Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/2024 08.A. Public hearing and Ordinance to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding a right-of-way petition for Columbia Ridge Homes to vacate a portion of N. 92nd Ave. north of Summitview Ave i4 ..44iiiiii , ,i i 5'�J; ,,J, BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 8.A. For Meeting of: October 1, 2024 ITEM TITLE: Public hearing and Ordinance to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding a right-of-way petition for Columbia Ridge Homes to vacate a portion of N. 92nd Ave. north of Summitview Ave SUBMITTED BY: Bill Preston - Community Development Director *Trevor Martin, AICP, Planning Manager Eric Crowell, Senior Planner SUMMARY EXPLANATION: On January 30, 2024, PLSA Engineering & Surveying Inc. submitted a petition (Petition 24-01, RWV#001-24) to vacate a portion of N. 92nd Ave. north of Summitview Ave. On June 13, 2024, the Hearing Examiner for the City of Yakima conducted an open-record public hearing regarding the requested right-of-way vacation. The hearing was continued to July 3, 2024. On July 18, 2024, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation stating that the right-of-way be vacated subject to conditions, pending City Council approval. The complete hearing record was distributed to City Council in the agenda packet on September 17, 2024 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: Pass Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 94 ORDINANCE NO. 2024- AN ORDINANCE relating to land use; vacating a portion of N. 92nd Ave. north of Summitview Ave. in the City of Yakima, Washington. WHEREAS, by petition dated January 30, 2024 (Petition #24-01), which included signatures of the owners of more than two-thirds of the parcels abutting the property proposed to be vacated, Columbia Ridge Homes LLC 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 92nd Ave. north of Summitview Ave., in Yakima; and WHEREAS, the City of Yakima has evaluated the location of the right-of-way and determined that 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 92nd Avenue; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2024, and July 3, 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 July 18, 2024, the Hearing Examiner issued his Recommendation regarding RWV#001-24, recommending that the street right-of-way be vacated, upon fulfillment of certain conditions which recommendation is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit"A"; and WHEREAS, at an open-record public hearing held on October 1, 2024, the City Council considered the requested right-of-way vacation, including the documents and other evidence which comprise the record developed before the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, additional statements by the petitioners and city staff, and the statements and comments provided during public testimony; and WHEREAS, as stated in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, compensation to the City is not necessary for this right-of-way vacation, in accordance with YMC § 14.21.070, which states that no compensation may be required if the City has not purchased, maintained, or made any improvements, there is no planned or anticipated public purpose existing for maintaining it, and it has been a dedicated right-of-way in the City for at least five years; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the considerations of the Hearing Examiner in response to the requirements and criteria of RCW Chapter 35.79, together with the City of Yakima street vacation ordinance, Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 14.21, are correct and appropriate, and that the same should be adopted by the City Council as its findings herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to vacate the right-of-way described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and fully incorporated here pursuant to the Hearing Examiner's recommendation and conditions and to enact the following to approve the requested right-of-way vacation; now, therefore: 95 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA: Section 1. The North 92nd Avenue right-of-way, from a point approximately 50 feet south of the current city boundary, running approximately 411.90 feet south from that point on the west half and approximately 411.29 feet from that point on the east half, more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby vacated by the City of Yakima subject to the conditions herein to the abutting property owners, one-half to each. Section 2. The findings, conclusions and conditions within the June 28, 2024 Hearing Examiner's Recommendation (RWV#001-24), regarding this right-of-way vacation are hereby adopted by the City Council as its findings, conclusions and conditions in support hereof, pursuant to Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 14.21 and RCW Chapter 35.79, and are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 3. The right-of-way vacation granted by this ordinance is expressly conditioned on, and will not be effective until, Columbia Ridge Homes LLC's satisfaction of the following conditions, as stated on page 24 of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation: 1. The petitioner/applicant/property owner shall record an easement for the maintenance, repair and replacement of any utilities located within the vacated area and shall maintain access to any public utility easements at all times. 2. The current temporary alternate access to and from Summitview Avenue for properties north of the vacated right-of-way shall continue to be provided by way of Rainier Drive until Lincoln Avenue is completed to its dead-end in order to replace that temporary alternate access to those properties. 3. As part of the current subdivision Lincoln Avenue street improvements prior to construction of the Phase 5 street improvements, Lincoln Avenue shall be improved to its dead-end, which is to the western edge of the adjacent 28-foot- wide road right-of-way, with pavement, curbing and such improvements and design features as are acceptable to the engineers involved, including the City Engineer, in order to allow as much space as is feasible for the turning movement on Lincoln Avenue to and from the road right-of-way to the north. 4. Pursuant to YMC 14.21.100, applicant shall pay the City the full costs associated with recording this Ordinance as well as recording the Easement with the Yakima County Auditor's Office, in advance of recording. Pursuant to YMC 14.21.120, the City retains control of the proposed vacated public right-of-way until all payment is received and the documents are recorded. Section 4. Pursuant to YMC 14.21.090, the City designates the zoning district of the vacated portion of the North 92nd Avenue right-of-way north of Summitview Avenue to be Single- Family Residential, inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations, and the right-of-way vacated shall now and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the Single-Family Residential zoning district. Section 5. Following vacation, any proposed improvements to the vacated property shall go through the proper land use review pursuant to the Yakima Municipal Code and as determined by the Planning Division. 96 Section 6. After the City Council passes this Ordinance and prior to the City recording it with the Yakima County Auditor, applicant shall submit to the administrative official a record of survey prepared by a registered surveyor of the exact metes and bounds and any and all easements for existing and future utilities and services pursuant to YMC 14.21.110. Section 7. 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 8. 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, and the vacation approved herein shall be effective upon recording with the Yakima County Auditor. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance with the Yakima County Auditor. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL at a regular meeting and signed and approved this 1st day of October, 2024. ATTEST: Patricia Byers, Mayor Rosalinda Ibarra, City Clerk Publication Date: Effective Date: 97 EXHIBIT "A" City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Recommendation July 18, 2024 In the Matter of an Application and ) Petition for the Vacation of Street ) Right-of-Way Submitted for: ) ) Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC ) RWV#001-24 ) For Vacation of a Portion of Street ) Right-of-Way 16 Feet in Width North ) Of Summitview Avenue which is Used ) And Designated by Signage as a Private ) Road named North 92°d Avenue ) A. Introductory Findings. The Hearing Examiner conducted an open record public hearing commencing on June 13, 2024, and concluding on July 3, 2024. The findings relative to the public hearing for this application/petition for street right-of-way vacation may be summarized as follows: (I) The staff report which was prepared and presented by Senior Planner Eric Crowell recommended approval of this right-of-way vacation subject to conditions. (2) The following people testified in favor of approval of this right-of-way vacation: (i) the petitioner's representative for this application, Torn Durant of PI.SA Engineering & Surveying; (ii) the applicant/petitioner/owner/developer Justin Hellem; (iii) nearby resident Justin Boeser; (iv) nearby resident Dean Bass; and (v) the daughter of nearby resident Sharon Fanner-Dressel, Shey Dressel. Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 1 RECEIVED Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue: RWV#OO1-24 JUL .I 8 2024 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING Div. 98 (3) The following people testified in opposition to this right-of-way vacation: (i) Neil Hauff;(ii)Michele Hauff;and(iii)their attorney for this matter Reed C. Pell_ (4) The following people submitted a narrative or written comments in favor of approval of the right-of-way vacation: (i) the Petitioner's representative for this appli- cation, Tom Durant of PLSA Engineering & Surveying; (ii) the applicant/petitioner/ owner/developer Justin Hellem; (iii) nearby residents Dean and Jan Bass; and(iv) nearby resident Sharon Farmer-Dressel. (5)The following people submitted written comments in opposition to approval of the right-of-way vacation: (i) nearby resident Neil Hauff; (ii) nearby resident Michele Ilauff; (iii) their attorney for this matter Reed C. Pell; and (iv) nearby resident Marshal Tyler. (6) The comments and the testimony presented for this matter will he summarized below in this recommendation.. (7) This recommendation to the Yakima City Council has been issued within ten business days of the conclusion of the open record public hearing. B. Recommendation. Based upon the following findings and conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends that the Yakima City Council approve the requested right-of-way vacation subject to conditions. C. Basis for the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation. The following findings, conclusions and recommendation are based upon the Hearing Examiner's view of the site with no one else present on June 11, June 14 and July 5, 2024; his consideration of the staff report, exhibits, testimony and other evidence presented at an open record public hearing commencing on June 13, 2024, and concluding on July 3, 2024; and his review of the criteria for vacation of street right-of-way in Chapter 14.21 of the Yakima Municipal Code(YMC). Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 2 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: RECEIVED Portion of Private.Road named N.92nd Avenue:RWV#001-24 JUL1 $ 2424 t;i I v t1F YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 99 FINDINGS I. The Applicant, Petitioner sand Property Owner. The applicant, petitioner and property owner is Columbia Ridge homes, LLC, 404 South 51' Avenue, Yakima, WA 98908. II. The Representative of the Applicant. Petitioner and Property Owner.The representative of Columbia Ridge Homes, LLC for this matter is Thin Durant of PLSA Engineering& Surveying,521 North 20th Avenue, Suite 3, Yakima Washington 98902. III, Location. The location of the right-of-way that is the subject of this application/petition for vacation is a portion of the 16-foot-wide road right-of-way designated and signed as a private road named North 9211d Avenue north of Summitview Avenue. It is adjacent to Assessor's Parcel Numbers 181319-23440,-23442,-23446,and -24009. IV. Application. The main aspects of this application/petition for vacation of street right-of-way are as follows: (I) The Right-of-Way Vacation application/petition was received by the City Planning Division on January 30, 2024. It requests vacation of approximately 400 feet of the 16-foot-wide right-of-way designated and used as a private road named North 92nd Avenue north of Summitview Avenue. (2) A 1954 Quit Claim Deed conveyed the property to Yakima County to have and to hold for use as a public road forever. The right-of-way was never opened, Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 3 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road named ' Ff1FiVE() N.92nd Avenue:RWV#O01.-24 Alt_ 1 8 2024 0110 OF YAKIMA PUNNING DIV. 100 improved or maintained as a County road prior to annexation of the area or opened, improved or maintained as a City street after annexation of the area. It does not include sufficient width to accommodate a street constructed to City standards at this time, and development of the adjacent property on the west side will not allow the west side of the right-of-way to be widened. (3) The portion of the right-of-way subject to this application/petition is located behind and between future residential lots in a subdivision currently under development. A condition of approval of the preliminary plat where this portion of the right-of-way is located that was recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council was that this application/petition for vacation of this right-of-way be submitted. If the requested vacation is not approved, the portion of the right-of-way within the subdivision would cross two public streets being developed in the subdivision and one private driveway south of the subdivision. If the requested vacation is approved, the three existing residences and any future residences north of the subdivision would have new streets within the subdivision for their access to and from Summitview Avenue, and the two existing residences and any future residences south of the subdivision would continue to have the private road designated as North 92"d Avenue for their access to and from Summitview Avenue, except that one of the property owners would also have a private driveway to Rainier Drive for additional access to and from Summitview Avenue. (4) This application/petition is being processed under the provisions of YMC Chapter 14.21 relative to right-of-way vacations. Those provisions require a Hearing Examiner recommendation to the City Council to be based on findings and conclusions pursuant to YMC Chapter 1.43,YMC Chapter 14.21 and RCW Chapter 35.79. V. Notices. Notices of the June 13, 2024. open record public hearing were provided in the following ways: Mailing of notice to property owners within 300 feet: May 14,2024 Publishing of notice in the Yakima Herald-Republic: May 14,2024 Posting of notice in three public places: May 21, 2024 Posting of notice on the right-of-way: May 13, 14 and June 11, 2024 The open record public hearing commencing on June 13, 2024, was continued on the Columbia Ridge Homes,LI,C 4 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: �� � Portion of Private Road named RE N.92nd Avenue:RWV#OO1-24 JI.Ji_ 1' 8 2024 a;a t'l 01. YAKIMA PLANNING DI' . 101 record to July 3, 2024, to allow 20 days after the June 11 posting on the north end of the area proposed for vacation to pass per the City's notice provisions which require posting on both ends of the vacation area even though state law requires posting only on one end. Although testimony from Mr. Hauff at the continued hearing indicated that the posting was not revised to advise of the date and time of the continued public hearing on July 3, 2024, at 9:00 am, the large sign and information posted at both ends of the area proposed for vacation was sufficient to inform a reader to contact the City Planning Division for more information relative to the status of the matter. No evidence or testimony was presented at the continued hearing to suggest that anyone failed to express their views regarding this matter due to the initial lack of signage at the north end of the right-of-way area proposed for vacation. VI. Environmental Review. Street right-of-way vacations are categorically exempt from SETA environmental review per YMC Chapter 6.88 and WAC 197-11-800(2Xi). VII. Traffic Study. The City of Yakima Traffic Engineer has determined that a traffic study is not required for this right-of-way vacation. VIII. Development Services 'team (DST) Review. On May 14, 2024, a DST meeting was held to discuss the possible impacts of this requested vacation of right-of- way. The following DST comments were received: (1) Code Administration: This proposal will not affect the properties that are currently addressed off of 92"d Avenue. They will still have access to the portions of 92"d Avenue that are not being vacated, nor will it impact the addressing of the proposed lots in Rainier Court Phase 5. (2) Traffic Engineering,: With the development going in, vacation of this right of way and removal of this gravel driveway will provide reduction in dust in the air and. Columbia Ridge domes,LLC 5 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: R i V Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue:RWV#OO1-24 �!Il 8 2024 ;l l r 0h YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 102 provide the current users a better access to Summitview Dr. No concerns with this vacation. (3) Nob Hill Water Association: The ROW being referred to and adjacent to 9104 Hawthorne Dr contains a 2" pipe owned by Nob Hill Water Association. If the ROW is to be vacated, the owner shall be responsible for drafting and filing a 10' wide easement to Nob Hill Water's standards so the pipe can still be accessible for service and maintenance. No permanent structure or fence will be allowed within the easement. IX. Zoning and Land Use. The portion of North 92Dd Avenue proposed for vacation is considered public right-of-way even though it has not been opened to he used for a public street as part of the City's street system and has only been allowed to be used as a private road to access properties needing that access. Surrounding properties will have the following characteristics when residences are constructed on the Rainier Court lots: Direction Zoning Land Use North none Public Right-of-Way South none Public Right-of-Way East Single-Family Residential(R-I) Detached Single-Family Dwellings West Single-Family Residential(R-1) Detached Single-Family Dwellings X. Written Comments and Testimony Presented in Favor of the Proposed Rieht-of-Way Vacation. The written comments and testimony presented in favor of the proposed right-of-way vacation may be summarized as follows: (I) city of Yakima Senior Planner Eric Crowell (Document Index A-1. A-2 and A-3): In addition to facts set forth above in this recommendation that were set forth in the Planning Division staff"report, the Planning Division supplemental staff report indicated that three written public comments were timely received after the staff report was completed. They expressed concerns relative to the turning radii for large vehicles and snow removal on the new streets, They also referred to a 1954 Quit Claim Deed Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 6 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road named RECEIVE N.92nd Avenue:RWV#001-24 JUL I. 8 2024 CI]Y tiff YAKIMA PLANNING DIV 103 conveying the 16-foot-wide strip of property to Yakima County for road purposes forever. Now after annexation,the area is designated and signed as a private road north of Summitview Avenue named North 92'"d Avenue_ The requested right-of-way vacation includes only the portion of that road right-of-way that passes through the Rainier Court subdivision. Due to construction activity in the subdivision, the portion of the public right-of- way proposed for vacation is blocked off A gravel driveway currently extends from the northern end of Rainier Drive to temporarily connect to the existing private road north of the subdivision to provide the property owners north of the subdivision access to and from Summitview Avenue. When the west dead-end portion of Lincoln Avenue is completed, access for the properties north of the subdivision to and from Summitview Avenue will be provided by means of paved streets built to City standards that will be maintained by the City. The submission of this application/petition for right-of-way vacation is required by Condition 1 of the Planning Division's Recommendation for the preliminary plat of Rainier Court Phases 2, 3 &4 which was adopted by the Yakima City Council on July 7, 2020, and which states the following: "A Right-of-Way Vacation shall be applied for, for the vacation of the northern most portion of N. 92' Ave. If approved, public access must be provided for the lots using the ROW to be vacated." All of the criteria are satisfied for approval of this requested vacation of approximately 400 feet of 16-foot-wide right-of-way located within the Rainier Court subdivision. (2) Tom Durant of PLEA Engineering & Surveying (Document Index E-1, E-2, G-7, G-8, G-9, G-10 and G-15): The application/petition will replace approximately 400 feet of a 16-foot-wide private gravel road designated and signed as North 92" Avenue north of Summitview Avenue where it passes through the Rainier Court subdivision. This subdivision is now under development and will have fully-improved access streets with pavement, curbs, gutters and sidewalks. If the requested vacation is not approved, the unopened road right-of-way will pass through the subdivision between and behind residential lots and will cross two public streets in the subdivision and one private driveway south of the subdivision. Approval of the requested vacation would eliminate this incompatible situation and allow the properties north of the subdivision to reach Summitview Avenue by utilizing new City streets in the subdivision by way of a safer, more efficient street system that would be more consistent with the zoning and Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 7 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road named 'RECEIVE[ N.92nd Avenue:RW V#Ott1-24 JUL 11820Z4 CITY OF YAKIM a PLANNING DIV 104 development of the subdivision. Approval of the requested right-of-way vacation would also allow properties south of the subdivision to continue to use the private road for access to Summitview Avenue(Document Index G-7 and G-9). The public benefit and reason for the requested vacation would be the elimination of a portion of a substandard narrow, unpaved, steep private road behind the lots and across two public streets in a residential subdivision which is being developed with full- width residential streets that will be constructed to City standards having 31.5 feet of pavement width. The requested vacation would also eliminate traffic crossing a private driveway south of the subdivision and prevent additional traffic from the subdivision from using the private road south of the subdivision. In this way, approval of the requested right-of-way vacation would provide the owners of properties north of the subdivision with safer access to and from Sumrnitvicw Avenue. They would first enter Lincoln Avenue then utilize other streets improved to City standards. This change in access for properties north of the Rainier Court subdivision would also reduce the amount of traffic and dust on the existing private road for the property owners south of the subdivision who would be the only users of the private road for access to and from Summitview Avenue if the requested vacation is approved. The requested right-of-way vacation would be limited to the portion of North 921IJ Avenue north of Summitview Avenue where it passes through the Rainier Court subdivision except where public street right-of-way is dedicated to the City for Lincoln Avenue and for Hawthorne Avenue which cross the right-of-way proposed for vacation. The requested right-of-way vacation would not affect the portion of the subject right-of- way north or south of the Rainier Court subdivision. It is anticipated that over time further subdivision of the properties south of the Rainier Court subdivision will provide for the improvement of new public streets that will replace all or part of the private road. Improvement of the private road north of the Rainier Court subdivision may or may not occur in the foreseeable future, but approval of the requested vacation will at least reduce the length of the substandard private road that the three homes and undeveloped property to the north will have to use for access to and from Summitview Avenue (Document Index G-7, G-8 and G-9). Until the completion of Phase 3 of the Rainier Court subdivision, a temporary private road has been constructed to connect to the improved public street to the west named Rainier Drive which will provide access to and from Summitview Avenue until the dead-end portion of Lincoln Avenue is completed across the width of the right-of- way north of the subdivision(Document Index G-8, G-9 and G-10). Columbia Ridge Ilornes,t,LC 8 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: RECEIVED Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue: RWV#oot-24JUL 1 202$ CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING [IIV. 105 Approval of the requested right-of-way vacation would not deny any property its sole access to a public street. The existing private road will remain available for access to and from Summitview Avenue by properties north of the Rainier Court subdivision. The private road right-of-way where it would approach and leave Lincoln Avenue is at least 20 feet wide and probably is 28 feet wide since the west 8 feet of the adjacent property is excepted for road purposes from the description of the property on the east side of the right-of-way. For these properties, there is room for the users of the private road to make the turn to and from Lincoln Avenue wider than currently exists and there would be the option to use Lincoln Avenue to North 91'Avenue,then to Hawthorne Avenue, and then to North 90th Avenue or to use Lincoln Avenue directly to North 90th Avenue or to use Lincoln Avenue directly to North 891h Avenue(Document Index G-9). The existing private road will remain available for access to and from Summitview Avenue by properties south of the Rainier Court subdivision. This is the access to a public street for only two of these properties, one of which also has access to Rainier Drive to the west by way of a private driveway across the North 92' Avenue right-of- way. All other properties south of the Rainier Court subdivision have access to and from Summitview Avenue by way of Rainier Drive to the west or Summitview Avenue to the south. The requested right-of-way vacation is consistent with the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) because there are no planned improvements to the North 92"a Avenue right-of-way north of Summitview Avenue. It is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.3 to preserve and enhance the quality, character and function of Yakima's residential neighborhoods and Policy 2.3.3 to create walkable residential neighborhoods with safe streets and good connections to schools, parks, transit and commercial services. Furthermore, the Planning Commission's recommendation to require this application/petition for right-of-way vacation to be submitted and to require public streets to be provided for properties north of the subdivision to use for access to and from Summitview Avenue was based upon YMC §14.20.100(4)(d) and YMC §14.20.100(5) relative to making appropriate provisions for streets or roads in order to serve the public use and interest. The requested vacation of right-of-way would be appropriate to the intent of the existing Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning set forth in YMC §15.03.020(B) to afford the single-family neighborhood with the highest level of protection from potentially incompatible land impacts such as a private access road passing between the rear yards of residential lots. Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 9 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue: RWV#001-24 VED JUL 1 . 2024 Cli Y OF YAK/Nut PLANNING DIV 106 Since overhead power and telephone lines occupy the right-of-way proposed for vacation, an easement will be prepared and recorded for those lines and for any water line or other utilities located within the vacated area. In order to address the concerns of Mr. and Mrs. Hauff about the turning movement on Lincoln Avenue that will be required to transition to and from their private road north of the subdivision, the applicant/petitioner is willing to grant a temporary easement until Phase 5 improvements are completed that would allow the use of the entire width of Lincoln Avenue to its dead end for the entire width of the 28-foot-wide right-of-way to provide more area for a more gradual turning movement there since Lincoln Avenue is only engineered for improvements to the property line at this point. Since the property line is the middle of the North 92"a Avenue right-of-way, the easement would include the western 8 feet of that right- of-way plus an additional 12 feet for a total of 20 additional feet of turning area beyond what is engineered and approved for the Lincoln Avenue street improve- ments before the completion of Phase 5 street improvements (Document Index G- 15). (3) Justin Vellum. applicant/petitioner and deg eloper for Columbia Ridge Homes, LLC (Document Index G-6, G-1 l and G-12): The developer's attorney's reviewed the letter and cases cited in attorney Reed C. Pell's email asserting that the property owners' historic use of the right-of-way proposed for vacation give them a prescriptive easement to continue to use it because it is held in a proprietary rather than governmental capacity. The attorney indicated that the cases he cited do not apply to this situation. The Sisson v. Koelle ease cited the Goedecke v. Viking Inv. Corp. case which holds that abutting property owners do not acquire by adverse possession any part of a public right-of-way to which a municipal corporation has title, and that a public road does not lose its character as a public road because no public funds are expended for its maintenance and upkeep. That rule applies to the North 92"d Avenue deeded right-of-way involved here even though the Sisson v. Koelle case did not apply that rule to its facts where the County had never devoted its deeded property to any use, either public or private (Document Index G-6). Two photographs are submitted in response to Mr. Pell's email asserting claims of his clients, Neil and Michele Haut', to the effect that the approach onto Lincoln Avenue from the private road north of the Rainier Court subdivision would be difficult for large Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 10 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road named RECEIVED N.92nd Avenue:RWV#001-24 JUL 1 $ 2024 en Y Of- 'YAnihyn PLANNING Ow 107 trucks to negotiate, especially with snow on the road, due to its steepness and the proximity of a telephone pole and irrigation turnout. The first photograph shows that the approach onto Lincoln Avenue would be relatively level except arguably for 150 to 200 feet north of Lincoln Avenue which would be a fully-improved City street with barrier curbs. That photograph shows the temporary access road connecting to the private road north of the subdivision. It shows the telephone pole to be approximately 90 feet north of Lincoln Avenue and shows the irrigation turnout to be about 34 feet north of Lincoln Avenue and 25 feet east of the road right-of-way. It also shows the existing and future short grade which is easy to negotiate and was negotiated onto the temporary access road last winter during snow without any known difficulty. The temporary access was prepared by PLSA and approved by City inspectors. Negotiating the turn to or from a paved, wide street will be easier than negotiating the existing turn to and from the temporary gravel access road which provides access to and from Summitview Avenue by way of Rainier Drive. The second photograph shows how the requested right-of-way vacation would eliminate about one-quarter of a mile of steep grade and would safely collect traffic onto low volume residential streets (Document Index G-11),. That would be a safer way to enter and leave a busy four-lane arterial than entering and leaving Summitview Avenue by way of the 16-foot-wide gravel right-of-way which experienced a driving fatality in the 1990's. The Planning Commission required this application/petition to be submitted as a condition of preliminary plat approval of the Plat of Rainier Court—Phases 2, 3 &4. The Planning Commission wanted to avoid a narrow, steep road down to Summitview Avenue. A third photograph shows that the streets constructed to City standards such as Rainier Drive and future Lincoln Avenue have sufficient width to allow 53-foot-long tractor trailers loaded with trusses to enter 20-foot-wide driveways on steep streets next to homes being built without any problem(Document Index G-12). Since the intersection of the right-of-way with Lincoln Avenue will not be as extreme as the maneuver shown on the photograph, it is likely that semi-trucks will be able to navigate the turn. The same wide roadway characteristic should also provide automobile traffic with ample space to navigate the Lincoln Avenue intersection in winter weather conditions. The intersection will be located in an open space area where Lincoln Avenue will be a paved dead-end street with curbing and pavement width constructed to City standards. There will not be any homes in that location and the traffic volume will be low. Lincoln Avenue is anticipated to be completed for use by property owners north of the subdivision by this ' August. Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 11 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue:RWV#401-24 Aft. '1 8 Z024 t:l 1 Y (]F` Y A1ll(VMAl PLANNING DIV 108 The five-year time limit for preliminary plats is to complete the infrastructure rather than build on the lots and there is provision for a one-year extension. The time limit runs from the time of City Council approval of the preliminary plat. The infra- structure for Phase 4 is expected to be completed by July of next year within the 5-year period,but at least within the extension period. In order to address the concerns of Mr. and Mrs. Ilauff, the applicant/petitioner would even be willing to go further than the offer to provide an easement for use of the Lincoln Avenue street area that would normally be completed in Phase 5, but would also be willing to complete Lincoln Avenue to its dead end with pavement, curbing and whatever street improvements are acceptable to the engineers, including the City Engineer. (4) Justin Boeser. resident at the northwest corner of Summitview Avenue and the North 92` Avenue right-of-way: Mr. Boeser favors approval of the requested vacation of right-of-way, not because he happens to be employed by the applicant/petitioner, but because he lives next to the gravel road that causes a lot of dust for his house and vehicles and because the traffic flies down the road and most of the time can barely stop for Summitview Avenue. He said he has a kid and a couple of small dogs, so it's a safety concern for him is why he favors the right-of-way vacation. (5) Dean and Jan Bass, residents on cast side of the North 92" Avenue right-of- way who also ownpronerty on the west side of that right-of-way adjacent to the south boundary of the Rainier Court subdivision (Document Index G-14): In the 24 years that Mr. and Mrs. Bass have lived there, rainfsnow melt run-off has not been contained on the upper hillside properties, requiring regular personal blading and regrading of the lower portion of the road. Reconfiguration of the road access for the upper properties onto Lincoln Avenue would resolve this issue by diverting the water into storm drains on the improved road. There are 5, with a potential of 6, residents currently using the unimproved gravel road entrance onto Summitview Avenue. If the right-of-way vacation is approved, the 3 residents above the vacated section of North 92"d Avenue would have a new improved access to Lincoln Avenue. Since Mr. and Mrs. Bass have made arrangements for their two parcels to access Rainier Drive to the west,the current right-of-way crosses their new driveway to Rainier Drive. Visibility is impaired at the unimproved North 92' Avenue entrance to Summitview Avenue by a power pole and unmaintained field to the east and by a cluster Columbia Ridge Homes,MC 12 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: RECEIVED IVED Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue:RWV#001-24 JUL (At Y OF YAKIMA PLANNING oIV 109 of mail boxes with two sign poles to the west. The current right-of-way is an awkward offset to the improved North 92'd Avenue that enters the south side of Summitview Avenue, Vehicles leaving the unimproved right-of-way have difficulty seeing the traffic on Summitview Avenue, especially the traffic entering Summitview Avenue from 92' Avenue on the south side of Summitview and entering Summitview from Rainier Drive to the west. There was a fatality at this location in 1999 because residents did not see oncoming traffic when they pulled onto Summitview Avenue. At the hearing on June 13th, Mrs. Hauff stated a need to use the full length of 92"d Avenue to get stopped at Summitview when there is snow on the road as an argument to retain the right-of-way. This argument appears to he invalid since they were able to navigate the temporary access road provided to Rainier Drive last winter. The improved wider access to Lincoln Avenue will direct them east at the same point—no difference. If the right-of-way stays intact and they claim they can't stop until the bottom with snow on the road, how will they slow to check for traffic where the right-of-way intersects Hawthorne Avenue? Furthermore, the road is not wide enough for vehicles to pass each other in opposite directions without trespassing on the property east of the right-of-way. If the requested vacation of right-of-way is not granted, Mr. and Mrs. Bass intend to gate their property to prevent cars from crossing their driveway without regard to the safety of their family. They are categorically against keeping the 92"d Avenue right-of- way in place and hope these facts prevail in the decision the City makes on this issue. (fi) Sharon Farmer Dressel, resident on the east side of the North 92"d Avenue right-of-way south of the Bass pre perry (Document Index G-13 read at the hearing by her daughter Shev Dressel because her mother was out of town on business): Mrs, Dressel's husband passed away in 2018. They moved onto the property on the east side of the North 92"Avenue right-of-way in 1987 and she is now the longest living property owner on the road. The small 16-foot-wide right-of-way is a gravel road where two cars cannot pass without trespassing on property on the east side due to the development of property on the west side with high embankments. She has had to wait for vehicles or totally back up to her own driveway. After her husband's death, Mrs. Dressel contacted City Planners to see if the developer was going to give any property to make North 92" Avenue wider. She was told that the plan was to shut down access on the right-of-way at the north property line of the Bass property. After she learned and reported that the Bass property would be Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 13 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: RECEIVEC. Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue:RWV#O01-24 CITY Uf YAKIM# PLANNING DIV 110 accessed by a driveway to Rainier Drive,she was then told that North 92"d Avenue would be blocked at the north of her property. Now Neil and Michele Hauff want 92"to stay open for themselves. 92nd has been their personal speedway for years now. Mrs. Dressel watched the hearing of June 13 and was taken aback by Michele Hauffs statements that "they need the length of 92' to Summitview to be able to stop when there's snow on the road" and "They wouldn't be able to make the turn onto Lincoln." Mrs. Dressel has witnessed when outside over the years of the Hauffs going so fast that she stopped what she was doing to see if they would be able to stop their vehicle before they reached Summitview in the best of conditions. The speed limit on Summitview is 40 and they do 40 to 50 mph all the time with dust flying in the air 30 to 40 feet high and probably even higher when thy. Mrs.Dressel looked at the Google Maps. The Hauffs have a hairpin curve on their road above and that's not a problem for them to navigate every day they have driven 92"d Avenue. Neil Hauff stated"that they weren't called and drove in the dark to find the road block on December 13`h 2023." Mrs. Dressel agrees that someone should have called them, but Dean Bass did call them that day, so they were told. It wasn't a total shock in the dark that night—they already knew. All of this brings up horrible memories for Mrs. Dressel. Their long time neighbors Howard and Ruby Jorgensen were hit by a tractor trailer because of the pole and horrible visibility to see oncoming traffic when pulling out onto Summitview Avenue. Howard died and Ruby was not able to return to her home. Mrs. Dressel walked out to ask a gentleman to slow down on the road in his truck when her daughter was about two years old. Her daughter had walked out without being seen and her arm was run over. After this occurred Neil Hauff drove by and didn't stop,just flew by as always. Mrs. Dressel and her husband were advised by an attorney that they could gate the road, which has not been done because Mr. and Mrs, Bass are such good neighbors_ They have always driven at a slow speed being responsible and respectful. All others have caused much stress over the years. If 92' remains open for all the traffic above to use and even the new homes to have access, Mrs. Dressel will absolutely be gating the road at the north end of her property. How this 16-foot road can even be considered to stay open is beyond her comprehension. Homes will be built, but 92"d will not be widened or developed any differently than it is now. if the City opens 92"d, a private road, for use by numerous additional residents, then the City must bring the road up to code and take on the expense of widening and maintaining it. The City is unwilling to shoulder this burden. Since the Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 14 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: 5 ECE F Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue:RWV#OO1-24 JUL 1 8 208 P 1_y 01- Ifwhi PLANNING f1IV 111 development on the west side has already happened, there is no way to obtain the extra feet to widen 92"d now either_ On her own behalf, Shey Dressel indicated that she lived where her mother lives for 18 years and visits often. She has seen that sometimes North 92"d Avenue gets so icy a person cannot drive up it and now cannot even park on the side of the road without trespassing on someone's property. She believes it is unsafe to keep it open. X. Written Comments and_ Testimony Presented in Opposition to the Proposed Right-of-Way Vacation. The written comments and testimony presented in opposition to the proposed right-of-way vacation may be summarized as follows: (1) Neil and Michele Hauff,owners and residents of properly north of the Rainier Court subdivision (Document index G-2. G-16. G-17 and G-18): Mr. and Mrs. Ilauff indicate that they have not seen a definite plan in writing as to the access to and from Summitview Avenue by way of Lincoln Avenue. It would be a struggle for a tractor trailer moving van exiting Lincoln to the west and going north on 92"a Avenue with level dry conditions. Now complicate the maneuver of turning a tractor trailer onto 92"d Avenue from Lincoln with a steep sloping incline, narrow confines and snowy conditions. Current City standards and engineering have not been applied for a conducive transition to travel up and down 92"d Avenue,Traversing down the hill to make a left turn onto Lincoln Avenue would lead to disastrous results in adverse conditions. They need the length of 92"d to Summitview to be able to stop when there is snow and ice on the road and they wouldn't be able to make the turn onto Lincoln. They don't see the City assuming liability if the right-of-way vacation is granted. Public benefit is not achieved at this point. They do not see the City maintaining Rainier Court streets for snow removal since there are too many streets to maintain in the City. The City has a history of no snow removal on North 92' Avenue. It is a public benefit that 92nd Avenue remains a private road that does not require City expenditures. Rainier Court streets have been generously engineered, but the transition from Lincoln has been overlooked and has not been generously engineered. This creates a liability to the City for the travel of all service vehicles small, medium and large—tractor trailers, garbage trucks, cement trucks, lumber trucks, propane trucks, emergency vehicles, service trucks and any other vehicles that Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 15 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: ' l~l Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue:RWV#001-24 11.11. 1 ii ?024 Gil? ttlk TAtuivirk PLANNING ON • 112 have a purpose to visit. The travel of these vehicles gives rise to problems in adverse conditions. The October 13, 1954, Quit Claim Deed of the 16-foot-wide right of way conveyed to Yakima County "all interest in the following described real estate .,. to have and to hold for use as a public road forever." How can the deed be overlooked in the platting of a subdivision? At this point, public benefit is lacking because the transition from Lincoln Avenue to North 92"d Avenue is a less safe jagged transition onto the side of a hill. A more apropos connection would involve straightening it out. When traffic comes south on North 92"a Avenue to Lincoln Avenue in adverse conditions, the possibility exists for encroachment into backyards and houses on Lot 83 or Lot 29 which would not be in the public interest or a public benefit for the City to assume that liability (Document Index G-9 and G-10). Also the current blockage of North 92" Avenue installed on December 13, 2023, without notice to them makes it difficult and not a public benefit for them to collect their mail at the mail boxes at the entrance to North 92"'d Avenue and then have to back onto Summitview Avenue. Mr. Hauf described topographical maps showing steepness of the area in 10-foot intervals, including a 50-foot rise coming from Lincoln Avenue onto the private road. (Document Index G-16, G-17 and G-18). They didn't have trouble making the turn from the private road to the temporary road leading to Rainier Drive last winter because it was a mild winter and he plowed the road. The developers did not use the temporary road but went across the corner at a 45°angle to pick up their excavator. Mr. Hauff attended the Planning Commission hearing on February 26, 2020, and understood there would be a 5-year time limit to complete Phases 2, 3 and 4 which would be in 2025,but there is a lot more to go and it might take 10 more years to complete. (2) Reed C.Pell, attorney for Neil and Michele Hauff(Document Index G-3); Mr. and Mrs. Hauff purchased their property in December of 1999. For the last 24 years they have used North 92"d Avenue designated as a private road for ingress and egress to and from their property so as to have perfected a prescriptive casement allowing their continued use of the right-of-way.At no time has the County or City maintained the road. Mr. and Mrs. Hauff have maintained it over the years by putting gravel on it and plowing snow from it Mr, Pell points out that the 1954 Quit Claim Deed granted the right-of-way to Yakima County "as a public road forever" and that Washington court cases such as Gustaveson v. Dwyer, Sisson v. Koelle and Kesinger v. Logan hold that a party can Columbia Ridge t tomes,LLC 16 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: RECEIVED Portion of Private Road nanied N.92nd Avenue:RWV#01}1-24 JUL 1 9 2024 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING OIV. 113 adversely possess property against a County or City. For these reasons, Mr. Pell argues that the North 92nd Avenue right-of-way north of Summitview Avenue has been held in a proprietary rather than a governmental capacity and that his clients' can therefore establish a prescriptive easement that would allow them to continue to use the right-of- way area that is proposed for vacation. Mr. Pell at the hearing also asked questions of his clients to elicit facts and to emphasize points for the record similar to those set forth in their written comments, and also indicated that there may be a Nob LIill Water Association water line within a portion of the right-of-way proposed for vacation.He presented a final argument emphasizing the points asserted by his clients in their written comments and testimony. He argued that the right-of-way vacation benefits the subdivider rather than the public by maximizing the number of lots in the subdivision and that any proceedings to vacate the subject right.-of- way should have been undertaken before the preliminary plat was approved. lie reiterated his arguments to the effect that the Iiauffs have used and maintained the road for 24 years when they had a straight shot to Summitview and now will end up in the backyard of someone's property (3) Marchal Tyler. owner and resident of property north of the Rainier Cowl subdivision (Document Index G-4): Mr. Tyler's written comment mainly questioned the intent of the 1954 Quit Claim Deed to Yakima County and stated that the proposal affects 7 parcels. XL Right-of-Way Vacation Findings. The findings relative to this recommendation to the Yakima City Council regarding this petition/application for vacation of the portion of 16-foot-wide right-of-way north of Summitview Avenue named North 92„d Avenue that is approximately 400 feet long within the Rainier Court subdivision under develop- ment are as follows: (1) City Council Resolution: The Yakima City Council by Resolution No. R- 2024-075 referred this street right-of-way vacation Petition No. 24-01 to the Hearing Examiner to hold a public hearing on June 13, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. and to make a recom- mendation to the City Council regarding the petition. The petition was signed by a Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 17 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road named RECEIVED N.92nd Avenue:RWV#001-24 JUL I82U4 CITY Of YAINlinel PLANNING NV 114 representative of Columbia Ridge Homes, LLC which owns more than two-thirds of the contiguous private property. This recommendation has been issued and delivered to the City Planning Division within 10 business days of the conclusion of the hearing. (2) Hearing Examiner Authority: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to conduct public hearings on petitions and resolutions to vacate streets and public rights-of- way pursuant to YMC §1.43.080(H) and YMC Chapter 14.21 which provide that the Hearing Examiner shall make a recommendation regarding such petitions to the Yakima City Council. (3) Urban A ca Zoning Ordinance: Street rights-of-way are not technically within any zoning classification. However, upon vacation they acquire the same zoning that is applicable to the contiguous property. In this case, the contiguous property is zoned Single-Family Residential(R-1). (4) Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040: Street rights-of-way likewise do not have an underlying Comprehensive Plan designation. But upon vacation the vacated area is likewise designated the same as the contiguous property. In this situation. the vacated right-of-way area would have a Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential. (5) Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 35.79: This chapter of state law prescribes the state's requirements for the process of vacating street right-of-way. All requirements of this chapter that can be accomplished prior to delivery of this recom- mendation to the Planning Division for the City Council's consideration have been fulfilled. State law provides that the property within the limits to be vacated shall belong to the owners of the lots abutting each side of the vacated area, one-half to the owners on each side of the vacated area (RCW 35.79,040). All of the area proposed for vacation would belong to Columbia Ridge Homes, LLC except for the west half of a portion adjacent to a lot in the subdivision that was sold after the petition was tiled to a buyer who agreed to the proposed right-of-way vacation. (6) Public Use of The Right-of-Way: The portion of the right-of-way proposed to be vacated has not been improved or maintained by Yakima County prior to annexation of the area or by the City of Yakima after annexation of the area,but has been previously allowed by the County and thereafter by the City to be used as a private road to access properties that otherwise would not have access to and from Summitview Avenue. The property owners who have been using the road have been maintaining it. Mr. Pell's Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 18 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road named ECEIVEt N.92nd Avenue:RWV#011-24 .flit 18 2U24 i.i r Of- YAKIMAi PLANNING OlV 115 contention that his clients may establish a prescriptive easement to continue to use the deeded right-of-way is not a given_ The issue would be whether the County and/or the City have held the right-of-way in a proprietary capacity rather than in a governmental capacity. Absent laches or other unreasonable delay, a prescriptive easement to continue to use a deeded right-of-way arguably could be established in a court action if the right- of-way has been held in a proprietary capacity due to the fact that it has not been used for any purpose, public or private. But a prescriptive easement here arguably could not be established by a court action if the right-of-way has been held in a governmental capacity due to the fact that both the County and City have allowed it to be used by property owners and others as an access road even though it has not been publicly maintained. A prescriptive easement can only be established by a court. action. How the court action would be decided does not need to be known in order for the City Council to approve the requested right-of-way vacation. The only effect that approval of the requested right-of- way vacation would have is that the court action necessary to establish a prescriptive easement would have to be pursued against the owners of the property on each side of the vacated area rather than against the City. The effect of a denial of the requested right-of- way vacation would be to allow the continued use of the right-of-way without the need to establish a prescriptive easement. (7) Criteria #I for Vacation of Right-of-Way (YMC §14.21.050(A)(I)): What is the public benefit, reason for, and limitations of the proposed right-of-way vacation?The public benefit and reason for the requested right-of-way vacation would be the elimination of a portion of a substandard narrow, unpaved, steep private road behind the lots and across two public streets in a residential subdivision which is being developed with full-width residential streets that will be constructed to City standards. The requested vacation would also eliminate traffic crossing a private driveway south of the subdivision and prevent additional traffic from the subdivision from using the private road south of the subdivision. In this way, approval of the requested right-of-way vacation would provide the properties north of the subdivision with safer access to and from Summitview Avenue by first entering Lincoln Avenue which would have a 31.5- wide paved area with curbs along the south side and by then utilizing other streets improved to City standards. This change in access for properties north of the Rainier Court subdivision would also reduce the amount of traffic and dust on the existing private road reported by property owners south of the subdivision who would be the only users Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 19 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue:RWV#OO1-24 RECEIVED JUL 1 8 2024 CITY OF YAKligh PLANNING in 116 of the private road for access to and from Summitview Avenue if the requested vacation is approved. Mr. and Mrs. Hauff contended that the requested vacation of right-of-way would not provide them with safer or better access to their property north of the subdivision due to the steep slope where their private road would enter or leave Lincoln Avenue. They indicated that the turn onto and off of Lincoln Avenue would be difficult for large vehicles and unsafe when snow or ice is on the road. Neither Mr. Hellem nor Mr. Durant agreed with that claim. Mr. Hellem's offer to improve Lincoln Avenue completely to its dead-end in the near future rather than waiting for completion of Phase 5 infrastructure is a reasonable way to address the liauffs' concerns because they will then likely have about 31.5 feet of pavement on which to make their turn to or from a 28-foot-wide right- of-way. Mr. Hauff should be able to plow snow from that area of Lincoln Avenue as effectively as he has for years plowed snow from the entire length of North 92" Avenue to Summitview Avenue. When the subdivision is completed, it would not be safe for the Han fs to have to use most of North 92w' Avenue in order to stop for Summitview Avenue because they would at that point in time have to cross two City streets and one private driveway long before reaching Summitview Avenue. The Hearing Examiner viewed the site to help understand the conflicting evidence on this point by driving from Summitview Avenue on Rainier Drive through the Lincoln Avenue entrance to the right-of-way to the Hauff residence.The portion of that drive that was most challenging was driving up the steep narrow road to the Hauff residence which has a steep dropoff on one side. The weight of the evidence as confirmed by the site visits established the fact that using the new access to and from Surnrnitview Avenue by way of Lincoln Avenue would be safer and easier for residents north of the Rainier Court subdivision to negotiate than using the current gravel road passing through the subdivision across two public streets and private driveway. The limitation of the right-of-way proposed for vacation is that it is only approximately 400 feet of the 16-foot-wide right-of-way that passes through the Rainier Court subdivision. Since the subject area is unimproved and the City has no plans and possibly no ability to ever improve or use this area, this portion of right-of-way can best be used as part of the adjacent private property. (8) Criteria#2 for Vacation of Right-of-Way (YMC §14.21.050(A)(2)): Does the vacation deny any property sole access to a public street? This right-of-way vacation Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 20 RECEIVED Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue:RWV#001-24 JUL 1 8 2024 Cll Y OF YAKIMuA PLANNING DIV, 117 would not deny any property access to a public street. Vacation of the right-of-way would maintain vehicular access for all adjacent properties and all current and future users of the right-of-way proposed for vacation by means of new streets within the Rainier Court subdivision that will be constructed to City standards. One of the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat of Rainier Court—Phase 2, 3 &4 was to apply for this vacation of right-of-way and "if approved, public access must be provided for the lots using the ROW to be vacated." Property outside of the approximate 400-foot-long right-of-way area proposed for vacation will continue to have access by way of the North 92'Avenue right-of-way north of Summitview Avenue either over new streets within the Rainier Court subdivision for the property north of the subdivision or directly to Summitview Avenue for the property south of the subdivision. (9) Criteria #3 for Vacation of Right-of-Way (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 City's current Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) does not include any planned improvements to the right-of-way that is proposed for vacation. Nor would approval of the right-of-way vacation be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or any other official City plans and policies. To the contrary it would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goal 2.3 to preserve and enhance the quality, character and function of Yakima's residential neighborhoods and Policy 2.3.3 to create walkable residential neighborhoods with safe streets and good connections to schools,parks,transit and commercial services. Furthermore, the Planning Commission's recommendation to require submission of this application/petition for right-of-way vacation and to provide the properties north of the subdivision with access to and from Summitiew Avenue by way of public streets within the subdivision was based upon YMC §14.20.100(4)(d) and YMC §14.20.100(5) relative to making appropriate provisions for streets or roads in order the serve the public use and interest. (10) Criteria #4 for Vacation of Right-of-Way (YMC §14.21.050(A)(4)): Is the vacation request appropriate with existing and anticipated development in the area, based on zoning, current use and long range plans? There is no anticipated development that would be adversely affected by approval of this requested right-of-way vacation. To the contrary, the requested right-of-way vacation would facilitate the anticipated single- family development of the Rainier Court subdivision by eliminating traffic between the back yards of residences and across two public streets within the subdivision. Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 21 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: RECEIVED Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue;RWV#001-24 PLa NINE itV�w 118 (11)Criteria#5 for Vacation of Right-of-Way (YMC :14.2] 0 • Ai 5 :Are there any public or franchised utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated and if so, will they be relocated? There arc overhead power and telephone lines and possibly a Nob Hill Water Association pipeline within the right-of-way area proposed for vacation. The applicant/petitioner will have an easement prepared and recorded for the power and telephone lines and for any water line or other utilities within the vacated area. (12) Criteria#6 for Vacation of Right-of-Way (YMC 514,21.070(A)(4)): Whether compensation should be required in return for vacation of the right-of-way? YMC. §14.21.070(A)(4) provides: "No compensation may be required if the city has not purchased, maintained, or made any improvements to the public right-of-way, there is no planned or anticipated public purpose existing for maintaining the public right-of-way as determined by the planning commission or development services team (DST), and the public right-of-way has been a dedicated right-of-way in the city for at least five years." The City has not purchased, maintained or improved the area proposed for right- of-way vacation. None of the members of the City's Development Services Team indicated that improvements are planned for the right-of-way area proposed for vacation or that any anticipated public purposes exist for maintaining that portion of the right-of- way. The area of right-of-way proposed for vacation was deeded to Yakima County in 1954 and has been the City's property for more than five years as a result of the annexation of the area. Therefore, compensation to the City for the right-of-way area proposed for vacation of this 16-foot-wide right-of-way which is approximately 400 feet long is not required by the criteria in YMC §14.21.070(AX4). CONCLUSIONS Based upon the findings set forth above, the Hearing Examiner reaches the following conclusions regarding the requested right-of-way vacation of a portion of a 16- foot-wide right-of-way approximately 400 feet long which is designated and signed as a private road north of Summitview Avenue named North 92°'1 Avenue: Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 22 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Road reamed RECEIVED N.92nd Avenue:RW V##4Ntt-24 JUL 1 3 2024 OI Y'OF YAKIMA PLANNING r31V 119 (1) Petition signatures for this requested vacation of right-of-way were obtained from the necessary two-thirds of the property owners fronting this area proposed for right-of-way vacation because the petitioner/applicant/property owner Columbia Ridge Homes, LLC owns more than two-thirds of the property abutting this portion of public right-of-way. (2) A traffic study was not required for this proposal. (3)The area of the right-of-way proposed for vacation is a 16-foot-wide portion of the private road designated and signed as North 92"d Avenue north of Summitview Avenue which is within the Rainier Court subdivision under development, and is an area described by metes and bounds in a Quit Claim Deed rather than an area dedicated as part of a subdivision, (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 Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning classification as the contiguous private property. (5) Approval of the requested right-of-way vacation would not cause any properties to be denied sole access to the public street system. (6) The petition for vacation of this public right-of way does not conflict with any planned street improvement projects or other plans or projects of the City of Yakima. (7) Approval of the requested right-of-way vacation would benefit the City and its residents by allowing the Rainier Court subdivision to be developed with new paved residential streets constructed to City standards that will provide a safer means of access to and from Summitview Avenue for residents north of the subdivision and will provide a safer means of access to and from Summitview Avenue for residents south of the subdivision due to the reduced amount of traffic and dust that will result. (8) All necessary requirements for the vacation of street right-of-way prescribed by RCW Chapter 35.79 and YlvIC Chapter 14.21 are satisfied. (9) YMC §14.21.070(A)(4) provides that compensation to the City is not required for the vacation of this street right-of-way area. Columbia Ridge Homes, LLC 23 RECEIVED Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: Portion of Private Rued named lU 1 �Q N.92nd Avenue:RWv##OOI-24 OF YAKIi41A PLANNING O1V. 120 RECOMMENDATION The [leering Examiner recommends to the Yakima City Council that this application{petition for vacation of a portion of the 16-foot-wide strip of right-of-way approximately 400 feet long designated and signed as a private road named North 92"d Avenue north of Summitview Avenue within the Rainier Court subdivision under development be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: (1)The vacated area shall belong to the abutting property owner Columbia Ridge Homes, LLC except for the western half thereof adjacent to a lot in the subdivision that was sold after the petition was filed; (2) The area within the vacated right-of-way shall be included within the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation and within the Single-Family Residential (R-1)zoning district; (3) The petitioner/applicant/property owner shall record an easement for the maintenance, repair and replacement of any utilities located within the vacated area and shall maintain access to any public utility easements at all times; (4) The current temporary alternate access to and from Surnmitview Avenue for properties north of the vacated right-of-way shall continue to be provided by way of Rainier Drive until Lincoln Avenue is completed to its dead-end in order to replace that temporary alternate access to those properties; and (5) As part of the current subdivision Lincoln Avenue street improvements prior to construction of the Phase 5 street improvements, Lincoln Avenue shall be improved to its dead-end, which is to the western edge of the adjacent 2g-!boot-wide road right-of-way, with pavement, curbing and such improvements and design Matures as are acceptable to the engineers involved, including the City Engineer, in order to allow as much space as is feasible for the turning movement on Lincoln Avenue to and from the road right-of-way to the north. (6) The legal description in the record for the area within the vacated right-of way which was provided by PLSA Engineering&Land Surveying is as follows: Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 24 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: RECEIVED Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue:RWV#OO1-24 IY9l I 8 2a24 ;I3 Y QV YAKIMA PI_A KING D[1d 121 That portion of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 13 North, Range 18 East, W.M, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said subdivision;thence North 89°54`55"West, along the North line of said subdivision 8.00 feet to the West line of East 8 feet of said subdivision; thence South 0'14'23" West, along said West line, 322.33 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 23 of the Plat of Rainier Court — Phase 2, recorded under Auditor's File No. 8139905, records of Yakima County, Washington; thence South 89°46'53" Fast 8:00 feet to the East line of said subdivision; thence North 0°14'23" East, along said East line, 322.35 feet to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPT the North 50 feet thereof. TOGETHER WITH that portion of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 13 North, Range 18 East, W.M. described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 25 of the Plat of Rainier Court— Phase 2, recorded under Auditor's File No. 8139905, records of Yakima County, Washington; thence South 0°14'23" West, along the east line of said Lot 25, 89.57 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 25; thence South 89'56'33" East 8.00 feet to the East line of said subdivision; thence North 0°l4'23"East, along the East line of said subdivision, 89.57 feet to a point bearing South 89°46'53" West from the Point of Beginning; thence North 89°46'53" West 8.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. TOGETHER WITH the West 8 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 13 North, Range 18 East,W.M.; EXCEPT the North 50 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT the South 189 feet thereof. DATED this 18'1'day of July,2024. �'rq M. Gary Caillibr,Hearing Examiner Columbia Ridge Homes,LLC 25 Vacation of Street Right-of-Way: RECEIVEr Portion of Private Road named N.92nd Avenue:RWV#001-24 It1L 18 2024 GI;Y OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV 122 0 REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL SOLICITUD PARA COMPARECER ANTE EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL REQUIRED (OBLIGATORIO) NAME (Nombre): / 1t 1 L (c4 A Fr: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER(S) OR CITY TOPIC YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO (Numero(s) del tema de la agenda o asunto de la ciudad que desea hablar sobre): VA t turf a(NJQ i G-6x:r 0 ( ukI "I i-2 CITY OF YAKIMA RESIDENT (Residente de la Ciudad de Yakima): ❑ YAKIMA COUNTY RESIDENT (Residente del condado de Yakima): OTHER RESIDENT (Otro Residente): ❑ ABOVE INFORMATION MUST BE FILLED OUT IN ORDER TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT LA INFORMACION ANTERIOR DEBE COMPLETARSE PARA HABLAR DURANTE EL COMENTARIO PUBLICO OPTIONAL (OPCIONAL) HOW WOULD YOU PREFER THE CITY CONTACT YOU IF NEEDED (Como prefiere que la ciudad se ponga en contacto con usted si es necesario?): - PHONE (Numero de telefono) GS ) q ( c i( - ADDRESS (Domicilio) '-e?J N. , 9,2"'f / s-- - E-MAIL ADDRESS (DirecciOn de correo electrbnico) in.e.: i • ( .4& vt,t.t ( ••i.dw` YI c 3'. C+V11113IGLG LI I lib,III p./IIIJ7 LW LIICi JLQII.WV LJIJ11L, GVIIIIIIL.,IIL QIIJ JUR]Ill IL LV LIIL, eILy G141P `.YIIV JU on the left end of the Council table). Por favor complete este formulario antes del inicio de los Comentarios Publicos y entreguelo a la Secretaria Municipal (que se sienta en el extremo izquierdo de la mesa del Concejo) When addressing the City Council, state your name and whether you live inside or outside City of Yakima limits. Al dirigirse al Concejal, diga su nombre e indique si vive dentro o fuera de los limites de la Ciudad de Yakima. Additional guidelines for addressing the City Council are on the reverse side of this form. Directrices adicionales para dirigirse al Concejal se encuentran al reverso de este formulario. Please note that the Council meeting is being televised on Y-PAC, cable channel 194. Tenga en cuenta que la reunion del Concejo Municipal esta siendo televisada por Y-PAC, canal de cable 194. REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL SOLICITUD PARA COMPARECER ANTE EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL REQUIRED (OBLIGATORIO) NAME (Nombre): %1;�:L le kjGIt,t��� AGENDA ITEM NUMBER(S) OR CITY TOPIC YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO (NUmero(s) del tema de la agenda o asunto de la ciudad que desea hablar sobre): N 91 ikV2 CITY OF YAKIMA RESIDENT (Residente de la Ciudad de Yakima): ❑ YAKIMA COUNTY RESIDENT (Residente del condado de Yakima): NI OTHER RESIDENT (Otro Residente): ❑ ABOVE INFORMATION MUST BE FILLED OUT IN ORDER TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT LA INFORMACION ANTERIOR DEBE COMPLETARSE PARA HABLAR DURANTE EL COMENTARIO PUBLICO OPTIONAL (OPCIONAL) HOW WOULD YOU PREFER THE CITY CONTACT YOU IF NEEDED (6Como prefiere que la ciudad se ponga en contacto con usted si es necesariio?): - PHONE (NUm ( ero de telefono) ( 1) 16 ( -Z q 7 7 - ADDRESS (Domicilio) IZG i' ci,2116 e- - E-MAIL ADDRESS (DirecciOn de correo electrOnico) Sl.e Ile y k 1� M Ot I, CO 01 r l..a..‘, Perm .i L a r u 01 Ili Z-..L1 I A. IL .v.I GI.y Ck_1 K (vvl i., on the left end of the Council table). Por favor complete este formulario antes del inicio de los Comentarios PUblicos y entreguelo a la Secretaria Municipal (que se sienta en el extremo izquierdo de la mesa del Concejo) When addressing the City Council, state your name and whether you live inside or outside City of Yakima limits. Al dirigirse al Concejal, diga su nombre e indique si vive dentro o fuera de los limites de la Ciudad de Yakima. Additional guidelines for addressing the City Council are on the reverse side of this form. Directrices adicionales para dirigirse al Concejal se encuentran al reverso de este formulario. Please note that the Council meeting is being televised on Y-PAC, cable channel 194. Tenga en cuenta que la reunion del Concejo Municipal esta siendo televisada por Y-PAC, canal de cable 194. REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL SOLICITUD PARA COMPARECER ANTE EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL REQUIRED (OBLIGATORIO)NAME (Nombre): ii VL,h41 Titfe'' AGENDA ITEM NUMBER(S) OR CITY TOPIC YOU/WISH TO SPEAK TO (Numero s) del terra de la agenda o asunto de la ciudad que desea ha lar sobre): 4f) a res7 CITY OF YAKIMA RESIDENT (Residente de la Ciudad de Yakima): 'B' YAKIMA COUNTY RESIDENT (Residente del condado de Yakima): OTHER RESIDENT (Otro Residente): ❑ ABOVE INFORMATION MUST BE FILLED OUT IN ORDER TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT LA INFORMACION ANTERIOR DEBE COMPLETARSE PARA HABLAR DURANTE EL COMENTARIO PUBLICO OPTIONAL (OPCIONAL) HOW WOULD YOU PREFER THE CITY CONTACT YOU IF NEEDED (Como prefiere que la ciudad se ponga en contacto con usted si es necesario?): - PHONE (Numero de telefono) ( ) - ADDRESS (Domicilio) - E-MAIL ADDRESS (Direccion de correo electronico) liaLLC., LTA-1116r1 t I pi Ivy lV lI I.. alai CU]I I IL al lU Aubl I Ill IL lV LI IL. CI Ly CI._1t ,vVI IU Ala on the left end of the Council table). Por favor complete este formulario antes del inicio de los Comentarios PUblicos y entreguelo a la Secretaria Municipal (que se sienta en el extremo izquierdo de la mesa del Concejo) When addressing the City Council, state your name and whether you live inside or outside City of Yakima limits. Al dirigirse al Concejal, diga su nombre e indique si vive dentro o fuera de los limites de la Ciudad de Yakima. Additional guidelines for addressing the City Council are on the reverse side of this form. Directrices adicionales para dirigirse al Concejal se encuentran al reverso de este formulario. Please note that the Council meeting is being televised on Y-PAC, cable channel 194. Tenga en cuenta que la reunion del Concejo Municipal esta siendo televisada por Y-PAC, canal de cable 194. r�, ol- Y.3 ��0 .n REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL SOLICITUD PARA COMPARECER ANTE EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL REQUIRED (OBLIGATORIO) NAME (Nombre): / 6 A" U 'rn AGENDA ITEM NUMBER(S) OR CITY TOPIC YOU WISH TO SPEA40 (Numero(s) del tema de la agenda o asunto de la ciudad que desea hablar sobre): CITY OF YAKIMA RESIDENT (Residente de la Ciudad de Yakima): ❑ YAKIMA COUNTY RESIDENT (Residente del condado de Yakima): [;i1 OTHER RESIDENT (Otro Residente): ❑ ABOVE INFORMATION MUST BE FILLED OUT IN ORDER TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT LA INFORMACION ANTERIOR DEBE COMPLETARSE PARA HABLAR DURANTE EL COMENTARIO PUBLICO OPTIONAL (OPCIONAL) HOW WOULD YOU PREFER THE CITY CONTACT YOU IF NEEDED (Como prefiere que la ciudad se ponga en contacto con usted si es necesario?): - PHONE (Numero de telefono) ( ) - ADDRESS (Domicilio) - E-MAIL ADDRESS (DirecciOn de correo electrOnico) iiiii II.C10%. I.V I I I r.JII.LL. II IIJ 1V1111 FJ11VT LV lfll. J10I L VII T UUI III �VI I III IL,.11L OI IV JU Uri ill IL Ltd LI II. CIty CIt.I I (/VI IV oho on the left end of the Council table). Por favor complete este formulario antes del inicio de los Comentarios Publicos y entreguelo a la Secretaria Municipal (que se sienta en el extremo izquierdo de la mesa del Concejo) When addressing the City Council, state your name and whether you live inside or outside City of Yakima limits. Al dirigirse al Concejal, diga su nombre e indique si vive dentro o fuera de los limites de la Ciudad de Yakima. Additional guidelines for addressing the City Council are on the reverse side of this form. Directrices adicionales para dirigirse al Concejal se encuentran al reverso de este formulario. Please note that the Council meeting is being televised on Y-PAC, cable channel 194. Tenga en cuenta que la reunion del Concejo Municipal esta siendo televisada por Y-PAC, canal de cable 194. t f U) -C— .r c3O LOT 29 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: I II INSTALL 10' EY I/ RS BARRIER n CD ,\ I I OR EQUIVALENT 1�� STREETS\DRAINAGE C — — - CONSTRUCT CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB & GUTTER PER J ] V4 G- iN ika O DETAIL ON SHEET 2. C) ... 3 O CONSTRUCT ASPHALT ROADWAY SECTION PER DETAIL ON Q G -r"r- --_-�/u THIS SHEET. T1 TC-14 23 — ' 14446.27 Ji / 1 I ' D'^fr L .JA O STTANDARDT 5' CONCRETE DETAIL R5 ON SHEETD 2. PER CITY OF YAKIMA u I / II T 5 / \J ' ' i\TP 4 TP k � �� r� INSTALL END OF ROAD TYPE 3 BARRICADE PER WSDOT �_- Gl '11.4x , 3 � 1444.09 I I �uao5 L.E:T O STANDARD PLAN K-80.20-00 ON SHEET 2. 3E.211 LIN OLN A SNUB 1P=TC I I NEN 6'l*-1 1• CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER CITY OF t s 1 1 t1�1a4n F \ 132• �coNCRETE A'''_': YAKIMA STANDARD DETAIL R4 ON SHEET 2. 4 •1 TP=1C — —� -- ' — --yE. �1444.» TS Z 7i"r`iI/1G#IS.e7 46.29 I 146.62 R/w h - A i- H - —_ - "�' GRAYS! ROAD is-a I .. DGE OF IP TRACT B RB K�� EP aRM U IER I / w I 32 iW IOE Dai vC:vikr "� APwRCvic�t / _ fob 9 2.~°/EVE , 1 «I. i _ ` -COMPAC IF S'JBWAIN ` 2JC'RCSO CAiC AIESU UBr SPHA' 0 ul0 OI 0 - ----------. • 0.30 COMV AC'EC UfP lri CRUSH! SUNIAINV Oi to Q se. BASE COURSE 0 V M d. h.1-- i -TYPICAL STREET SECTION q. Cq _ .. - --------- rr II „ d�--..P 0�N IIII > - /id a a o a 1450 ___...._ i . n w''f A Notw 3.00% 6 4 1� a� 11.- 1 - '-. ---- 20 0 20 FEE1 6,_ -- SHEET 1 of 2 1n w 7 440 ETC - ' - ---- ------- �. HOW. SCALE: 1• = 20' LINCOLN AVE. EXTENSION 5.00) l! VERY. SCALE: 1' 10' -•��PREPARED FOR - - - --- ----- RAINIER COURT PHASE 3 COLULIHIA RIDGE HOLIES - 1430 PLSA ENGINEERING& SURVEYING ----33+00 — JOB NO 19130 9/5/2024 Distributed at the3.4 Meeting lollILo2g Good Evening Mayor Byers, Assistant Mayor Brown, Council members and staff. My name is Neil Hauff and I live on the North 92nd Ave above the proposed Vacation Right of Way on North 92nd Ave. I oppose the Vacation Right of Way for the reasons set forth below: 1) This proposed Vacation Right of Way is a public right of way that was Quit Claim deeded on October 13, 1954 for $1 for use as a public right of way forever. It has been used by the residents of N. 92nd Ave. for almost 70 years. I have used it for 24+ years. What God given right does the City of Yakima have to give a public right of way property to private individuals? What right does the City of Yakima have to condemn the use of the public right of way by blockading the traverse of it without notification? How is it that our rights for ingress and egress have been terminated on December 12, 2023 without discussion? How can the developer build on the right of way without approval of the City Council? How is it possible for "The traffic engineer is authorized to place and maintain official traffic-control devices to guide traffic for construction and detours under YMC 9.15.110(2)." While the control devices are still in place on the right of way and the Vacation Right of Way has not been approved by the City Council? 2) There are no plans in existence for the intersection of N. 92' and Lincoln Ave. That intersection has not been engineered .. . it does not exist on paper but has been built ad hoc! The City of Yakima cannot provide the 3rd party verification of the build of N. 92nd and Lincoln. The end of Lincoln Ave. shows in print C3.00 that "Construct Stabilized Construction Entrance Per Detail On This Sheet" pointing to what appears to be large rock under the road graphically. The neighbor did not see any large rock go in place at the end of Lincoln. The gravel pile used for the end of Lincoln is a good 7 feet tall and that gravel is not contained on the sides...what a disaster and no loading has been applied. A wall built over 4 feet has to be engineered. ..what happened here? For each lift of gravel, what is the compaction ratio and what road specification standards are you following for this total height? How come containment has not been achieved and what is the life of the pile that you expect without containment with traffic? Even though there has not been a traffic study for this development, it does not alleviate one from proper engineering and construction. How can one build without engineered plans when the public is involved? I have incorporated a schematic from the AASHTO "Green Book" Policy On Geometric Design Of Roadways of a representation of a 53 foot Bekins moving van and have overlaid it to scale on the intersection of N. 92nd Ave and Lincoln. This represents that one could not take a Bekins moving van to my home as was done 24 years prior. The proposed Vacation Right of Way was called out to be too steep, but Rainier Avenue that was built to the west is the same inclination. The point of intersection of N. 92nd and Lincoln is at the inflection point where the inclination increases as one progresses up N 92nd. This is important as gravity is in effect making the corner coming South on 92nd to the intersection of N 92nd and Lincoln. Remember we navigated this inflection point going north and south .... Now we will have to navigate it going west to north and south to east. To complicate matters, the build of the intersection at 92nd and Lincoln is elevated 7+ feet on the south side and the effect is a ski slope coming down the hill ...definitely not a safe intersection for anyone who traverses it especially in adverse conditions without snow removal from the City of Yakima. There are better engineered solutions to this problem. 3) By approving this Vacation Right of Way, you are exposing the City of Yakima to several legal questions to be addressed and answered. If you allow the illegal condemning of Public Land with an unapproved and unengineered build it would expose the City of Yakima to liabilities that are definitely detrimental to public benefit. Once the developer passes the build of the intersection to the City of Yakima, the City would have to issue a Hold Harmless document for any that travel that intersection of N 92nd Ave and Lincoln Ave. For these reasons the City Council should vote no on the Vacation Right of Way. Thank you the opportunity to share my thoughts with you as we are "for the people, by the people and of the people." 0 5Z 10ft • „/ C 1 m .51'Pt ta. a Scale A rt . iv, _ _ - - - - .. .. " - ' ` .. b.. • „.. ......_.1......7., ..._,_ ."114041 ‘, Path of left # , [�;; n , ve ' front wt1!!AI = `z_tx MN NIP • '� L \ ` \, � I .1 wr 1 po.. • 1 l �. � `` 0.59 rr�mal:' . i. ��/ 0 5r. 10 a r +' i I 0 ' m 2.5m I S.-a►• . • ,. . A r •• la• ii eammal s . . it 4 0,`dr • 0 Pa'h ht/ rear Steel • Max. steering angle*21.4° • CTR = Centerline tdlti!SJ ' . 1- . ' radius at front axle w.n. • AA 1 = 68.5° ' ,, . .59 m '� \ f8f 5ftj1 •'a + M 'ri 'e up-cr T it. P IEDLINI,and HEX.= J. YEIINS, 4naband'and - • toi,fe, a) • 4:;t-1, �, C• and MIZA.BrZil BODE? ', .husband and wife, . a OQt K b11ri ia1lf 'Ft C &t� . 'gook dab, to r TAX IMA COU Tj US1UNO 1�}N n �. m .•MiEi� heat ck+e tatb+ *ma rl I zeal ewe, -,il" latheGc�t?.of Y a k . ma ., • d. aipoaa . -) .man'-J • • ,The east 6 Lest of the. northeast ,quarter of the • s' so•uthWeat quarter of the .nor•tlo�testta uarter•of- , 4•4, ••.� Section 19, TawtshID. 13 .North, Raage 18 E.N.MR•,, a %" •. The if�1eC..8 Beet o.f-•zha, szort? iaat 'g4•srttlx-of. the .. 3Dutheaat-' enter of the: itarihwaat.'quarter of 0 •_ - Sngticn •19, kownohip.13; aortal,, Ran e•-.-1 , :T:i1.bi., t to. Have and to'-bold tork'•t se•;as'a public- road •.. + forever. DATED this day .or October, 1954. . • • . %--7,PA-(fri...1 r�7• 'l _ a- `may. .. .• , •. . yam'« a. \ ,_ • . ....• r - -.LYtiv _ . -4ttil ' ' • x ._ to s _ y • I. t TTT. . t:..e. • 1 3 -4• r T - ...- '•+ - .••S .. _ F :, a •,...h. e �rrtl q! da - _ �� ! RE1« � R • - Im„, flYt�E J; FRdt' ..` is! •f If 1 /{i1Yw 0414' 1W7'MwtiI + sTRo .• _-ttd sat k 12 IQ t1Wa t II idiftgagill still ;Nit 414bD 011001114 idi1i irteliti Ala baripitit limumottoia4- :04- . w •,Y is 4:44 ,,i . ory . , ..;..., .. 7101/ o '''' :" • . • .(' .w. 41111k." - •* .14.'44k. ., ' • ,*!1,'44, 4 - ''..,71- .". .. II, 4-o,..r .1. Afr • '','; ':," ;fy •,'„,6• 4 (Tot ..,•-• - , .440 • .-,Is' .,,to-', . ,.. ,:A ... . ...:"...4... • - (fel 4,, . .• ,L.:,,,c 4.4. . 0 I ;... 404' jiiiiim.b.' 100 fie4 " '•'. k ' i.f,,.,,t, • It.,4;1411' 46110,0t;' ' *`14# •,, ,• :••474, • - .• ,,,,,,,..09.x. ,, _",,_,,,,,, *‘ ' .• .- • '''',tat' ' I*, .:Vfro •,, . ,••• •4,6°. •• . -ftedt •44?'.•., , ... . , • ,, . • APPA • ,- olpi•,, ,-„„., . ., -1, 1 .' '' , AP, , ,".j'I'l• ,. , ...I , ' ‘ • • • #0 . '041 • .. '' ' 'Ve • ••. .r '' AO ' . ' ,,11 • — 7 t• — '. . . t• •0•••'.4,,-,0 ' .•-. '• ,, i , -,*" -•$,.; , ".4,14,«1'°,•4"l7,fre"-.AI,t t4'e.-'',.-fi 1`,'e t.'''l-''.: 0.:0`f.f,'•*...,.*-17 A',.4,‘ 'f. *,''-',' -'4•,;.4 1,N.NI:":. a 4,,.,1''''i' •.``.)'.'.. ,', ',.'' ,'I,•,I.,*•-..:.o 4.-.,4,.,.i•.. i .•' •..,,•„.,. 4.:. q •r • .,',,i f•• •- ` ' + 4 1 e "4.; , • • ,.... °-- .. . •.' .. • '.. Y9. fl,e4, ,,,-. , 4,e,07 - y . , ,,. I •, -•„,,,t,„.-",-,•- •.,• •,•., . •. .• ..- ,,,1 ' , ' , • ..• .„, * ' ' ,',,' t .;;',f.'II': -7',A4• i':'. it' ';':.,it: •,..`iP, ..i. /1 . ,- . .,.., • ,,, 1A. i' . . .., , ',.'' ' • ,... ., .. , ••- - '''''..thr , • kk'''4'"'' '' '. t 4, 4. , . . .1...14. '0,1%.• ' ' •. ,i J ($• -* 't ' .; 111#1". '..f-''• • .' .. .. 4. , • -... . •-• •':'''''4,7 4°., ° . • • ° r-, ' L''' °- •• -',41,-;.. — .4, , , , •.,°, I IL. . , '..... .-) gillt ,-,.. -440.j."Ne -,:, ,e , ,• ..,.,,.- ,.. • . , ; '-'°., ,i' ,.,„,: ,-1 . ..•1 .. 'i ''..-." #° ilf .41i, ; .4 ,'4 .4...:°. •°' if: -''°;,.4,-- , I ., .. 4 ..., ....„.. . , . . ., . . . . .-..---::.. 4":4‘11`' ' , ._____._-----,'-vitisw,.-4,•itu, ,... ,...:.„. ., 11 . . . • , . — ' ..-4!:-.;.-,...••314 , ' •Se -. ' . ..:„.;-:.-pc-;. • •_-• _...., ... .. ....;;;e.i.e. • .... ., , ,._. . - '''' ' • - - -- . "- • s:''A 4''':.,-;', '''''.4. . ":' -2 '''"*.:---:11: .., 'z''."-, - . .. • - " - . ,W;•,1,.'ittm,;,,...::,-...r, '.----...o .,!'::-4---, . .. ., -^ ,';.,*,...,•i, .,.• _V. :.. -yi„s4Aittairi... -. - - ', 4- 10"iitA:Al; '.:..... • . . —..''''''''''''''' ' '''"2 ' 2' 1.,C, '140,244*.4. 'A. • '' ,.. ..-; •:',..._:-..;,..-4'. - ' -' ''':' '''.*- —--'. . ." '''':' . . • . • ,, ,- - . ,f . . -_- ........ •-• . . f t,- ., . " •4:"V :40.: ..ioil 7 ',:... - . ...... .. .. -st.. .. - . N-c e .' 1- • `" ' '317/;'n: '1'.'44 ' ',.. .... "•:::.,„4 ''. ' ''S'-,, "" - -.in" • ';' '. -, iN . ,,,,'•4:. . ie ,...P.1 . 4r .-.4t7-:'" 0. - -f,,... ,,, ,i.,c ..„,„„et,i...... -, ,,• . ..,. ., Arallcre. /..' t111441tiV.. I. -, t, , .. , lin . , 42e ,; • ,.....f. . 'L.,-7,'" A,'-"s`.„;.,,l‘ '.. , , 7',' '', , •••'' • .., • NA; * '""' • . e . ,,,,-, •N - • '4'1" / 1,1 ,..r," ;i"A-`4*-",k--- - -. Sol''44 . ;- 1-:-... .., m i . •,I;•Z t* • W ' 1, ,? 4:it?. tr,.., • •••:. '.. •••rrip 1 , •• . ::le.:::1,,,,i,7,.ijc,...• .' 'a'.:::::I i.,,. .'' . ::4,......1 I"..• ..,•-•W, i•,..,,,,...4, I / .046 , . <01',',.4:, ;...71:.:7:;;::3.;‘,Is,64,04.,t.:4":.;,:,,,,.;Y. ..,4,4",..‘'1:.:**14.,:-.i.ert:,:)::2)''N::'114• .,'*°rtff.,P7''''...-'4'-',,:„...:,,,4.::*-'1 r' . r. ,` •, i '.. -,'" ,, ,,,,--,,,,,,:,,,.,Ji.t.":1 ',01,0 .. %of,'4..--.., , - • ,6.,• '';VC'? - ' ,...ik14 ,-;;;, A e`•;ph b•'l'erf`-',.....141... .", `, _ 1 "d• ,. '. , r 4 ., ,- "de ir j.;e 'j...,r,,:°a...-r , ''' '''. ' , Aa..cl` li • • I t", - ...,Jo• , .., Noth. 1-',It' 1 „.A r L',Ar 4.4. •Ar- --ag••• ' e-aw., •,,,,,....t.g.,,.!... ...._,,-;44410. .,,. ,k.,,,,i,..,.... r , og A. • A" .0.... . • ,itiVA- .„, 6-. dp. ,i - * ..... I.+. • ,- ,,,.. • . • • • - . ' * '''.- • • " --,,, •lfs,e ft-, . - .. C. • . , .i.:7--:..—.....7--Z;-4 : ""4"`-- . -- - '- -4.-4..*.s. - - • . A,- . •..,-• --. ......--....,;,,xe,-.7—Iv.- - ,,-*-- -...-*. ,., - -. "4, ,..:.r.,4 !.. . _ .. . .4*, *0— -, ‘ . 11611Q4iiti 'elk* • - '-74:f•toeitL-14?;"t4tv...4442''''`- , -,t •' 4,:--1 ,4,.. - .1 sj4"4" iit tit!.-.,„,,,,,;, ' • .,. • ....=".. , AIP.. . , .....,...„.,. ..-' - ' ..41,.., •, - ..,..:- ::- ,... ' - t — . , . , . . . .-..,-.;,--- • '7:1?1** - ..- ,;.. ,,., 4._ • ..,.,:-. - • ,. h, • --":. - - • , ,'V .., - •' '• ' .;..... .. -- • . . .. ,.- ‘ s . . ''' . , t, \ • - - . . . . - 4_ • . , . - ‘,. • .. - -,.. . .. .r,. . ,-.._- ... 41 . ... ' . . ° . . . . . . . .. ,A. ' , ' ' ' '• " , . , . • .'.,,,, • l _ .:• -. - . ' , - . ft"' - ,. ' . ,,';'.' — "'. ' i• . -' i . "•' • ::•:-., , ',. , • Iv, •,\ .• • _, .7 4.r,„, „:f",,",,,,•• ..'',"t'-. ''. '''''-' -r •... , •- ,.?"" 1. '•,. '- 1.* - ••• • ' .‘', '1.',,' i $.! I, ** '*':'' .' 1,*. .;Z IP' os-' '' ' s , •'; ":":( 1 ..': •.!.: '• t' -•-•;'- t.e',' 7`7 ' . k''. '.. ,,....i • X , " ' ,''‘ ', ..- i• ' 4"..,.. 1.C,'"i..16,:',.-., ,.c. )1 i'l* ., k;'' (-4t7 '4'^.-'• ' : ' ' i' Sj 4 t e ./7% t' Ir -''' ".. ','t . -'i '1'.'• ' t. ,''' -... . ..1' ,.., ' '' ••7•-',, „ "A't1 . ."17 ", ‘,,t,'Neir, \,-vgr,,,/,,s,. .-114 ,,4r:-''' 1 ..:.',- 7.;-,*.„N--..,- z,.• ' - --''...'• , ... .'„ -,:',-,.i ,i, f.,":„,,! ,.`.-,;,-,.;. -4.. -.,,,•, J, -.- . ,. ;.„... • ,.... ,.,,,,,,,:- .,:. •,,>1/ .,:o. . -.• . , . — ,,,,--. . ' : „-„ . . ),--,, , . , 4 r 4., .' ,., i.?",' A 4 , Ns' 47:-. -,;,:,er: • s, , '''....A. ' ' ''. • ' ' •."'' ::k.>7 14',%•,,i, '* ;',..1" 7,:sk,,. <-:-'111 , ."***:.:,''' ,"7\rf".p.A_ `4,c`-':%1,?. i 4, -, 4' `r. . '''.11 ',-1,4,::.'.-`-,1 - - .itc. ' - .,.. . --- -.4' , '‘' si.,..'-.,;.. ,,•-- ,..4„1-•-•.,--% 1.:.i‘r R: f.,4 ‘,,: -,, ..,,,,:‘,/, •-:- . ; •. 4.4.. . -.7 , ,- ,,.. •!'8 t .. 1 ',r" ' , • - ' . j ' ' IT ,, ./, ' " I "r,,, /i•t- '1' r i ) .0 I L • . P•C ,,, 1 vi ' 7 ,' i ) , ' ' ' ,44,,,. , • A ;, / , r• ,-T... 1 .41, ,,, . 4 . ,,t1„ , - i •P ,r," , • . , . • -c. • ../ . '-0, • ', r fl pl IVi . t 7 ,,, - •....... ,,,, I t, .... ,t, e ) • . . , :,..... - ,, •„••., iv i 1 i, 4 , • ' • "" -.; )1 l', ''i J .. e t.,..;,''Vq•,:":,' i t' 4 ill-- - . , •$ , ? i ,i ,. , -f-- rpc...,,,•-,e,,.;, ..,,. ......._ .../ , ' •"•...ri, , ...""- ,41,,g, .'..- •••••-•li. I- I ,.; " , 1 e•, 1 : 4 ,,-> . zYirriry .",•••• , 4 .. if•110,0,„Br? , ) 4 s , „ "',', * -..-• ...,, '1k-"'•.1"01110' ,. •.... l, '. '-;• 4 i4 ' t ' 'i-* • , -,..-, agf,frP,i,e,i"....,:to, •t,k 444; ,/ ' ..r."..le , ,.:, „.4.,, , , 0. , i ...te Y**4„, ! '104.0....f:40,.• k • , .., I .0 i.0 7.i ''' ' • I. . r 414 ; e 'A 1 fr' Y ,,,, f ,..: , . •.., '4,-- 7 •-• -'r.'‘..,:tior,..-46-41"-....9? rr • ...1•4'1', ,,, ,, .•', • ii i. 4 ; .„ .„,...,,,„,4••e-fig,t,,,,i ),,,,thoes, ; 1 i • i' /.4,41 / 5‘,• 4;* i , ' ' Pa....-k_,,-•1'.' 2. 3:0',..7 ' ,,.,',,, . , ' •• :01,7,r,c,t, 144, .....1 ,!..„4.I ,, 4A4:44, -• \ ' '„d',..e-•a e" ' . ' i4/' 4" , 1 1, , # ' - i•,...iXelY , ' . :i i ,404/4 • • , .' /1" '4,1;0 . ' ' • ''' ', ') .,, _ 4 . , ( • 4 t, ',4,p), , ' 4‘..a tt.*174?),4-. •,, '' • . ow 4, r r, e. y',,,. ' ' .4.4,v.-....•-; -.0%;• je.,?, ,,t-,A.,,,,.. 1.....tfl, a .• 1, • t.P' '''',/ • ',4, • ' ,.'. ''''../).1W "Pt eo 1 • 'It:'-`:`" I "-4'r '6?• • ' ''.2.e.' . . r °I. f '° *4 :.' .2'. X..-' ''...;•w)S ..' , ' " -, ‘-*A', ID ',,' "it1.7-,. s.!-.!6".- - 4 -.,. .,i;.7; --''1,„•114;'4,,.AP,..t. w" /- . r.t al" •'(27 ,a'2° • • 1 ... :- • '1' '4 F,L4'°'. .,:'L,,'•:.,44.:;;;),;71,'Z''''. ....4, 1",''' ' ' •' - f • , , I • .i, ;0- -J 4 4:-.• ,'-:.." 3.:1,-''' ' '' i , . . ...,s „-t, ,,..- ,- ...0 --,141 • -:,-:ft). ir - .. :x.-.0,, • ,' • •-'<-74 ,,t; - , ti,., iw -. ‘ ,,I,..r , ••-,: ..',,4: • '?')A * 1"'"-- ' , *i 1:ir- r ,.:,,g'",'-,„•#1.•.•,;51 . , . • • ,.. ,- ' •, fa, ., • ww,„.1;, ,,r•,;,1r. ,..7i. -." 5,, '1 - ./ id 1. •'*....,t.,,ift;"1,,:1:',,,,„?; 14:. - " '.', -' . ' ',• .41 i'-' i • 11 - .._ 1,. )• ..f 1,',, 1,P1-,•e ' • ' - 4 : A,', ,.'•4< .:1. .-'-'-,k ,.: - ,.1 ‘ •'... 1. '")?, . •,' •, • - . , ,- . - ,, , .,''', ', ' .0' • 4). • '1- ' t,... ,w•••••, ,,,- " ,4-`.• .- , . / . - •.- ‘ ,, •,, w•i ,: 4:,zr r , , A,,,I• _- , ,, ,•.„A , i• I — .../..4,-* -..11,l'•:. • *r•O'Iii I, -, •z„,,', , , , , . , ..•- : ., •.11,e . ‘ ' .-,'f7.':1 "'''w' , '.• '' At ;..1',1• - '# ' " w •'• -, ,•. wk. ' LI..-,;10%(1• „„%ji*s3 . V.,,,, . ,•. , . ,* -, . • 1,, ,, 4, i 0 #r s., ..,f;S: ,;'4„._h:k : lit., ,. • . l # . #. . ,.. ,,, -,...,, ~-, ,A„1..,,,w.• - ,„: .3,•, ,„!.., -ii.,, . ,• . -•.„f...,e..Ti„,,44),.. *14 "4••:' ,..t. . ." :.s'•• ' *., #r,1 lv,' ,1',t, tiei ,,,,,v,,,i• :- % • A4,,: •:,- "Ac ,, - ''4•••n.'t 4 ... , ,,., ' 4 :'.• i•"'•;;'•v. ' '.:5, .'•%-.44,t,Pti• ,'2, : , , ‘: , ,„...',',. ,,',,,,,•Ii.-.:?4,:,..,,i44,,,4,,;., ,Acr, ,.,:-•,, , 1,,,, .2, , - , v .0 ° , 1 1 a ,.Soil,.'.,...'; ,,,,i,11, -. 4: •,.,, ^ A,, ...,...4, , .,\ .! , • ,, . ,, ': ...4/14 1 fte ':',Xtto`ti;§0.2,tra e"tj -174` ' V' '1 1-. , i ,14,- `'; * ,Zik.'• „,,,Iltgie'eku?•,.... Isl.*: „"" ir„,.# i 1,', '. 1„.• q... ,5'..,- . r7•.,.., .14,1.•- . -. 3- t s 1: - !::‘14.''' ?. :1-'2 ' J., 1:-4, . ,,y,: .,,,,,,,, fi,' ,-):4',.%A..,.-•P''''.‘, 41,..7g-. . .,41, ,'• • : '' ;" P 2,. •• . ,, ,- 11 :41'2..$-'„tr,i t s pen,...':44.*..1.:,..r,I., 4,:- v Al, . , ;, , ,,, _ ; , . „.. 4 fe•454'4';','eti;"A‘4C^4,14''''' '' 4. 1:8/. N''' ' . ..' ••A , .-', ., , - .. 4, ,• : .„. ,.. ,0-,'... ..., , ,. ... ,.. - . ' .4 -,(-.., , • 2 N.• -I:Nt,' ,,no' ..-',.. 6, •''..,), w:,-te ,,:,' .- -‘-'f.' • '4*: -• ,,\.;1*. r.s;tk , ' iii.•',• r -,:,..4„ , ,,, 4 li, ' -'. ;iiiii*ON k-" , ' , ', , ,zt ;:',. .$r ' 4jr 464 -.1'''' :- '',i,`ez•i 44. `-.'4- dr: , , • - ti ' , •' ‘ _A • ' ,,, '!''''' , ft • 1 *4(,11;',-;:rV.,,-, „- ..4:".--..k; '"44-11- '4 .-s' - ' ., - ",' ' 1,, .? , • 4(ri .,,,:e ,,i.....-„,';`,,,r1.,,,,,a,c , s, ..'7,1• . -1 .•..s.1 ' , , VA • .S' ''',,'"•71" •zx '•1.-•„FIN-..,, ".!",,,•"- •A • ' '4' .( 4 '• wlp D'--,'.. 1:1:'•'t:-. , .-e. :144e4 „.",:•,$.4•-•,,,rit-2.4k. ',7 ';',1, '''',-'14 ,t`• - • ••1 1,-, f•,. ',I 14 , ,„, ,,,, , ,,,,,,,,,,,...eyt,q.../....tc+,,„e i v•A 0 . ,% ,1',';, ,. l 1.. 7.2.,„ tk ,, ',..f , ..0 . , , - s„. .r.. , ,.1,- •,:te,-.... 1.,• -. -1. • ,I. ,,.1.'.1,"I •4 ,) ,. • . 1,„,-41.. 1•,,,'.-711' 0 ,. ,,,'A r‘i,.,-L I A' ' .. ' '... VA' .411,4 '- fr‘ • ' .., •Z,,.itz. . ,,, . ,. • . - ,-2+:4c et, At-it...44A :. .,,;:.,,,,, •,it I, # i,.,:•. • „I , i,„ .( '•n, :,./aNsiti%'gr.- ',.. ,,•••-, ' ' ' •:,,,,x, • P. - ,c, i,. ,." •i ," ), .• , ku ,' -,‘, • •w, '4-, „;,, ,.,,#•,e, ...,,,, 4,,,,A,,,„ t,,,,, . , i , ir,0 .1" a,,i o' IF 4, ;• ' ,ilt •,*„.'', c Q,:Fs. a r ,. ' ` 'il. Af#'4 '', '''' '1.0ipt":"•', . 4 .., *7',,,'' 45.. , Z f ,,iii4 • ,'1,, V ..\.„ / 1. i •r,p;.,,,... , • t.... :• • ^,.. „,, ,,,, ..,,,,,. < • . * I, 4. _,..,, l'i 1,),1,, f.,, ..,„•',''.; I., ;;_••••10, , 'It:: t, v'• • ' r scl,,,,„,• '„,• tt, 4;,-, ,,,•, ' ..,‘,„. .„ ',, •,-,Apt.,•tw,.....,i • ;#1..,-,,, ..‘w, , , „'4,",.. •r,-„,•-•.;a J - 4,ri,%' . .;;,-,:, ,0.,,,y,.Q ;,!.2.':;,,,v* - T- ' ;?. , ',''' " 3 '' , '14 i4 .A•• • 1 1,'.': it.-11 ii 1 i3.r4k10';'" ),k. '' i 4 '. :. 'i:•-' -,..".,61..,'., *.Vi*t li' :,*:"-4": ,-i,\ ,, .e. l'40 '1' • V ' I. '' . •1 ‘ . • .., 4 , j• - / 1 • 014,1 ti; ?:' ,1,1",.t WC4'0141,jkiZ)7. ,;.:. • ..^.‘' S k '' ' tit:.,..'2.'40-T7-f,-,..4. -, . ' •• •%111,': ,, ''''A 4 1,,,'...-3,4,4 , ' . ' , -..",,,A,... . .4'A A'Mid ':. *'' ' I. ...'..t....": • •-• ' [ "} } _t U.v bp N. ' S -'Y .r1. ?it:. 4 i Y i :+ ;.fi e e rr .yM`z'.\ ;. ti �tLr: '.t` to Y 1 ��Yi 414,4, -ri4% r f4t,µ • FF`� to! '+:, Yt �i L t jr 4twA iliG 4�1 ,. ur #��• r t "i*-"L-1\\ \ 1:11 Z. \ : :,• ',. I , 'i iT t+i.3' '� f•*.1 t i r ` 4 } I :*,....*:., , .,, At. , ,k - '.-..z , �t i M "I ` `� xr t i;4.9 12 `i' k;,, t i •4•'MF i ItVF N fit,r-, t ' t.' yy A Y• .. - •.'‘.. • .f,:,f,ily .1-•_ .4414 .•„.:. l„. • • ,, , , ..4 -• ; , ..: 4 ' • . . 4. ,„ • ,-, 4,:, ' '", - ,'••-44' ..- 1, -,' , ••,. 'ri '' -;;;,•', ,, ,`, ' . . --' I., - ' ,, •'' ''..:'' -: ',,, --' 4.- , 4 I.-- 'i 4 '- i •.. r 1 .-.' . , -,,- ... . . . ...,., : 2 ,. - ....• , .. . ._ ,.. . .- ,i,,,,,..,---A- ..-.'-it,cf r..•' . -..,-. .... .. . , ,.. ,rt- . ... ., . . -. it , . • - .,. -4 •, ....4.,.. ,,,,„ ,, i •.,, , • iii .. „. ' ?, 1.. . •'' ,-. .:,,-- , \ : :, t' ' . •' : , " ; ..,. , . . ...„ , 4; . • ,, . • , ,, '" • ' • • • , ii. ' \r' . .. --"-- ,','" • !" i ! , ,'t. '0,t' I, -, ', - '. , , .t, . , . , i ' •• .,,• • , - i f -,, 't... . •s*:-.,,:v---: _. _ .. . ).--J '',-• --: ... .7:-;.• . .. — , _ • (:' --.. ' .,,• 44•111livel.fi— ,, f,, ' 'i ' ,- „ .. , •„,••sfilA., . A, ay,rak ‘*".' - ....- „;f.6,, ., ,, ors.- , t' '• ,, ,, -17-1*. 46*..• I$•••:.NTt.:*? • • ,l• • At '4 • , •.W• • s ' . ..• 7.'1.;.a4 , . i i ‘'1 f,• .- ,.. ... ' J:47•,..„, ti„ k ..., ..'.‘, ' i,, • ',,, i` Ci ... , I''; ,i. Iflt:4 ',,•, •', . . ,'', ''' , ' ,.., kk r.i •.. . ' i- • . . ,i,., . 4 1 4a Lilil .? ,.•ot o 1 , , . . . . , . , ? . .. i • • '',",' ' " ,4 • , ' ti' • •, • . . . . ., . •• , a ,' • . / • • . . . • , . . , "1 ,-- . 1't• ,. , i., • , , , . • , , 14e ' • ., .• 1 •• • ,, . . .11 • , • ' .•''r1 . , .- , • 1'7 . . .. , • , 4.). ,,',' a• ,t' 1 •i', ' • , . • ' 1 , ' '• . ' • ..f 1 . , . . ,1.4, . , . ,e , . • 1 . 4 , , •, .- •, . . . . •• . • . •'I;. : -,,,.. ' • 'i ' , . 4, .- - , 0. •, , 0 ...,..!'"..:': . , -..7",...;:.. .-., ... 9130/24,8:37 PM Gmail-Requested Civil Plans and Specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3 Gmail Neil Hauff<neil.haufftgmail.com> Requested Civil Plans and Specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3 8 messages McPherson, Kirsten <Kirsten.McPherson©yakimawa.gov> Mon,Aug 19, 2024 at 9:30 AM To: "neil.hauff@gmail.com" <neil.hauff©gmail.com> Good Morning, See attached for requested approved civil plans and specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3— N. 92nd Ave. and Lincoln Ave. Thank you, Kirsten McPherson Development Engineer City of Yakima 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 (509)575-6228 Kirsten.McPherson@yakimawa.gov 2 attachments .. ENG-23-0018 -Rainier Court Phase 3 -Signed Approved Civil Plans.pdf -J 18137K Private Construction of Public Facilites General Specifications.pdf 687K Neil Hauff<neil.hauff@gmail.com> Tue,Aug 20, 2024 at 8:11 PM To: RCPHousing@hotmail.com Reed, Attached are the prints that I received from the City of Yakima after Michele has tried two times to get them. Each time she went to the city, she came back empty handed with an explanation..."We cannot give them to you because they are not done."which is contrary to what Gary Cullier said. You will notice the date on ones received is 11/15/23. You will also notice that N. 92nd Ave. and Lincoln Ave do not exist as they have built it. Furthermore, the height of the gravel pile that will be given to us to drive on is in excess of 6'. How can you build the intersection without a drawing? Who is the third party who recorded the approved road specification methodology that has not been noted on the drawing ( i.e. subbase, size of rock, quantified layering to get the best compaction, compaction ratio)for quality composition ? Who has signed off on that two day construction? https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?i k=4684f01286&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1807834195871105415&simpl=msg-f:1807834 19587 1 1054 15&simpl=... 1/7 9/30/24,8:37 PM Gmail-Requested Civil Plans and Specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3 Do we have pictures to record the event? Let me know when you are available. Neil [Quoted text hidden] 2 attachments .1 ENG-23-0018 - Rainier Court Phase 3 -Signed Approved Civil Plans.pdf 18137K Private Construction of Public Facilites General Specifications.pdf 687K Neil Hauff<neil.hauff@gmail.com> Sat,Aug 24, 2024 at 9:37 AM To: michele hauff<shelleyhauff©gmail.com> [Quoted text hidden] 2 attachments ENG-23-0018 - Rainier Court Phase 3 -Signed Approved Civil Plans.pdf -' 18137K .. Private Construction of Public Facilites General Specifications.pdf -' 687K Neil Hauff<neil.hauff©gmail.com> Mon,Aug 26, 2024 at 4:24 PM To: "McPherson, Kirsten" <Kirsten.McPherson@yakimawa.gov> Good Afternoon Kirsten, I received your packet Rainier Court Phase 3—N. 92nd Ave. and Lincoln Ave.and I thank you for that. However, Sheet C1.04 does not show the transition from Lincoln Ave. to N. 92nd Ave. Lincoln Ave. terminates on the east side of N 92nd Ave. Do you have a drawing that shows the detail of the intersection of Lincoln Ave. and N 92nd Ave.? I look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully Neil Hauff [Quoted text hidden] McPherson, Kirsten <Kirsten.McPherson@yakimawa.gov> Tue,Aug 27, 2024 at 12:41 PM To: Neil Hauff<neil.hauff@gmail.com> Neil, If I understand your request correctly, you are asking for a roadway detail of the intersection of 92nd Ave and Lincoln Ave. Since the R/W vacation requested that 92nd Ave be vacated south of the intersection with Lincoln Ave, the civil plans do not have a detail at this location. North of Lincoln Ave, 92nd Ave is actually a driveway and there is a driveway detail on the plans provided (also see attached). Please note that the detail does not identify the grades of the driveway (how steep or flat the driveway connection will be). The contractor, has modified Lincoln Ave to be higher so that the driveway connection is much flatter than originally shown on the civil plans. We currently do not have a detail showing the exact grades. https://mai l.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=4684f01286&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1 807834 1 9587 1 1 054 1 5&simpl=msg-f:1 807834 1 9587 1 1 0541 5&simpl=... 2/7 9/30/24,8:37 PM Gmail-Requested Civil Plans and Specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3 I hope this answers your question, however please let me know if it does not. [Quoted text hidden] ri City of Yakima Standard Detail R4.pdf 298K Neil Hauff<neil.hauff@gmail.com> Wed,Aug 28, 2024 at 6:41 PM To: "McPherson, Kirsten"<Kirsten.McPherson@yakimawa.gov> Bcc: RCPHousing@hotmail.com Kirsten, Thank you for your reply. Yes I was asking for the details of N. 92nd Ave. and Lincoln. It has only been 4+years since this project started and I still do not see the path home. It is obvious that getting the development up and running is more important than maintaining what was there.A full integration would include the civil plans so the bona fide building of the intersection of N. 92nd and Lincoln could be accomplished.A contractor who modifies Lincoln Ave. is not necessarily following plans which are engineered because you say "the civil plans do not have detail at this location". How can a contractor come up to City of Yakima standards without the guidance of a set of plans? Is there a third Party that has documented the work done? The end of Lincoln Ave. shows in print C3.00 that"Construct Stabilized Construction Entrance Per Detail On This Sheet" pointing to what appears to large rock under the road graphically. The neighbor did not see any large rock go in place at the end of Lincoln. If you could show otherwise by pictures or delivery, I would appreciate it. In addition, the gravel pile used for the approach at the end of Lincoln is a good 6 feet tall. I have attached pictures of the same. I question the construction that has been performed. For each lift of gravel, what is the compaction ratio and what road specification standards are you following for this total height? Who has signed off on this road intersection construction? Even though there has not been a traffic study for this development, it does not alleviate one from proper engineering and construction. How can one build without plans? I have attached drawings from the AASHTO "Green Book" Policy On Geometric Design Of Roadways. These drawings represent a 53 foot Bekins moving van. If you could overlay this sketch on your end of Lincoln Ave.intersection plans, I would appreciate it. Once you do this, It will represent that one could not take a Bekins moving van to my home as was done 24 years prior. You also say"92nd Ave is actually a driveway" but according to Google Maps 92nd Ave goes to the Y on the road. This intersection with N 92nd is not a driveway. See map attached If this improper road build remains or cannot be shown by record or pictures of engineered quality build, I would assume the City of Yakima would issue a Hold Harmless document for any that travel that intersection of N 92nd Ave and Lincoln Ave. I look forward to your reply. Respectfully Neil Hauff [Quoted text hidden] 7 attachments https://mai I.googl e.com/mail/u/1/?i k=4684f01286&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1 807834 19587 1 1 054 1 5&si mpl=msg-f:1 807834 1 9587 1 1 054 1 5&simpl=... 3/7 9/30/24,8:37 PM Gmail-Requested Civil Plans and Specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3 71 111 IMG_3111.jpg 1351 K IMG_3137.jpg 1483K IMG_3319.jpg 857K 111. IMG_3318.jpg 778K 1111111111 IMG_3312.jpg 1049K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=4684f01286&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1807834195871105415&simpl=msg-f:1807834195871105415&simpi=... 4/7 9/30/24,8:37 PM Gmail-Requested Civil Plans and Specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3 IMG_3306.jp9 1314K N 92nd Ave.JPG 182K • . t Neil Hauff<neil.hauff@gmail.com> Thu,Aug 29, 2024 at 6:14 PM To: Irtofohio <Irtofohio@yahoo.com> Forwarded message ----- From: Neil Hauff<neil.hauff@gmail.com> [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 7 attachments • IMG_3111.jpg 1351K IMG_3137.jpg 1483K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=4684f01286&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1807834195871105415&simpl=msg-f:1807834195871105415&simpl=... 5/7 ,9/30/24,8:37 PM Gmail-Requested Civil Plans and Specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3 IMG_3319.jpg 857K • 1111111 • IMG_3318.jpg 778K IMG_3312.jpg 1049K IMG_3306.jpg • 1314K N 92nd Ave.JPG 182K Neil Hauff<neil.hauff©gmail.com> Thu,Aug 29, 2024 at 6:21 PM To: Irtofohio <Irtofohio@yahoo.com> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=4684f01286&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1807834195871105415&simpl=msg-f:1807834195871105415&simpl=... 6/7 9/30/24,8:37 PM Gmail-Requested Civil Plans and Specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3 ------ Forwarded message ------ From: Neil Hauff<neil.hauff@gmail.com> Date: Tue,Aug 20, 2024 at 8:11 PM [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 2 attachments - ENG-23-0018 - Rainier Court Phase 3 -Signed Approved Civil Plans.pdf - 18137K - Private Construction of Public Facilites General Specifications.pdf - 687K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=4684f01286&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1807834195871105415&simpl=msg-f:1807834195871105415&simpl=... 7/7 '''0'24,8:34 PM Gmail-Requested Civil Plans and Specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3 144" 1 G m a i I Neil Hauff<nell.hauff@gmail.com> Requested Civil Plans and Specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3 3 messages Neil Hauff<neil.hauff@gmail.com> Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 6:30 AM To: "McPherson, Kirsten" <Kirsten.McPherson@yakimawa.gov> Bcc: Reed Pell <RCPHousing@hotmail.com> Good Morning Kirsten, Could you so kindly respond to my email of August 28,2024? Respectfully, Neil Hauff McPherson, Kirsten <Kirsten.McPherson@yakimawa.gov> Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 2:59 PM To: Neil Hauff<neil.hauff@gmail.com> Good Afternoon Neil, Thanks for reminding me of the need to respond. The Engineering office is currently short three staff and many of us are doing double duty and are not able to respond as quickly as we would like. I have reviewed your request and there are multiple issue/requests. While I could try to find all of the info, I may get it wrong as I'm a little confused as to some of what you are asking. As a result, I would like to set up a meeting with you and the Acting City Engineer to discuss your specific concerns. As he has the primary responsibility for the construction of the roadway, he will be able to provide a response to your questions, or can begin gathering what you are requesting. Looking at his schedule, we can probably find some time the week of Sept 23rd. I'm sorry we can't find a time sooner, but he is also doing double duty. I have the following times available, please let me know if any of these work for you. September 23rd: 1:30 pm—2:00 pm September 24th: 3:30 pm—4:00 pm September 27th: 2:00 pm—2:30 pm September 30th: 2:00 pm—2:30 pm Also, while 92nd Ave. is shown north of the canal, actual City right-of-way stops at the canal (see attached where pink mark shows end of ROW just south of canal). Thank you for letting us know that our mapping is showing this incorrectly. We will get this fixed as soon as possible. Thank you, Kirsten McPherson https:PmaiI.google.com!mail!u!1!?ik=4684f01286&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-417835386147049739&simpl=msg-a:r-2354546566504372411&simpl... 1/2 9/30/24,8:34 PM Gmail-Requested Civil Plans and Specifications for Rainier Court Phase 3 Development Engineer City of Yakima 129 N. 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 (509)575-6228 Kirsten.McPherson©yakimawa.gov [Quoted text hidden] ` ROW Ima a PNG 1802K ifinc Neil Hauff<neil.hauff©gmail.com> Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 9:22 AM To: "McPherson, Kirsten"<Kirsten.McPherson©yakimawa.gov> Good Morning Kirsten, We are definitely all overworked and underpaid but the train moves on. Having an engineer as a title should give you an edge on answering the basic questions that need to be answered. If your house is on fire, you do not set up a meeting for a fire truck 3 weeks later to put the fire out now do you? If the City of Yakima signs off on the road intersection as built, how have you shown me that a 53 foot Bekins moving van can navigate the intersection as well as a fire truck on a 6 foot gravel base with no compaction ratio recorded or photographed to prove the same. I do not need your appeasement, but instead I need your answers. I am willing to meet with the City Engineer but I know his time is valuable and if we meet at the available time, the asphalt at that intersection will be hard. I look forward to your reply. Respectfully, Neil Hauff [Quoted text hidden] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=4684f01286&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-417835386147049739&simpl=msg-a:r-23 5454 6 5665043 724 1 1&simpl... 2/2 2-24 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 1615rn 4.57m [ (53.0 it( I [15.0ft 1.37m 13.87 rn 0.91r.7 :5 fl) 1II [45.5 ftj 1 (3 0 9j a irm OO [ O O 530rn @ * 1.22rn I .4 1. (174 ft [4.0ttj L122m 1.35m 5.94,n r (4.0`1j [4.4 h' hj 20.42 m [19.5 [67.0 ft] 22.40 m [73.5 ft] r u 5h 1uN NEP D 1m 25m S:a e Path of left / , Path of front front wheel / •\Voverhang re M \ 3 1 , 441166,4,.//' , II 1 0,59 m m n 1 { // // (1.9hj , �// 0 5f1 10! , 0 1rn 7 5 m , , Scale , I)@ I , II Path of right , rear wheel • Max.steering angle is 28.4, • CTR=Centerline turning • radius at front axle • M1 =68,5° • I—I /1211 I 8.5 h1 1 • ••r . . . . . ..al.• •. .8..._.._._•_ e_.._.._.f.__L..n ,n I.." r 11. I .-1-. .....•... T.E.S.C.NOTES ,. SPFCTILN NO LEGENDT_,.DE„N MO LOCAL TO DRNNNEESENT SYSTENS.CNARCE ,D T ITO„ESOR ALE E ED N RED." "A INST.AMMO.MEASURES A SRO. PUNS ME ME MINN.TINT ME READ FOR M,EN AN 2.-xWN RM<LL RSA ER MM°.s.�, Dq RA°�,S MMPA'FD AL 110___ E R.SAS RE O HN USED BY DORDN MT DAM O°TES ETEINT L„LL O O D O SLT FENCE �3 — i � \.\\\`__ �TM�N°1H°P�° N USED RE BROUGHT TO NE nHH xINN W BwaIEEA LEA.M.MS NOT RPUW MT p . IL 1NE NAT CLEARING UNITS /�% — _ `\\\ ..RUCT TONTNPE ONECITY TT AN OMIED°R SYS1.SEAM. OR T•--: 1 TIE CONTRACTOR MALL NOT ONMARN MN/WATER GENERATED MY OUIPE ry ILS m SURFACE WATERS MR THE.Aw-wi ae M6mucnox 5 . // \\t\' NC-_---.� DIRECTION OF ROW / %�\ OMryACid NM PROTECT MD MESRL MST.K¢T Td BEYOND NE CONTRACTOR 9fN1 NOT g50�M¢NY CIENNG CLEANED54gfIS q1 pFWwLS REFUELS.Cr V//.. /_ ALL A eE ° 1EGURMIT MA AS�roCPRUWTiDOR TOOL CR iA MISAIM THE MONO.F v DOE N / WO CONTROL H___ %// M OR j r ; /j I Re PROM CD R E w R�°R. APPLE..A A s DRNC AINAGE s oR°a ronD m DELETERIOUS S TO FRO. "°" S to ///i / /�T^` .�.ti ���� _ /ll�/ ' E.REARMMOSS,AND T RAMON s, E E Esro SLOPES.ALSO R.BF PLACED ALONG MIIU`oM`°wa➢Pc GRACE M�,"9E`EUM°folT N AM°N°RANEE NTS PP s ////fi v/!/i i J �� �''/ A. ONSTTRDcUCT.TRACTOR 1ORO.S SMALL1. CON CONTRICRCE RR.0"En am P`'`ALL Rows: M A°PM.. cosrs Or `.... iMes m�4 z fa i/��` /�j � ii//i ,�PUN AND M.O,Mgs REWIRED R.THE .RIM ACTIONS. "a: :,`a'::' O'..aN DELAYS CAUSED <.I p /i/a //// "%- ///� ...: . .ON IE.........WNW ro QOMRND aEMND AND M°HM IL x a I. p ///ii // /// 14 / // ;% ""qa ," CALL AT P AND M >...Lief HE on W W ON a rz° ,// / /'�'.A--7//// ME TEsc N.`,ES SMALL MA N N PLACE UN L STAKE:TION AS B aE •NEass�imYMDo°ICATIOrs;°� LING.P�auTANDP, w Z ,�, All ACCESSPOINTS STALL BE //r /%� %/ �'Z'` /�� %/,�! RCM.NTM'"E APPR IRO OVAL q'"°r'E ELSE`.CONTROL P 144 a N Q /5 STABILIZED TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING / // / / i / �/ F. 4. OF SEDIMENT ON TO PUBLIC ROADS // / //%; T/ /r 0q / I ///(///// PE F <P9� ONCELWASDNGSTREET SLEEPING AND / / % i, -/f C__-' I/ j I/ , A, PLACEMENT OF EROSON CONTROL BMP'S SHOWN ME P7 u < PCLEANING REVENT SEHMENTE EMPLOYED TO /` / /////// / ! // _/ II I1f J// DIAGRAMMATIC IN NATURE.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLELOW. 0 uj g e 6. / /// // //Z/'%// / ¢"/ — / 'II II 11 ,A FOR SPECIFIC LOCATIONS WITH RESPECT TO WORK FLOM. 0 /// / // /ice// p — / /l l''' l'' °7 <N X �.: /�/i�/ // //// / / %,/ /1j%��/, `"w z Dma < p //i/ "l l�ifl// // I��II,I/1 %�„�llll'l� ° m ' �Mm ._ x� �T���,i • l /i7 /,,�1 111(,.I(Ilt�lal ti�k, _ `— '' , / ,,� /7.0iiiii - /_-1 ,LIN,, • •, , r1-1\.\ ' \ \ \\\\ �O O ssrg� • /Piere-WS- 'lilac. 1IL��.i// ` / ,,j j///,! 11I !�I lI�(�\\\\ •a \\. ^--r..cass,M._-c— M �� / '� x �'x �ll/I�lll Ilf \�A xH �: • I 'MT' �.. �� / F V�` i 1 'O+,I .-//�,a, roNST�mDiccira a,�'j//�//Il/ lII\\\\ ,�\\.- .-.I, ,lily .,'sOi. ----J Vi — I'-�P oETAL ', /x/�' ( \ % t,' gym— 1 `• CI I 1 iT O /� -- �0 fi/f/ '/ /'7 cill�////%j/�/////// .� - .�..®m ..r zeta 1 1 _/// Z I// /./ /. �/ 'Z ,I 1! 1 1 I. �II I�'11/il,%/7/ I' NTS e O �� // / / 11 l• lk.l 11t 1i i\vA\11 11111 ,�( � N a / / / // I i 11 t ;1 �1��,A1\vb�\ ` 1 ..vlw" L• HAWTH ›. . ORNS AVS'L.'�y It tvi I/ / I % ,- - //" \///(l i it,/ \\\\. \`,� \'\\\\\\•\\\\\\\ \\ 1 A ,,,,, „,,, \\,, ,,v ,, ,\ \„,,,,,s. ,..., , INSTALL SILT FENCE AT 1 / / _,— /_ —L 1�// / l/ RSo.,/ /1 I \\\\ \\ \\\\\ v \ I 4 I:, d :5 .7.- ``• D CLEARING UNITS PER J. / / / / S)0 Ti A VA.V ��A'��\VAA V• ffi � E' •••�••••_•••�—_ DETAIL ON THIS%Err i — / HAWTHORNE AVE. ./ / J / . I :sA \\ �� \ \\\ \ .Y_ " ALL ACNOTEC PqN Y SHALL BE / Ni' 1 ` z'y k 1 srABlu To MINIMIZE THE TRACKING i /"y�"E // // lift —.1 / 1 6 2 O'SE TON TO PUBLIC ROADS / / / �/IrJ �Lie;� .. \ INSTALL SILT FENCE AT .— LNEELWA NG•STREET SMEENNG AND / / / , y1 ` \\ CLEARMC LIMI S PER CLEANING ALL BE EMPLOYED TO ( / / /�/'e/ // { T. \ '\' .\\' \ DETAIL ON 1HI5 SHEET 4, •/fi'' �' PREYENi' gNENT —__J /� •'��..J�N I �:��I-i� � I\\.\' E �r.r.� .. \ _� / 1 CLEARING LIMITS73 INSTALL SILT FENCE ATJ R 1 CONSTRUCT STAHIUZED J -� '../Tv �' —_y_ ACCEPTED CLEARING UNITS PER — CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE `\ /' _- ' DETAIL ON RIMS SHEET I I CONSTRUCT STABILIZED I PER OETAIL OP1 THIS SKEET I ��' �� '� vMnR� [Kul pxsbx } m R< CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE I I I_L L 1 �+++ '•m m n I I 1 1 PER DETAIL ON THIS SHEET L. rnN.rwrP�w. 6se aLRw YvxAAMu - ` '" '� NY BE;TI`n_a-TDB M CITY .' AKIMA A P101K?NO.E G-2S-001! 1 Distributed at theme-9 Meeting 10(i ioatt N 92nd AVE September 27 Before you is a Proposed Condemnation of a 1954 Public Easement 700' to trail-heads and three single family homes and is a Critical Public Land Asset; seeking Condemnation and Barricading is the opposite of a Vacation. Vacation, is a break from work or routine of Encroachments, having many benefits, to the Public. whereas this action before you the Council, Mayor and Public, is a Condemnation Effort by Lot Developers and is not a benefit to the Public. Vote No on Condemning our Public Easement and Trails-heads. * In WA State Condemnation of an Easement, must be for Public Use and City Officials can not legally give Lot Developers Public Easements. RCW 14.07.020 Vote No to giving our Public Easement to Lot Developers. * Servient Estate Owners, the Lot Developers by Law and Definition, must yield to the Dominant Estate Owners, that the Public is able to exercise their Easement Rights. The Public Easement has been Illegally blocked since December 12, 2023. * A Public Easement is a Right and Privilege to use another person's land, in a specific way. Encroaching upon a Public Easement or Blocking an Easement, in WA State is a Civil Offence, with legal consequences. Vote No to Condemning our Public Easement. * Servient Property Owners, Lot Developers, can not legally, interfere with the Purpose of a Public Easement. An invaluable Asset of the Public the Dominant Estate Owners. Violators, are Liable for Damages, in a Civil Court. Vote No. N 92nd AVE September 27 * Easements do not Expire overtime; so Lot Developers Can Not Legally prevent the use of a Public Easement, without violating Civil Law. Vote No to preserve this valuable Public Treasure. * The 92nd AVE Public Easement has been Maintained and Protected by Law for 69 years; Land is the Foundation of all rights Public and Private, according to the Fifth Amendment and extends to Public Easements. Public Easements are Protected by Law; Easements are associated with Real Property Laws. Easements are Legally Binding Contracts. Vote No, to this Eminent Domain Action, as it is not a Public Good. * Barricading Illegally a Public Easement for the People whom Hike, Bike, Work, Reside or Visit the Area, is a violation of the Public's Rights, the Dominate Estate Owner Rights and should Cease. Vote No. * Urge the Council, Mayor and Public to Vote No, toward Condemning a portion of N 92nd Ave, 700 feet of which by Law is a Public Easement. Thus preserving the law, our Public Easement and the Integrity of our City Government and our Public Officials. Vote No, to Preserve this critical Public Asset. * The Parties could consider using an Integration Clause, to Interpret the the Public Easement of 1954, to limit future findings of ambiguity or other extrinsic evidence, therefore determine the Original Parties Intent. * Condemning Authorities recommending the giving away to Lot Developers, Public Property a Public Asset, are required by law, to notify effected Dominant Estate Holders the Public, by Certified Mail, 15 days before public meetings. The proper legal notification, has yet to happen. Vote No. N 92nd AVE September 27 * The Holders and lot Developers interest, in No Way should Deny Dominate Estate Holders their rights to Maintain the Entire Public Easement, for the Benefit of the Public Good. Maintenance has been denied by Lot Developers. Vote No, to condoning and the barricading of Public Property. * Setbacks from Public and Private Roads, shall be the same, as the front yard Setback. Yakima County 19.10 IV. * Front Yard Setbacks shall be 25' measured from the Property-line abutting the planned road right of way. 0060-250-1 . * Negative Freedom equals doing whatever you want, whenever you want. Positive Freedom gives and protects good Public Policy. Vote No, to disregarding Easement Law and Eliminating Public Legal Rights, from benefit of this Public Easement. * WA State Law Protects Public Easements for Dominate Estates RCW 64.65.010: City nor Lot Developers, may not interfere with Entities Use or Enjoyment of a Public Easement. * In conclusion as a Dominant Estate Owner, Public Hiker and Biker, using the Public Easement since birth and maintaining the easement three decades, after purchasing the Ranch from my grandmother, I do thank you for your attention to this Illegal Condemnation Effort and may you have the courage to vote No.