Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1991-D5991 Barnaddy Addition / loveless / Parking / Plat / HearingRESOLUTION NO. D 5 9 9 1 A RESOLUTION approving the preliminary plat and preliminary subdivision submitted by Larry Loveless (Barnaddy Addition) for five lots at the southwest corner of South 22nd Avenue and West Viola Avenue in the City of Yakima, subject to all of the conditions contained in the Hearing Examiner's Recommenda- tion; approving an administrative adjustment that would allow tandem parking; and authorizing the Mayor to sign the preliminary plat. WHEREAS, on July 17, 1991, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider the application by Larry Loveless for a preliminary plat and preliminary subdivision approval for five lots located at the southwest corner of South 22nd Avenue and West Viola Avenue in the City of Yakima, said subdivision to be entitled Barnaddy Addition, together with a request for an administrative adjustment to allow tandem parking; and WHEREAS, as a result of that hearing, the Hearing Examin- er recommended to the City Council that the preliminary plat and preliminary subdivision be approved subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, as a result of that hearing, the Hearing Examin- er recommended to the City Council that the request for admin- istrative adjustment to allow tandem parking be denied; and WHEREAS, at its public meeting on August 27, 1991, each Council Member declared that they had no contact with either the applicant or opponents of this preliminary plat and relat- ed adjustment; and WHEREAS, the Council held a public meeting to consider the aforementioned preliminary plat and at the conclusion Council directed staff to prepare legislation approving the preliminary plat and reversing the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner as to an administrative adjustment for tandem parking; and WHEREAS, the Council finds and declares that an adjust- ment for tandem parking should be granted in this matter because: (res/loveless.rp) 1. Such adjustment is consistent with the purposes and intent of Title 15 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code. 2. Tandem parking permits flexibility in design and placement of structures thereby encouraging more affordable housing, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The Hearing Examiner's Recommendation that the Barnaddy Addition preliminary plat and preliminary subdivision be approved is hereby adopted, and the Yakima City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation as modified herein, City No. UAZO Sub/Prelim. Plat #3-91, Examiner No. 191-4-36, a true copy of which recom- mendation is attached hereby as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein. The Yakima City Council finds that the proposed subdivision complies with the City of Yakima Zoning and Subdivision titles along with other applicable City land use controls. The Hearing Examiner's Recommendation to deny the request for an administrative adjustment to the parking requirement to allow tandem parking is hereby reversed and said request for said administrative adjustment is hereby granted for the reasons previously stated. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign the preliminary plat, subject to the conditions recommended by the Hearing Examiner. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 1991. ATTEST: C1 -1C - City Clerk 2 (res/loveless.rp) Mayor • Subdivision Application by ) ) LARRY LOVELESS ) ) for Barnaddy Addition ) at 22nd and Viola ) (Phase I). ) EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION City No. UAW BUBD/PRELIX.PLAT13-91 Examiner No. 191-4-36 Larry Loveless has applied for preliminary plat approval and subdivision review of the Barnaddy Addition subdivision, consisting of five lots, and for a reduction of the parking requirement to allow tandem parking. Mr. Loveless previously applied for subdivision approval concerning a portion of this property, which went to public hearing before the Examiner and resulted in a recommendation for approval dated May 28, 1991. Mr. Loveless withdrew that application, so it never went to the City Council for action, because he has come up with a more useable configuration of lots. A public hearing was conducted on July 17, 1991. There was no outright opposition to the proposal, except concerns about development requirements. Galen Bolm testified that drainage is a problem in the area and needs to be dealt with effectively, in that the intersection of 20th and Logan has a particular problem well known to City staff. He also indicated that reducing the parking required under the ordinance is a bad precedent, with no reason for such an adjustment. He also expressed concern that when 22nd is improved it should be done all at once rather than in stages which will be more disruptive and less safe. The Examiner inspected the property prior to the hearing. This decision constitutes a recommendation to the Yakima City Council, supported by written Findings and Conclusions, pursuant to YMC Ch.14.25. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION. This five lot subdivision should be approved. A short plat exemption needs to be processed prior to EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 1 EXHIBIT A NEARING EXIWNER FOR THE or concurrently with preliminary plat approval, revising the property lines of the existing three parcels to create one parcel to be subdivided into the proposed five lots. The other parcels, designated Tract A and Tract 8, would be located to the south. These two tracts would be burdened with the obligation to complete improvements on 22nd Avenue as a condition of this plat approval. The requested administrative adjustment allowing tandem parking should be denied, and each duplex lot should be allowed to have its own driveway onto Viola. From the view of the site, the .atters contained in the official record including the Staff Report, a review of both the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and from evidence received at the hearing, the Examiner makes the following: 7INDINGS 1. ,applicant. Larry Loveless. 2. 'Location. Southwest corner of South 22nd Avenue and West Viola Avenue, Yakima. Yakima County Assessor's Parcel Nos. 181326- 43492, -43493, and -43494. 3. application. Subdivision and administrative adjustment. 4. yeaal Descrifltion. Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Short Plat No. 82-224 as recorded in the book of Plats, Yakima County, Washington. S. jurisdiction and procedure. The following background on subdivision regulation is included because it is controlled by different statutes and ordinances than zoning, and say be less familiar to the Council. Subdivision regulation controls how land is divided, and how public facilities are provided to the new lots. Zoning then regulates how those lots are used. YMC Title 34 deals with subdivisions. The procedure for long plats, consisting of plats of five or more lots, is set forth in YMC Ch.14.25. The procedure is fairly straightforward. After submitting an application, and after design review, the Planning Commission, now Hearing Examiner, has a hearing and makes a EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 2 NEARING EI M INER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAX sync? ncerr enr w recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is required to deal with a number of criteria set forth in YMC 14.25.110 (dealt with below) , and is to determine whether or not those criteria are satisfied by the proposed subdivision (YMC 14.25.060). The City Council then has a public meeting to act upon the Examiner's recommendation. The Council may adopt or reject the recommendation. The'Council is not required to hold a public hearing unless it does not adopt the recommendation, in which case the Council or a subcommittee must conduct a public hearing and adopt its own findings approving or disapproving the preliminary plat. YMC 14.25.120, RCW 58.17.100. Once the Council has approved the preliminary plat the developer has three years to make the improvements that are required as a condition of plat approval. The Council may grant an additional extension of up to one year under certain circumstances, meaning that the applicant has a total of four years to make the improvements or to post a bond or other security acceptable to the Council ensuring actual construction of the improvements. YMC 14.25.160 and .140. When the developer has completed the improvements, he may request approval of a final plat of the proposed subdivision. He triggers this approval by filing the proposed final plat with the Planning Department, which then, in conjunction with the City Engineer, reviews the plat. If the plat meets all requirements, the City Council sets a date for a public meeting, at which time it then reviews the final plat and approves it, with the plat then being recorded with the County Auditor. YMC 14.25.210. Although not specifically dealt with in either the subdivision statute or the local ordinance, it is common practice to allow subdivisions to be constructed in phases. The public improvements required for each phase are identified as part of overall preliminary plat approval. Final plats are then prepared for each phase, and may be approved and recorded only when the public improvements required for that phase have been completed. Upon recording the final plat, the developer can then obtain building EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION — 3 NEARING IDLAPAINCR FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY CF YAK r POST OFFICE Ret permits for construction on the individual lots. The substantive requirements for long plats are set forth in YMC Ch.14.30, Subdivision Design Requirements, and Ch.14.35, Subdivision Improvement Requirements. Chapter 14.30 deals with the design of :lots, the design of blocks, utility easements, street design, sidewalk design, and street lighting. Based upon the design requirements of Chapter 14.30, Chapter 14.35 then requires that the actual improvements be built by the developer pursuant to the design requirements. Chapter 14.35 deals with requiring the developer to construct street improvements consisting of curb, gutter, pavement and sidewalks, installation of street lights at the developer's expense, and details installation of utilities. All of these are pursuant to designs reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, submission of "as -built" drawings after completion, and dedication of the improvements to the City. The Hearing Examiner and Council have broad authority to review projects for flood, drainage, swamp, or unstable soil conditions. The City subdivision ordinances were apparently adopted in 1978 and last amended in 1982. Governing state law has continued to evolve, or mutate depending upon one's perspective, particularly rapidly in the last three years. The :1989 amendment to RCW 58.17.110 added sidewalks as a factor to be considered. That section, entitled Approval or Disapproval of Subdivision and Dedication - Factors to be Considered - Finding - Release from Damages, sets forth the types of issues properly to be considered by the Council, which are then typically picked up in local subdivision ordinances. It provides that the City Council . ., shall determine if appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, .playgrounds, sites for schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school, and determine whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and EXAMINER'S REC0)DIENDATION - 4 MEARNG EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF yr dedication. If it finds that the proposed plat makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other publiC ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, sites for schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, . including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school, and that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision, then it shall be approved. If it finds that the proposed plat does not make such appropriate provisions or that the public use and interest will not be served, then the legislative body may disapprove the proposed plat. . . (RCW 58.17.110.) This was the status prior to adoption of HSB 2929, the Growth Management Act. Substitute House Bill 2929 passed by the 1990 Legislature amended RCW 58.17.110 to include transit stops, potable water supplies, recreation, and sidewalks which assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school. The major change is that now the legislative body must make specific written findings that appropriate provisions are made for the various criteria, and that the public use and interest will be served. The primary effect of the amendment is simply to require more specific detail in the actual decision, reflecting that adequate provisions have in fact been made for most of the items which have always been considered as ,important in reviewing subdivisions. 6. Land Use and Zoning. The subject property is located in the Two -Family Residential (R-2) District and presently undeveloped. Other adjacent properties have the following characteristics: Location North (across Viola) South East (across 22nd Ave.) West Zaning R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 Existing Use McClure School Duplex Single-family & duplex Undeveloped 7. proposed Subdivision Specifications. This property currently consists of three rectangular lots running north and EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 5 NEARP•1G EXAMP ER FOR THE crry AND COUNTY OF WWI POST OFFICE SOX south (Exhibit 1). The proposal is to cut the north end off each of these lots„ and create five lots facing West Viola. These five lots are designed to be used for duplexes, and will be slightly larger than the minimum lot size required for duplexes, 7,000 square feet. Three of the lots will be 7,020 square feet, one lot will be 7,260 square feet, and the western most lot will be approximately 7,128 square feet. Mr. Loveless has a long range plan to develop all of the property for duplexes. Although not part of this application, his plan is to create 11 additional lots on the south portion of the three original parcels, centered on a new cul-de-sac extending vest from 22nd Avenue. A copy of the entire proposal is attached as Exhibit "2." Lots 1 through 5 are the subject of this application. Mr. Loveless testified that in preliminary review of this proposal with the City, he indicated a desire to build the project in phases, and got the impression that that would not be possible, meaning that he would have to improve the street along Viola and South 22nd, as well as install the new street off South 22nd, before he could sell any lots. The up front cost for public improvements was prohibitive, so he revised his application to deal only with these firstfive lots. Mr. Loveless is quite candid that he would like to have overall review and approval of his entire project, so that he knows what its final layout will be, which is necessary in order for him to determine the number of lots and the cost per lot of his entire development. Another reason is that some of the design review team comments from Traffic Engineering indicated a desire to connect South 23rd Avenue, which currently ends in a cul-de-sac, with his new proposed street exiting off South 22nd. If this happens he is concerned that be will lose a lot with no real benefit to the public by having the connecting street, since neither fire nor police comments expressed concern about his proposed cul-de-sac. Also, the extension of the sewer line from the vicinity of South 23rd to his five lots on Viola could be affected by the street location required for a subsequent project. EXAMINER'S RECOMXENDATION - 6 M O RINO EXAMINER FOR ME CITY AND COUNTY OF YARD" Overall review and approval of a preliminary plat resulting in a subdivision which will be built in phases is not unusual, and is generally preferred to piecemeal development. A local example is Terraced Estates, located in Terrace Heights. It was originally approved by the County, to be built in various phases. Due to the passage of time, some of the later phases have been subject to additional public hearing and review, treating them as a new subdivision. Most recently Phase No. 5 was approved. The procedure is straightforward. No lots in a given phase can be built on until the public improvements required to be built as a portion of that phase are constructed and the final plat for that phase is approved. Upon approval of the final plat for that phase, it is recorded, and building permits can then be issued for lots in that phase. This procedure has also been followed in the recent subdivision submitted by the Keller family for Ridgeview West, an 80 lot subdivision at North 90th and Summitview Avenues. The public interest is protected by not issuing building permits until the public improvements for a given phase are constructed, and the developer has an opportunity to finance further construction by the sale of lots. This application will in effect be treated as Phase 1 of a larger project. The recommendation will require completion of all street improvements on Viola, but defer street improvements on 22nd until the remainder of the parcel is subdivided. In the event Mr. Loveless does not follow through, or sells the property, the remaining undeveloped property will be burdened, as a result of this recommendation, with the obligation to complete 22nd prior to any further development of Tracts A and B. Mr. Loveless may wish to consider dividing the subsequent development of this property into two additional phases, one dealing with the lots fronting 22nd, with the third phase involving development of lots on the interior cul-de-sac. In that event, it is probable that 22nd would be improved as a part of Phase 2, with a stub -out on the cul-de-sac to the extent that the cul-de-sac extends through the lots on 22nd. The third phase would then require completion of the cul-de-sac. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 7 This is purely speculation at this point, and is not intended to be binding on the Planning Department or this Examiner. Based upon the existing evidence, however, this Examiner would recommend a cul-de-sac rather than a street connecting to 23rd, and would require a sidewalk on the cul-de-sac extending to at least the bulb of the cul-de-sac. The same parking requirements would probably apply to these latter phases as are recommended' for this application. Prior to preliminary plat review of the latter phases a survey and title insurance commitment must be submitted. iota are• - Approximately .82 acre. Number of Lots/Density - Five lots. These lots with duplex units result in a density of 6.11 dwelling units per net residential acre. Lot Size - Lots will range from approximately 7,020 to 7,307 square feet. Water Supply - City of Yakima. f evaae Disposal - City of Yakima. storm water Drainaae - Retained on-site, together with drywells for the public streets. No drainage plan has been submitted but must be submitted and approved by Public Works prior to final plat approval. Type of Rousina - Duplexes. Utility Easements - Eight foot utility easements are reflected on the plat and comply with YMC 14.30.060(B). Circulation Network - Viola is paved full width, but has no curb, gutter or sidewalk. This project will not create significant additional traffic impact on the streets, but does require improvement of the streets to full width, with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Details for the street improvements will be provided by the developer, subject to City Engineer approval. The City Engineer indicates that street improvements from the center line to back of the curb for West Viola will extend 18.5 feet, and for South 22nd Avenue will extend 16.5 feet. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will be required for Viola. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 8 South 22nd, in addition to curb, gutter and sidewalk, will also have to be paved to full width since it is currently a half street. The unpaved half is adjacent to this project. The developer understands and accepts these obligations, but prefers not to develop 22nd until he develops all of the property fronting 22nd. From his perspective, he does not want to incur the cost to develop 22nd for one lot, and then have to come back in later and do the rest of it. From an engineering perspective, it may be better to do 22nd all at one time to avoid additional seams in the street. As part of this application it is appropriate to require that the curb be extended around the radius of the corner, together with sidewalk, but that further development of 22nd be deferred until the remaining property is subdivided or built on. If a portion of this street is done now, it would only be for 78 feet south of the intersection. Then the street would drop off into the existing weedy gravel and continue another 228 feet south to the property line, at which point then it becomes pavement. People are used to the street being unpaved starting at the corner now, and to pave a little bit would possibly encourage people to go around the corner at too high a speed, assuming the rest of the street is paved, and then find themselves on poorly maintained dirt and gravel. The intersection curb radius at 22nd and Viola shall be a minimum of 20 feet, with the necessary right-of-way provided, if required, to meet that. Duplexes are planned for construction on these lots. All five lots face on Viola. The corner lot, No. 5, on 22nd and Viola, will also have its driveway located on Viola consistent with the other four lots. The applicant wants to have one driveway for each duplex, whereas Traffic Engineering and the Engineering Division request that only three driveways be allowed. They want Lots 1 and 2 to use a common shared driveway, as well as Lots 3 and 4. This will reduce the number of potential conflict points with traffic on Viola. The Planning Department, on the other hand, recommends that each lot have its own driveway in order to avoid creating large EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 9 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE crry AND COUNTY of YAK' POST OFFICE SOX 4 parking lots. A shared driveway for two duplexes would result in a parking lot with eight spaces. Larger parking lots are more characteristic of multi -family housing rather than the predominant single-family development in the area. Mr. Loveless believes that he can better utilize his property and make it more: attractive by having a driveway in the middle of each lot serving just that duplex. If shared driveways are required, •ne of the technicalities to be worked out is the need for a reciprocal access easement allowing the two adjacent lots to use the driveway, and allocating maintenance responsibilities. The ordinance requires that parking be located on the same lot as the duplex. YMC 15.06.060. It also requires that parking lots with five -r more spaces have to have five percent of the parking area landscaped. YMC 15.06.090(A). If this proposal for shared driveways is accepted by the Council, the requirement should be reflected in a note on the plat which would also indicate whether it applies to single-family as well as duplex construction, since these lots being created could be utilized for single-family residences rather than duplexes. Requiring common driveways does not seem to be justified. Each lot has frontage on Viola from 90 to 99 feet, which is fairly wide frontage. Any significant increase in traffic on Viola will more likely be generated by McClure School than by these units, and the school has plenty of playground along Viola with which they can design more parking and bus pull-out space if necessary in the future. parkinglAd=iistrative Adiustment - The developer also requests an administrative adjustment allowing tandem parking. Tandem parking is not permitted under the zoning ordinance for duplexes, although it is permitted for single-family housing. Tandem parking means one car in a garage space, and one car immediately behind on the driveway leading into the garage. In other words, it is one car behind another, so that one car has to be moved before the second can leave. YMC 15.06.050(4). This neighborhood has a mixture of single-family houses and EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 10 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CTM AND COUNTY Cr 10 duplexes. Most of them do not rely upon tandem parking. The major exception are the duplexes on South 23rd Avenue, in the cul-de-sac. The zoning ordinance allows, and practical experience confirms, that duplexes tend to be located on lots which are smaller than most single-family lots. Two housing units are involved, with the cars related to each. Developers typically try to.maximize use of the lot by putting as large a structure as possible on it leaving little room for off-street parking. That tendency will be encouraged if tandem parking is allowed. In five years of this Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, this Examiner cannot recall any instances of varying the parking required for duplexes. A good example of recent duplex construction in compliance with the code is at the entrance to Tieton Green on about 70th and Tieton, generally across from the Kimberly subdivision. There is nothing unique about this site which makes it any different from the run-of-the-mill lot designed for a duplex. The only advantage to reducing the parking requirement is to allow .proportionally more structure on the lot. It may well be that the Council may decide, from a policy perspective, based on any number of factors including the desire to facilitate affordable housing, that tandem parking should be permitted for duplexes. If that is the case, the zoning ordinance should be amended. If this adjustment is allowed, it changes the rules for those who have previously built duplexes in conformance with this ordinance, and suggests that any future adjustment on duplexes should be granted. This ordinance should be amended legislatively rather than quasi -judicially. Curbs - All curbs should be barrier curbs. Street Liabtinq - Street lighting will be provided by the developer with light location approved by the 'City. Sidewalks - A sidewalk on Viola should be provided and should be five feet wide and four inches thick. This is reflected on the applicant's preliminary plat, is consistent with normal subdivision requirements in the County, and with the City's recommendation. It EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 11 is designed to accommodate the increased traffic expected because of the lack of a sidewalk directly across the street at McClure School. The sidewalk on the west side of 22nd further south is four feet wide. The applicant would like to utilize that same width in extending the sidewalk along the project, and the Planning Department agrees. The subdivision ordinance requires a minimum width of four feet. YMC 14.30.080(2). A four foot width is consistent with the existing sidewalk and provides continuity. It should be installed as a condition of development of Tracts A and B when 22nd is improved. 8. Compliance With Subdqu ivision ReirementR. Subject to some minor corrections, and the provision of engineering details which are typically always prepared after preliminary plat approval, this project complies with both the City subdivision requirements and applicable state law. Prior to this matter being heard by the Council for final plat approval the applicant should file a title insurance certificate. The purpose of this Is to determine title and obtain an accurate legal description. One of the requirements for final plat approval is that all of the owners of the land sign the plat, and title insurance helps ascertain that the applicant does in fact have an interest in the land. The legal description may need to be corrected, and the hand - drawn plat corrected to properly reflect north. Normally a survey is provided at time of application, and although not apparently provided here, will be required as a condition of final plat approval. In this instance the map that was submitted appears to accurately reflect the property, and lack of a survey is not critical because of the simple nature of this subdivision. Compliance with the specific criteria of YMC 14.25.110 is dealt with below: 8.1 Compliance with Zoning Ordinance. Minimum lot size for the R-2 zone is 7,000 square feet. This project complies with EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 12 tiviaPiG EXAMINER FOR TME CRT ANO COUNTY OF rpKR the specifics of the zoning ordinance. 8.2 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan. This .is a moderate density Two -Family Residential development which is consistent with the primary purpose of the R-2 zoning district and also consistent with the plan. Zig Plan, Table OLU-1 and page OLU-15. 8.3 Compliance With YMC Title 14. Subdivisions. As proposed this project complies with all municipal subdivision requirements, or will be required to comply with respect to plans which have not yet been developed, such as for drainage and street improvements. 8.3.A public Health. Safety and Welfare. These concerns are satisfied. 8.3.8 Open Spaces. There is no open space dedication provided, nor specifically required by the ordinance. This project is directly across from McClure School, which has a very large playground. 8.3.0 Drainage Systems. Drainage of individual lots will be provided on-site at the time of construction. Drainage of public streets will be permitted by drywalls. A drainage plan prepared by a professional engineer will be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 8.3.D Streets Alleys and Other Public Wave. Adjacent streets are public, and will be improved to city standards, pursuant to designs prepared by the developer and approved by the City Engineer. There will be no alley. Viola Avenue will be improved prior to final plat approval, with 22nd improved prior to further development of Tracts A and B. 8.3.E Water Supplies. City public water will be used for domestic and fire flow. Irrigation water is apparently available from the Naches-Cowiche Canal Company. Under state law it is the Examiner's understanding that it is not a requirement that the developer provide irrigation water from canal companies to subdivision lots. If this were an irrigation district, the developer would be required to comply with the irrigation district EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 13 •4OANG EWNER FORME CITY AND COUNTY OF YN policies concerning provision of water to individual lots. 8.3.7 8anitary Waste Disposal. *public sewer is available to all lots, and will be provided by the developer. 8.3.0 parks and Playgrounds. This project is adjacent to McClure School, which has a large playground. 8.3.8 Elites for schools and School c rounds. This is not a factor. This is a small project, directly across from an existing school, with no adverse comments, or comments of any sort, received from the school district. 8..4 Lot Design. This project complies with the lot design standards of YMC 14.30.040, requiring direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street. Minimum lot width is 90 feet, with no double frontage lots. 8.5 Block Design. This project complies 'with the block design requirements of YMC 14.30.050, which limits blocks to between 250 feet and 1,000 feet in length. This subdivision occurs on an existing block. 8.6 Otilities. Eight foot wide utility easements are provided. All utilities will be underground, and comply with YMC 14.30.060 and 14.35.060. 8.7 street Design. Right-of-way is being provided in accordance with the design requirements of YMC 14.30.070 and 14.35.050, which require certain minimum right-of-way requirements and intersection radiuses of at least 20 feet. 8.8 sidewalk Design. This project complies with YMC 14.30.080 and 14.35.080, which require sidewalks along at least one side of all local access and minor local access streets, with a mini .'um width of four feet. U.9 ftreet Diahtinq. This project complies with YMC 14.30.090 and 14.35.070. Street lights will be provided in order to have one street light at each street intersection, and one light at mid -block if it is longer than 500 feet. 11.10 /flood Conditions. There are no problems related to flood, inundation, insufficient drainage, swamp conditions, unstable soil, or any other condition likely to be harmful to the EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 14 WARM WHINER FOR THE crr MDCOUNT' OrYAK' public health, safety and welfare. 8.11 Appropriate Provisions Are Made For All issues Identified in APpl1cabl-e State Law and Local Ordinance. This subdivision will serve the public use and interest. 9. Environmental Review. A Determination of Non- significance was issued by the City of Yakima on April 25, 1991. The comment period concluded April 30, 1991, with no significant comments received. 10. Notice. Public notice of the hearing was provided in accordance with the ordinance. From the foregoing Findings, the Examiner makes the following: CONCLQSIONB 1. The Examiner has jurisdiction. 2. The proposed subdivision conforms with the goals and policies of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the City of Yakima Subdivision Ordinances, YMC Title 14, applicable state law, and will serve the public use and interest, subject to the conditions set forth in the Recommendation below. Based upon the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Examiner submits to the Yakima City Council the following: AECOMENDATIOK Approval of the proposed subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. Concurrently with or prior to preliminary plat approval the applicant shall process a short plat exemption creating one lot resulting in this five lot subdivision, and two more tracts, designated A and Be for the remaining property. This is necessary in order to create a distinct legally described parcel of ground which can be subdivided. 2. All lots shall be served with public sewer and domestic water. 3. Fire hydrants shall be provided and installed by the developer at locations and to the specifications of the Yakima County Fire Marshal. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 15 HE /VG LICOMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF vAKt 4. All public and private utilities shall be underground. 5. Final lot dimensions and lot area shall substantially conform with the preliminary plat. 6. Storm water drainage facilities to accommodate runoff generated within the plat must comply with a drainage facilities plan approved by the City Engineer. 7. Utility easements shown on the preliminary;plat shall be provided at such locations as specified by utility providers. 6. A method of dust control during the construction phases shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Yakima County Clean Air Authority. A written copy of their approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to construction of any work phase. The developer shall designate a responsible party for contacts during working hours regarding alleged air quality violations. Section 5.02, paragraph 2 of the Yakima County Clean Air Authority Regulations prohibit the emission of particulate matter from any source which becomes deposited beyond the property under direct control of the owner or operator of the source in sufficient quantity to interfere unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of the property upon which the material was deposited. Section 5.08, paragraph 4 of the YCCAA Regulations may require dust suppression equipment (i.e., water truck, sprinklers, firehouse, etc.) to be available to ensure dust re -entrainment problems do not develop. 9. Community mailboxes shall be located within the subdivision. 10. A five foot wide sidewalk shall be instal7led on Viola. 11. Street lights and their placement shall be installed according to the Yakima City Engineer's approval. 12. City Engineer approval of road improvement plans in conformance with the preliminary plat. Viola Avenue shall be improved with street surfacing, barrier curb, and gutter, together with the sidewalk specified above, along the frontage of this site. The developer will dedicate such frontage at the corner of 22nd and Viola as needed for road improvement purposes, and shall extend EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 16 NEMONTO TERMINER FOR THE curb, gutter, and sidewalk to 22nd. 13. Development of 22nd Avenue with full width street, curb, gutter, and four foot sidewalk shall be required as a condition of further development on Tracts A or B. This commitment shall be binding upon the applicant and run with Tracts A and B as a covenant and shall be reflected in a note on the plat. 14. Access to Lot 5 at the intersection of 22nd and Viola shall be limited to Viola. This shall be reflected in a note on the plat. The City shall approve the actual location of all driveway locations, subject to one driveway per lot, with no tandem parking allowed. 15. A title insurance certificate and a survey shall be provided prior to final plat approval. 16. Prior to recording the final plat or issuance of building permits, all required plat improvements, i.e., roads, utilities, streets, sidewalks, community water system and drainage facilities shall be installed, or a surety or bond pledged to ensure installation within one (1) year of subdivision approval. This condition may be waived for building permits on a lot -by -lot basis by the Yakima City Engineer when determined that building construction will not interfere with utility and roadway construction. 17. A pre -construction conference shall be arranged by the developer prior to road or utility construction within the road right-of-way, and an inspector from Public Works shall inspect the actual construction. DATED this 1st day of August, 1991. PHILIP A. LAMB Hearing Examiner. EXAMINER'S RECO?O(ENDATION - 17 NEARING EXAMINER MOR TME CRY MID COUNTY Of 'MCP liner IWT an.•