.
b. Right of way vacation. The City is authorized to vacate platted rights of way by
state law (Chapter 35.79 RCW). Right of way vacation is not a regulatory action, and is
not addressed by regulations. Rather, the process is designed to assure public awareness
of the proposed vacation, protection of public access to properties adjacent to the right of
way, and appropriate recovery of public investments in streets acquired and developed
} through expenditure of public funds. Based on these considerations, rights of way may
be vacated by ordinance. Neither state law nor ordinances require the vacation to
affirmatively serve a public purpose. Nevertheless, city policy requires that a request for
vacation state the public benefits offered by the vacation.
In this case, the vacation is tied to the subdivision of property and is effectively a
rerouting of the right of way. The principal public benefit of the vacation is that it will
foster the subdivision development in a manner consistent with YUACP in- filling and
housing goals. It is clear that the applicant's purpose is to maximize the number of lots in
the subdivision through rerouting the right of way. That objective is not inconsistent with
the public interest, so long as the zoning standards are satisfied. No public benefit at all
is being realized from the currently undeveloped right of way.
The development includes construction of streets and sidewalks where none now
exist, and provide connectivity of N. 33 Avenue to the city transportation grid rather
than leaving it as a dead end. Current residents of N. 33 Avenue do not view this
connectivity as a benefit, since it brings with it the potential for more traffic from
} subdivision development. This concern is mitigated by the connection of the
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 7
Mil II 111 I I 111 II 73672
Page: 55 1P of 19
08188/'2003 04 01P
VQVTMQ rtTV PI PR no t37 AA Yakima Co, WA
development through Folsom Avenue to N. 32 Avenue, which is classified as an arterial
street. There is no evidence that the connection of N. 33r Avenue all the way through to
Jefferson is somehow preferable as a matter of public interest.
All property owners with lands abutting the targeted portion of the right of way
agree with the vacation. No existing access to other properties is lost. City Resolution
#D -5630 specifies the requirements for compensating the City for rights -of -way when
vacated. The existing platted right -of -way for N 33` Avenue, over and across this
property, has never been constructed. Consequently, in accordance with Resolution D-
#5630, no compensation should be required for this vacation.
c. Class (21 review. Since proposed lots 13 through 17 and part of lot 12 are
within the R -1 zone, the applicant seeks Class (2) review of the development of duplexes
on those lots. As Class (2) uses, duplexes are generally permitted throughout the R -1
district. However, review is required in order to promote compatibility with the intent and
character of the district and the objectives of the Yakima urban area comprehensive plan.
See YMC 15.02.020 (definition of Class (2) uses).
Consistency of the proposed use with the YUACP. Consistency of the preliminary
plat with the YUACP was analyzed in the previous section. However, the specific
consistency of the R -1 duplex development with the YUACP must be considered. The
YUACP establishes categories of residential uses based on density. The property
proposed for the five duplexes in categorized as Low Density Residential. Such property
is characterized as primarily single family detached residences, with a density of seven
dwelling units per acre or less. Development of a parcel of such property into duplexes is
in tension with the preferred future of the property. Adding to the tension is the objective
of stabilizing and preserving neighborhoods. On the other hand, duplexes would foster
affordable housing goals. Affordable housing goals are also in tension with the preferred
future use. These tensions can be reconciled by the proposition that residential areas
•
within the city are specifically assigned to density categories, and affordable housing
goals are not property specific. The specific guidance should prevail over competing
general guidance. Therefore, the proposed density on the five lots would be inconsistent
with the YUACP.
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 8
011 1111
7355672
Page 13 of 19
08/2812003 04
YAKIMA CITY CLERK ORD $37.00 Yakima Co, WA
In addition, based on the guidance in the YUACP, "compatibility of new
development must remain a principal focus of decision - making" when weighing
competing values. Moderate Density Residential use (which includes duplex
development) is generally compatible with Low Density Residential use where there is an
interface of such uses. See YUACP p. III -7 (Land Use Compatibility Chart). Certainly the
development of five duplexes on lots adjacent to R -2 property does not present questions
of incompatibility with the R -2 lots.
In this case, though, the practical effect of duplex development would be to create
a new interface or carve a portion out of the Low Density Residential area. The
concentration of five duplexes in single family residential area differs in levels of activity
and visual effect from the scattered presence of a few duplexes within a neighborhood.
Therefore, the development may be said to affect the single family residential character
of the neighborhood. A view from N. 33r Avenue of five obvious, essentially identical
duplexes in a row might make a reasonable reviewer question whether the density
designation of the property in the YUACP had any meaning.
Does the development of duplexes on the five lots in itself present other
incompatibility with neighboring uses? Public comment raised concerns about the rental
use of the duplexes. The fact that duplexes may be rented does not affect the customary
attributes of the single family neighborhoods, because any house may be converted to a
rental property. Accordingly, while the condition of rental properties may affect
neighborhood property values, that proposition holds for rental houses as well as
duplexes.
The N. 33r Avenue neighbors are also concerned about congestion produced 68
vehicles within the subdivision. That, however, is the point of promoting the
transportation grid, and the options for ingress and egress mitigate congestion issues.
Furthermore, with respect to the five lots in question, there is no evidence that the
potential for ten vehicles in addition to the ten vehicles that would be produced from
single family detached residences on the lots would lead to significantly greater (and thus
incompatible) congestion. As discussed above however, the level of activity in the area
resulting from the duplex development in the area is not consistent with the preferred
•
single family residential character preferred in the YUACP.
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 9
111111111 11 II 11 I I 7355672
Page: 14 of 19
08/28/2003 04:01P
YAKIMA CITY CLERK ORO $37.00 Yakima Co, WR
Several neighbors also commented with dismay on the potential for 3 5-foot
structures, since that is the structural height limitation in the district. Such structures
would impair the aesthetic values in the territorial view the western neighbors enjoy on
the property. Single story structures were less objectionable.
The height limitation is less satisfactory to current neighbors on N. 33 Avenue
because of the issue of the concentration of the duplexes and the impact on neighborhood
character. The applicant may be commended for addressing the compatibility concerns
of the neighbors by limiting development to one -story structures and installing site
screening fences on unscreened properties among the five lots, though the mitigation
measures do not address the density conflicts.
In short, the proposed density on the five Low Density Residential properties is
not consistent with the YUACP. This presents an unfortunate complexity in developing a
recommendation on conditions of approval. It becomes .necessary to recommend
alternative conditions. One alternative is to limit development to a combination of single
family residences and duplexes that results in a density below the seven dwelling units
per acre standard in the YUACP. The other is to modify the Low Density Residential
portion or the proposed plat into fewer lots so that the duplexes can be developed without
exceeding the density threshold. The applicant is always free to pursue a YUACP
amendment to change the designation and zoning of the subject lots.
Compatibility with the intent and character of the R -1 district. The single- family
residential district is intended to:
a. Establish and preserve residential neighborhoods for detached single-
family dwellings free from other uses except those which are compatible
with, and serve the residents of, this district; and •
b. Locate moderate - density residential development, up to seven-dwelling
units per net residential acre, in areas served by public water and sewer.
Detached single- family dwellings are the primary use in this district. The district is
characterized by forty -five percent lot coverage; access to individual lots by local access
streets; large front, rear and side yard setbacks; and one and two story structures.
There is no argument that the proposed duplexes affirmatively serve the intent of
the district. Given the compatibility analysis set out in the preceding paragraphs, the only
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 10
111111 11 Ell I M 1111 1111111 7355672
Page: 15 of 19
08/28/2003 04:01P
VOIf?MO MTV n rDV MO n 41 7 ma Yakima Cm, WA
true conflict (given the mitigation proposed for the structures) presented by the Class (2)
use, is in respect to density. The zoning ordinance carries forward the Low Density
Residential concept in the intent statement for the R -1 district. Accordingly, the same
density analysis applies to YUACP consistency and compatibility of the proposed use
with the zoning district intent and character.
From the foregoing findings, the Hearing Examiner makes the following
CONCLUSIONS
1. Pursuant to Chapter 58.17 RCW, § 14.30.080 YMC and § 15.11.110
YMC, the Hearing Examiner is authorized to make a recommendation to the City Council
on preliminary plats and Master Applications.
2. The preliminary plat of the Summitview Vineyards subdivision is
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the YUACP.
3. The preliminary plat of the Summitview Vineyards subdivision is
consistent with subdivision design standards and other relevant provisions of the Urban
Area Zoning Ordinance.
4. The preliminary plat of the Summitview Vineyards subdivision complies
substantially with Title 14 YMC (the ordinance) though the preliminary plat
information provided in the hearing exhibits does not contain certain information
required by YMC 14.20.050.
5. Easements must be dedicated for the purpose of delivery of irrigation
water to the lots within the subdivision. •
6. The vacation of the current Right of Way for N. 33 Avenue within the
subject property protects necessary access to abutting properties due to its connection
with the dedication of a new right of way as part of the subdivision process.
7. No compensation of the city should be required for the vacation of the
undeveloped right of way.
8. All property owners of lands abutting the right of way proposed to be
vacated support the vacation of the right of way.
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 11
II I
111111 II 11 11 11 7355672
Page: 16 of 19
V ovtM0 MTV r eov fs� IIffl nn 98/C616003 04 01P
9. Vacation of the current N. 33r Avenue right of way on the subject
property is consistent with the public interest.
10. The construction of duplexes on all of Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 ( "the R -1
block ") is not consistent with residential density standards used in the YUACP or set out
in YMC 15.03.030, since it would effectively convert a block of lots to moderate density
use without benefit of legislative review.
11. Appropriate densities on the R -1 block can be achieved by modifying the
preliminary plat to reduce the number of lots or by providing a mixture of single family
residences and duplexes on the currently proposed lots.
12. Construction of duplexes on the R -1 block that are limited to one story and
which are screened by appropriate fencing would avoid any significant incompatibilities
with the neighboring single family residential use.
From the preceding findings and conclusions, the Hearing Examiner makes the following
RECOMMENDATION
The Plat of Summitview Vineyards, the application for vacation of the N. 33r Avenue
right of way within the platted area, and the application forconstruction of duplexes in the
R -1 zoning district should be APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. The City Engineer has agreed to a modification to this street design and to
a deferment of the frontage improvements along N. 32 Ave. A deferment agreement
must be signed by the property owners, recorded and referenced on the face of the plat
prior to plat recording.
2. On -site platted streets shall consist of a dedicated 50 -foot right -of -way
with 32 feet of asphalt paving, rolled curb, controlled drainage and streetlights. The curb
returns at the intersection of N 32n Avenue should be barrier curbs. The cul -de -sac
should be improved with an 80 -foot diameter right of way, rolled curbs, a paving
diameter of 65 feet, 5 -foot wide sidewalk, controlled drainage and streetlights.
3. All lots shall be provided with public water and public sewer service
according to YMC Title 12 standards. Prior to final plat approval written verification
from the City of Yakima Engineering Division must be provided to the Planning Division
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 12
11111111111111111111111111111 I 7355672
Page. of 11P 08/2812003 17 04
•
.,....::.....,, non t17 9A Yakima Co, WA
indicating that all water and sewer extensions have been completed or financially
secured.
4. A minimum 8 -foot wide public utility easement must be provided adjacent
to all public road rights -of -way.
5. Easements for new and/or future utilities shall be a minimum of 16 feet in
width, provided that the width of easements for buried utilities will be twice the depth of
the planned excavation.
6. All public and private utilities shall be located underground, with the
exception of telephone boxes and such similar structures.
7. All public and private utilities to be located within public road rights -of-
way must be constructed prior to the start of road construction.
8. Fire hydrants shall be placed at the locations specified by the Building
Codes Division and Yakima Fire Department. All lots must be provided with adequate
fire flow.
9. Irrigation easements shall be provided or maintained as specified by the
} City of Yakima Water & Irrigation Division.
10. The final plat shall substantially conform to the preliminary plat, as
modified by the City Council, or as modified to allow duplex construction that results in
residential development densities below seven dwelling units per net residential acre on
properties zoned R -1 as of the date of final action by the City Council on the subject
applications, or as otherwise modified herein.
11. All permits required by the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority shall be
obtained. The developer shall designate during working hours a responsible party to •
serve as contact for suspected air quality violations.
12. The developer shall contact the State Department of Ecology to determine
if a baseline general permit for stormwater discharges will be necessary for this
development. Application shall be made at least 30 days prior to the start of construction.
Erosion control methods such as temporary ponding, silt fencing, etc. must be in place
prior to clearing, grading or construction.
13. All addresses shall be as specified by the City of Yakima Office of Code
Administration. All addresses must be clearly shown on the face of the final plat.
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 13
111 111 1111 1111 II II I I 111 7355672
Page
88128/2883 18 8 4:8 1P
YAKIMA CITY CLERK ORO $37,98 Yakima Co, WA
a
14. The final plat shall be subject to the following notes, which must be placed
on the face of the plat:
Lots 4 and 5 shall not have direct vehicular access onto N 32n Avenue.
Duplexes constructed on Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 or 17 shall be no more than one story.
If duplexes are constructed on Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 or 17, a six -foot view obscuring
fence or equivalently effective vegetation screen shall be installed where no other
screen exists between the lots and single family residences existing at the time of
final plat filing.
The addresses shown on this plat are accurate as of the date of recording, but may
be subject to change. The City of Yakima Building Codes Division is responsible
for the confirmation or reassignment of addresses at the time of building permit
issuance.
15. Density of residential development on Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 shall not
exceed seven dwelling units per net residential acre.
DATED THIS 3 DAY OF OCTOBER, 201
1114( , i_I
PA ,A, RI - I . SPURG r
HE ' G EXAMINER PRO ' - PORE
HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION - 14
7355672
Page: 19 of 19
0812812003 04 :01P
__.. ABM 61/ AR Yakima Co, WA
4
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 1 /
For Meeting Of November 26, 2002
ITEM TITLE: Adoption of an Ordinance vacating an unbuilt portion of North 33
Avenue, approving the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Yakima
regarding certain associated Class (2) land uses, and approving, with conditions, the
preliminary plat of Summitview Vineyards, Jim Fickel, Developer.
SUBMITTED BY: William R. Cook, Director Community and Economic Development
CONTACT PERSON /TELEPHONE: Bruce Benson, Senior Planner (575 -6042)
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
On November 5, 2002 the Yakima City Council granted approval for the vacation of the
unbuilt portions of North 33 Avenue; permitting duplex construction within the R -1
portions of this plat to be limited to a density of not more than seven dwelling unit per
net residential acre and granting approval for the preliminary plat of Summitview
Vineyards. This plat will subdivide approximately 4.5 acres of property, located within
the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts, into 17 Tots. Today you are being requested to
formally adopt the ordinance enacting these approvals.
Resolution Ordinance X Contract _ Other (Specify)
Funding Source
APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL:
City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance
BOARD RECOMMENDATION: On. October 3, 2002 the Hearing Examiner
recommended approval of this street vacation, Class (2) review and preliminary
subdivision subject to conditions.
COUNCIL ACTION: Ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2002 -57