Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/2025 13.D. Distribution of the Complete Record for a proposal to vacate a portion of N 68th Ave between Englewood Ave and Scenic Drive (RWV#003- 24) proposed by Ted Palmatier i4 if,L4AirlIN&I- ,i �,t'1,`'k`OAA`l VD BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 13.D. For Meeting of: January 21, 2025 ITEM TITLE: Distribution of the Complete Record for a proposal to vacate a portion of N 68th Ave between Englewood Ave and Scenic Drive (RWV#003- 24) proposed by Ted Palmatier SUBMITTED BY: Bill Preston, Community Development Director *Trevor Martin, Planning Manager SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The complete record for this proposal to vacate a portion of N 68th Ave between Englewood Ave and Scenic Drive. is being distributed to City Council members in advance of the public hearing scheduled for February 4, 2025. Materials are being distributed in advance to allow adequate time for review. ITEM BUDGETED: N/A STRATEGIC PRIORITY 24-25: N/A RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: CC Packet_RWV#003-24.pdf 331 fLz4iiiiikt's, li--T.'w1 . kv4) "----0---TYANN., ot 4, Nuir.: * 04' t=- OR•OR _e...y/ ll���tirv� TED PALMATIER RWV#003-24 Yakima City Council Open Record Public Hearing February 4, 2025 EXHIBIT Applicant: PLSA Engineering & Surveying— Tom Durant File Numbers: RWV#003-24 Site Address: N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. & Scenic Dr. Staff Contact: Trevor Martin, AICP, Planning Manager Table of Contents CHAPTER AA Hearing Examiner's Recommendation CHAPTER A Staff Report CHAPTER B Maps CHAPTER C Site Plan CHAPTER D DST Review & Agency Comments CHAPTER E Applications CHAPTER F Public Notices CHAPTER G Public/Agency Comments 332 TED PALMATIER RWV#003-24 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER AA Hearing Examiner's Recommendation DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX# AA-1 Hearing Examiner's Recommendation 10/22/2024 333 'DECEIVE® OCT 1 8 2024 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. City of Yakima, Washington Hearing Examiner's Recommendation October 18, 2024 In the Matter of an Application and ) Petition for the Vacation of Street ) Right-of-Way Submitted by: ) ) Ted Palmatier ) RWV#003-24 ) For Vacation of the North 68th ) Avenue Right-of-Way Between ) Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive ) A. Introductory Findings. The Hearing Examiner conducted an open record public hearing commencing on July 25, 2024, which was continued until August 8, 2024. An Interim Decision was issued on August 22, 2024, requesting additional information, the last of which was received on October 4, 2024. The findings relative to the open record public hearing proceedings for this application/petition for vacation of the North 68th Avenue street right-of-way between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive may be summarized as follows: (1) The staff report presented as the first evidence at the July 25, 2024, hearing by Planning Manager Trevor Martin recommended denial of this requested vacation of North 68th Avenue street right-of-way which the agenda statement for the petition states Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 1 Vacation of North 68`1' Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 D C. INDEX 334 1FCEIVED 1 8 2024 1,I( OF YAKIIvir. PLANNING DIV. is 1,285 feet long between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive and which varies from 50 feet in width at both ends to 40 feet in width in the middle of right-of-way area. (2) The following people also testified in opposition to this right-of-way vacation at the July 25, 2024, hearing: (i) Tom Robinson of the Active Transportation Alliance and (ii) Phil Mattoon of the City of Yakima Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee. (3) Written comments were submitted in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation prior to the July 25, 2024, hearing in the form of: (i) letters from Maxine I. Farren; (ii) a letter from Jennifer J. Farren; (iii) a letter from Tom Robinson; (iv) an email from Phil Mattoon; (v) a letter from Coleen Anderson; (vi) a letter from Cyrus Philbrick; (vii) a letter from Phil Hoge; and (viii) a letter from the Active Transportation Alliance (ATA) group signed by Tom Robinson, Neil Barg, Ryan Kallis, Phil Mattoon, Edward A. Lisowski, Phil Hoge, Bobby J. Wright, Emily Wright and Pete Dougherty. (4) The following people testified at the July 25, 2024, hearing in favor of vacating this right-of-way: (i) the representative of the petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier, Tom Durant of PLSA Engineering & Surveying; (ii) petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier; (iii) petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Carol Wagar; (iv) property owner/resident who uses North 68th Avenue as his sole access Barry Bernfeld; and (v) petitioner/adjacent property owner Matthew Sevigny. (5) Written comments in favor of the requested street right-of-way vacation were submitted prior to the July 25, 2024, hearing in the form of a Narrative Statement of Tom Durant. (6) The hearing was continued until 9:00 a.m. on August 8, 2024, in the same hearing room at City Hall in order for the City Planning Division and the petitioners to consider and report back as to whether a Revocable License Agreement to use the right- of-way should be recommended in lieu of continuing the status quo by denying the requested street vacation or in lieu of granting the requested street vacation. More specifically, the Hearing Examiner asked for input regarding the feasibility of recom- mending a Revocable License Agreement between the City and the petitioners to use and gate the right-of-way under agreed conditions that would allow use by pedestrians and bicyclists and serve the purposes of the petitioners until the right-of-way can either be improved to City standards or be vacated when it is known for certain that it will never be improved to City standards. Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 2 Vacation of North 68t1'Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 INDEX A 335 O L 1 1 8 2024 Y OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV, (7) At the continued hearing on August 8, 2024, Trevor Martin read his Memoran- dum explaining in greater detail why the Planning Division recommends that the requested vacation of street right-of-way should be denied. Torn Durant and Ted Palmatier testified in greater detail why the requested vacation of street right-of-way should be granted. City Attorney Sara Watkins answered a question that arose during the continued hearing by indicating that this area is not assessed for County fire protection services which indicates that those services are provided to this area by the City. (8) Written comments submitted at the August 8, 2024, continued hearing included: (i) Mr. Martin's written Memorandum in opposition to the requested vacation of street right-of-way; (ii) a letter from Yakima Fire Chief Aaron J. Markham in opposition to the requested vacation of street right-of-way; and (iii) another letter from adjacent property owner/resident Maxine I. Farren and adjacent resident Jennifer J. Farren in opposition to the requested vacation of street right-of-way. (9) After further review of the written comments and testimony, the need for additional information to be considered by the Hearing Examiner in making a recommendation and by the City Council in making a decision became apparent and was requested by means of an Interim Decision issued on August 22, 2024. Additional information was requested regarding the applicability to street vacations of YMC §14.25.040(B) which allows only one lot in a subdivision to be accessed by a private road easement; the timing and the result of including this street in a future maintenance schedule; the likelihood of this street right-of-way ever being improved to City street standards; and the current Fire Department position as to allowing Knox box gates or other types of emergency gates to be installed. (10) In response to the request for additional information, the following evidence was submitted: an Opinion of City Attorney Sara Watkins dated September 4, 2024; a letter from Thomas Durant of PLSA dated September 10, 2024; a Response to Interim Decision from Planning Manager Trevor Martin received on September 24, 2024; and a response to that information received from Thomas Durant on October 4, 2024. (11) Since any attempt to summarize the many points and arguments set forth in the evidence submitted for this matter would likely leave out some of the points and arguments that were made, an attachment to this recommendation summarizes each of the written comments/exhibits and paraphrases the wording of the testimony at the hearing in Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 3 Vacation of North 68t''Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 LIOCe 336 RECEWED OCT 1 €1 2024 CRY ui- YAKIMA PLAN1 /NG OW. order to include all of the points asserted by the interested parties both pro and con. City Council members may prefer to review the actual exhibits in the record and view the YPAC videos of the July 25 hearing and the August 8 continued hearing in order to consider the evidence presented rather than read the attachment to this recommendation which is only submitted to illustrate the factors considered by the Hearing Examiner and to consolidate the evidence in one place for the convenience of the City Council. (12) This recommendation has been issued within ten business days of the date when the record for the open record public hearing was closed on October 4, 2024. B. Basis for the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation. The following findings, conclusions and recommendation are based upon the Hearing Examiner's view of the site with no one else present on July 20, 2024, and several times thereafter; his consideration of the staff report, exhibits, testimony and other evidence presented during an open record public hearing and the period thereafter allowed for submission of additional information; and his review of the criteria for vacation of street right-of-way in Chapter 14.21 of the Yakima Municipal Code (YMC). FINDINGS I. The Applicants, Petitioners and Property Owners. The applicants, petitioners and adjacent property owners who signed the petition to vacate this portion of North 68th Avenue are Theodore (Ted) H. Palmatier and Alida Wall Palmatier, 708 North 68th Avenue; Matthew Sevigny and Michelle Sevigny, owners of adjacent Parcel No. 181317- 44401 with no assigned address; Sharlene Sloop, 6909 Englewood Avenue; Margaret A. Grimm, 6804 Scenic Drive; Carol Wagar, 710 North 68th Avenue; and Graham Snyder, Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 4 Vacation of North 68`1i Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 D* ' INDEX 337 'FCEfl/E 1 8 2024 A 1 'Y OF YAW/hi PL.ANNING DIV. Kaulin Stavik and Gracie Snyder, 614 North 68" Avenue, Yakima, Washington 98908. II. The Representative of Applicant, Petitioner and Adjacent Property Owner Ted Palmatier. The representative of applicant/petitioner/adjacent property owner Ted Palmatier for this matter is Thomas Durant of PLSA Engineering & Surveying, 521 North 20th Avenue, Suite 3, Yakima Washington 98902. III. Location. The location of the right-of-way that is the subject of this application/ petition for vacation is the portion of North 68" Avenue between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue. The parcels adjacent to the right-of-way are assigned Assessor's Parcel Numbers 181317-43405, -43407, -43419, -43422, -43424 and -44401. IV. Application. The main aspects of this application/petition for vacation of street right-of-way are as follows: (1) The right-of-way vacation application/petition was received by the City of Yakima Department of Community Development on January 30, 2024. The petition requests vacation of approximately 1,285 feet of the street right-of-way. It is the North 68' Avenue right-of-way between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive. Document Index C-1 prepared by PLSA Engineering & Surveying shows the requested vacation area on two pages, one for the north half and one for the south half The roadway has been paved and maintained by some of the property owners who use it, but the pavement is narrow, the asphalt is cracking and crumbling in places and a hill limits site distance. (2) This application/petition is being processed under the provisions of YMC Chapter 14.21 relative to right-of-way vacations. Those provisions require a Hearing Examiner recommendation to the Yakima City Council that is based on findings and Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 5 Vacation of North 68`h Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 INDEX 338 1FFCEIVED OCT 18 2024 u,J 3 Y 0i° YAKI M A PLANING DIV. conclusions in accordance with YMC Chapter 1.43, YMC Chapter 14.21 and RCW Chapter 35.79. V. Notices. On July 2, 2024, by means of Resolution No. R-2024-117, the City Council set the hearing for this Petition No. 24-09 for July 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. Notices of the open record public hearing were provided in the following ways: Mailing of notice to petitioners and abutting property owners: July 2, 2024 Posting of notice in three public places: July 2, 2024 Posting of notice on the right-of-way: July 4, 2024 Publishing of notice in the Yakima Herald-Republic: July 6, 2024 After the testimony was presented at the open record public hearing on July 25, 2024, the hearing was continued on the record to August 8, 2024, in order for the City Planning Division and the petitioners to consider and report back as to whether a Revocable License Agreement to use the right-of-way should be recommended in lieu of continuing the status quo by denying the requested street vacation or in lieu of granting the requested street vacation. The Planning Division testimony at the continued hearing did not support the alternative of a Revocable License Agreement in lieu of a decision to either deny or grant the requested vacation of right-of-way. VI. Environmental Review. Street right-of-way vacations are categorically exempt from SEPA environmental review per YMC Chapter 6.88 and WAC 197-11-800(2)(i). VII. Traffic Study. The City of Yakima Traffic Engineer has determined that a traffic study is not required for this requested right-of-way vacation. VIII. Development Services Team (DST) Review. A Development Services Team Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 6 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 DOG. INDEX # 339 PRECEWED OCT ,1 8 2024 'F1Y OF YAKiiVIA PLANNING La meeting was held on May 21, 2024, to discuss the possible impacts of this requested vacation of right-of-way. The following DST comments were received: (1) Traffic Engineering: Traffic Concurrency Ordinance (TCO) review is not required as part of this right-of-way vacation request. (2) Nob Hill Water Association: Nob Hill Water has infrastructure within the entirety of North 68th Ave between Englewood and Scenic Drive. If the right-of-way is to be vacated, then the applicant will be required to grant Nob Hill Water Association a 20-foot-wide easement over the existing pipe. IX. Zoning and Land Use. The portion of North 68th Avenue proposed for vacation is considered public right-of-way even though it has not been opened to be used for a public street as part of the City's street system and has only been allowed to be used as a private road to access properties needing that access. Surrounding properties have the following characteristics: Direction Zonin Land Use North none Public Right-of-Way South none Public Right-of-Way East Single-Family Residential (R-1) Detached Single-Family Dwellings, Orchard and Vacant Land West Single-Family Residential (R-1) Detached Single-Family Dwellings and Vacant Land X. Written Comments/Exhibits Submitted and Testimony Presented. The written comments/exhibits submitted for this matter are summarized in the order in which they were submitted and the testimony presented at the open record public hearing for Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 7 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive DOC. RWV#003-24 iNDErf�\wiT1 f y 340 F CE VE 1. 8 2024 .:o l Y U g�M�a�4'rie� this matter is paraphrased in the order in which it was presented by means of the attachment to this recommendation. The purpose of including the attachment is for the convenience of those who wish to review the evidence consolidated in one place rather than review all of the exhibits in the record and all of the testimony on the YPAC hearing videos of the open record public hearing commencing on July 25, 2024, and concluding on August 8, 2024, together with the requested additional written comments/exhibits submitted from then until October 4, 2024, when the record was closed. All of the testimony and exhibits have been considered by the Hearing Examiner, but not all of them are repeated in the findings below which refer to the evidence relied upon for this recommendation. XI. Right-of-Way Vacation Findings. The Hearing Examiner's findings relative to this recommendation to the Yakima City Council regarding this petition/application for vacation of the portion of North 68th Avenue between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive are as follows: (1) City Council Resolution: The Yakima City Council by Resolution No. R- 2024-117 referred this street right-of-way vacation Petition No. 24-09 to the Hearing Examiner to hold a public hearing on July 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. and to make a recom- mendation to the City Council regarding the petition. The petition was signed by the owners of 75% of the contiguous private property which is more than the requisite 66%. This recommendation has been issued and delivered to the City Planning Division within 10 business days of the date when the record of the open record public hearing was closed on October 4, 2024. (2) Hearing Examiner Authority: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to conduct public hearings on petitions and resolutions to vacate streets and public rights-of- Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 8 Vacation of North 68`1'Avenue Right-of-Way located between DOC. Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 INDEX 341 OCT 1 8 ?NA' i V 61; V b6 k.I 1AV. way pursuant to YMC §1.43.080(H) and YMC Chapter 14.21 which provide that the Hearing Examiner shall make a recommendation regarding such petitions to the Yakima City Council. (3) Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: Street rights-of-way 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 Suburban Residential (SR). (4) Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040: Street rights-of-way likewise do not have an underlying Comprehensive Plan designation. But upon vacation the vacated area is likewise designated the same as the contiguous property. In this situation, the vacated right-of-way area would have a Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Low Density Residential. (5) Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 35.79: This chapter of state law prescribes the state's requirements for the process of vacating street right-of-way. All requirements of this chapter that can be accomplished prior to delivery of this recom- mendation to the Planning Division for the City Council's consideration have been fulfilled. State law provides that the property within the limits to be vacated shall belong to the owners of the lots abutting each side of the vacated area, one-half to the owners on each side of the vacated area (RCW 35.79.040). (6) Public Use of The Right-of-Way: The members of the public who live along this portion of North 68th Avenue use the right-of-way to travel to and from their property. Other members of the public use it to travel between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive even though the right-of-way has been privately improved and maintained by the owners of the property who use it for access rather than by the City. Even though the right-of-way has the 50 feet of width required for current City street standards some distance from the north and south ends and 40 feet of width in the middle, it is only paved wide enough for one lane of traffic. (7) YMC §14.21.050(A)(1): What is the public benefit, reason for, and limitations of the proposed right-of-way vacation? Since this criterion is quite general and depends upon the findings relative to the more specific criteria to be satisfied for Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 9 Vacation of North 68' Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive DOC• RWV#003-24 IND 342 FE EIVED OCT i 8 2024 t;l i Y OF YAKIMA PLANING OW- approval of a right-of-way vacation request, the evidence relative to these general criteria will be addressed after the more specific criteria are addressed in this recommendation. (8) YMC §14.21.050(A)(2): Does the vacation deny any property sole access to a public street? This criterion does not appear to be disputed. The position of Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant is that a new easement would be executed and recorded for the vacated right-of-way to allow continued access to public streets [Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive] from all of the parcels that front on or have access to the right-of-way. [Attachment p. 6 §B(1) & 18 §D(1)]. The Planning Division's position is that such action would cause the lots to be nonconforming and would prevent them from further subdivision, but does not appear to be that existing parcels would lose their current sole access to a public street, namely to Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive. [Attachment ps. 32-33 §H(2)A]. The Hearing Examiner therefore finds relative to this criterion that the requested right-of-way vacation would not under the evidence submitted in this proceeding deny any property sole access to a public street. (9) YMC §14.21.050(A)(3): Is the proposal consistent with existing plans of the City such as the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan, the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan or other official City plans and policies? The Findings relative to this disputed criterion are as follows: (1) It is undisputed that the requested right-of-way vacation would not be inconsistent with the City's Six-Year Transportation Plan (TIP) since it is not listed on the TIP from 2024 to 2029. [Attachment ps. 6 §B(1) & 10 §C(1)C]. (2) The Planning Division's staff report figures were uncontradicted to the effect that there are 13.69 acres or 596,336 square feet of adjacent land that could potentially be developed into 69 residential lots in this Suburban Residential zoning district that will need access for the homeowners and emergency services. [Attachment p. 8 §C(1)C]. (3) Besides citing HB1110 and RCW 36.70A which seek to increase the development of housing on the vacant property around North 68th Avenue, the Planning Division cites Comprehensive Plan Goal 5.1 to encourage diverse and affordable housing choices and Goal 5.2 to preserve and improve existing residential neighborhoods to support its position that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would be inconsistent with City goals to increase the availability of housing in the City. Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 10 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive DOC. RWV#003-24 INDEX 343 74.7CEIVED OCT 1 8 Z0Z4 UIFY ( F YAKIM PLANNING DIV. (4) To support its position that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have an inappropriate adverse effect on transportation connectivity and usage, the Planning Division cites Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.3 to provide a transportation system that is consistent with specified plans, Policies 6.5.9, 6.5.12, 6.5.16, 6.5.18 and 6.5.30 to provide good connectivity for safe alternate routes, for more direct travel and for pedestrian and other facilities consistent with plans including the Bicycle Master Plan. [Attachment p. 8-9, §C(1)D]. In that regard, the Planning Division also cites the City's 2040 Transportation System Plan provisions 2.1.4, 3.5.1 and 3.5.4 which encourage bicycling and pedestrian routes and their connectivity throughout the overall system [Attachment p. 10, §C(1)C] and Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.4.7 which is to promote complete streets and trails to interconnect Yakima's neighborhoods and promote walkability. [Attachment p. 33, §H(2)A1. (5) The written comment from Phil Hoge for Yakima Bikes and Walks also opposed the requested right-of-way vacation as contrary to Comprehensive Plan transportation provisions 6.5.9, 6.5.12, 6.5.16, 6.5.17, 6.5.18 and 6.5.30 and as contrary to the 2005 Growth Management Act Healthy Communities amendment to promote physical activity in the Land Use Plan and to include a bicycle and pedestrian component in the Transportation Plan. [Attachment ps. 3-5 §A(8)]. (6) The position of Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant is that the requested right-of-way vacation would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan transportation provision 6.5.9 regarding connectivity because as a private street not being maintained by the City it is not a good or safe alternative for nearby routes that are constructed to City street standards and would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.3.2(C) which expresses an intent to preserve and enhance established residential neighborhoods by prioritizing the upkeep and improvement of streets because it would make it easier for the property owners served by the street to provide such upkeep and improvement in a manner that better protects the neighborhood and with more clear authority to do so. [Attachment p. 6 §B(1)]. (7) It is also Mr. Durant's position that the potential effect on connectivity could possibly be resolved by future development and that North 68th Avenue is only two blocks west of a collector arterial, North 66th Avenue. He questions whether connectivity calls for a straight road that connects other streets only two blocks from a collector arterial and thinks that connectivity can be accomplished in other ways. He indicates that Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 11 Vacation of North 68' Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 DOC. INDEX 344 RECEWW!) f)Li I 2024 UV there are not many straight connections on a two-block interval in the City, especially in the west side of the City. [Attachment p. 16 §D(1)]. (8) Considering the evidence relative the effect of the requested right-of-way vacation on future development from both perspectives, it is important to note that there are not just two or three small lots that could be affected by the inability to use North 68`1' Avenue for access in the future if this requested right-of-way vacation is granted. The fact that there are 13.69 acres of undeveloped property in this area that can be developed as residential lots in the future makes it likely that the conversion of this public right-of- way into private ownership would reduce at least to some extent the number of residential lots that could otherwise be developed because other street right-of-way will probably have to be dedicated to take its place in some instances. Even though it is impossible to predict the extent, type or timing of future development, to be consistent with HB 1110, RCW 36.70A and Comprehensive Plan Goals 5.1 and 5.2, the number of residential units that can be developed in this area needs to be increased rather than reduced. (9) Even though the public right-of-way is only two blocks to the west of a collector arterial that connects the same two streets, that street is said to be more dangerous and congested for bicyclists and pedestrians than North 68th Avenue. [Attachment p. 14 §C(3)]. (10) Considering the evidence relative the effect of the requested right-of-way vacation on street connectivity from both perspectives, even though the petitioner and current owners indicate that they would only limit vehicular traffic by means of one gate on the north end of the right-of-way, that would adversely affect both the present and future street connectivity for vehicles, including emergency vehicles as noted by the Yakima Fire Chief. And even though the petitioner and current owners indicate that they would provide an opening in the gate to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to use the road, there would be no guarantee that current or future owners of the properties would continue to have only one gate in place or to have an opening that allows use by bicyclists and pedestrians in order to preserve that connectivity for them. The City would have no control over how the vacated right-of-way would be used in the future if the right-of-way is vacated. The loss of connectivity would be permanent for all time contrary to Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan provisions. Converting the property back to a public right-of-way if the need should arise would require a negotiated purchase of the property or a taking of the property through eminent domain. Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 12 Vacation of North 68t1i Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 DOC. INDEX 345 RECEIVED 1" I i ?fl?4 (11) Lastly as to consistency of the requested right-of-way vacation with the City's street connectivity plans and policies, the Hearing Examiner's view of the right-of-way and surrounding area as an aid to understanding the evidence in this regard indicated that the North 68th Avenue right-of-way is in a location that foreseeably might be improved to City street standards in the future in order to accommodate vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic since the nearest street connection to the west between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive is North 80th Avenue which is about 7/10ths of a mile west of North 68th Avenue and about 8/10ths of a mile west of North 66th Avenue. (10) YMC §14.21.050(A)(4): Is the vacation request appropriate with existing and anticipated development in the area, based on zoning, current use and long range plans? The Findings relative to this disputed criterion are as follows: (1) The Planning Division's position in this regard is that approval of the requested right-of-way vacation would severely limit the development potential of the adjacent properties by requiring any future development to either acquire or reacquire the right-of-way or limit access at a time when recent State legislation (HB 1110) requires the City to allow more housing, up to four or six new housing units, on residential lots. [Attachment p. 10 §C(1)D]. (2) The Planning Division's position in this regard is also that approval of the requested right-of-way vacation would pursuant to YMC §14.25.040(B) cause seven of the eight homes using this right-of-way for access to become nonconforming because the access easement(s) established in lieu of the public right-of-way would serve more than one lot and that no new parcels or driveways would be permitted to have access to North 68th Avenue in the future. [Attachment p. 25 §E(3)]. (3) The Opinion of City Attorney Sara Watkins submitted in response to the Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision requesting additional information was to the effect that YMC §14.25.040(B) which states that access easements within a subdivision cannot serve more than one lot does not per se require denial of the requested right-of-way vacation, but may be considered by the administrative official under YMC §14.21.040 as relevant to criteria 3 and 4 of the right-of-way vacation criteria. Those criteria pertain to the consistency with existing official City plans and the effect the requested right-of-way vacation would have on subdividing 10 or more lots that do not abut a public street other than North 68th Avenue or on other development that would be required to substitute a Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 13 Vacation of North 68t1'Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 DOC. INDEX # I 346 FIE CFIVE _} OCT 18 ?.O2' CITY LW' YI i;iI.1. PLANNING Div. hammerhead or cul-de-sac in lieu of using North 68th Avenue for access. [Attachment ps. 30-32 §H(1)3A]. (4) Petitioner Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant agrees with the City Attorney's Opinion except for the implication that the requested right-of-way vacation would restrict future growth and development in a significant way; indicates that developers always face limiting constraints such as the need for hammerheads or cul-de- sacs that reduce the number of lots that can be created; and adds that the only effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses would be on future subdivisions (10 or more lots) that do not have frontage on a public street, on duplexes that are not replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use and on other permitted non-agricultural land uses other than detached single- family dwellings. [Attachment p. 38 §I(2)]. (5) Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant takes issue with the Planning Division's position that the requested right-of-way vacation would prevent the existing lots from being subdivided or from using North 68th Avenue as their primary access because that would be allowed under the following circumstances: (i) The lots being subdivided have frontage on and direct access to one of the perimeter streets which are Scenic Drive, Englewood Avenue or North 66th Avenue (this could include where more than one lot is involved in a proposed subdivision, such as lots that do not now have frontage on any improved City street where the subdivision is developed with dedicated City streets extending to the interior properties; (ii) Subdivision or the development of existing lots where a private road is extended to serve no more than one lot per YMC 14.25.040(B); and (iii) Development, including subdivisions, with private roads approved as a Planned Development, mobile or manufactured home park, condominium or binding site plan in accordance with YMC §15.09.100. [Attachment ps. 38-39 §I(2)]. (6) Petitioner Ted Palmatier testified that the requested right-of-way vacation would not limit development and there are ample streets already available in the immediate vicinity for connectivity. [Attachment p. 20 §D(2)]. (7) Considering both sides of this controversy, even though there are possible ways for some of the property to be developed by using Scenic Drive or Englewood for access and/or by selecting certain types of development over others and/or by reconfiguring some of the existing parcels, the conversion of 1,285 feet of public right- Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 14 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 DOC. INDEX #, P IA -- 347 RECEIVED O C T J. 8 2024 'V 0: c� 5 of-way into private ownership is likely to have at least some adverse effect on the number of residential lots that could be developed on the vacant land in this area. The fact that developers always face limiting constraints such as the need for hammerheads or cul-de- sacs that reduce the number of lots that can be created does not cure the inconsistency with plans and policies that seek to increase the number of housing alternatives available in the City. (11) YMC §14.21.050(A)(5): Are there any public or franchised utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated and if so, will they be relocated? This criterion is not disputed. On-line documents show a 6-inch Nob Hill domestic water line in the existing right-of-way and short plats indicate that irrigation lines are in the right-of-way. Power poles and title documents indicate that power, telephone and cable television utilities are in the right-of-way. There is no need to relocate any existing utilities and future utility extensions will be accommodated by the easement or easements to be recorded to accommodate them. [Attachment p. 7 §B(1) & p. 11, §C(1)E]. " (12) YMC §14.21.070(A)(4): Whether compensation should be required in return for vacation of the right-of-way? YMC §14.21.070(A)(4) provides: "No compensation may be required if the city has not purchased, maintained, or made any improvements to the public right-of-way, there is no planned or anticipated public purpose existing for maintaining the public right-of-way as determined by the planning commission or development services team (DST), and the public right-of-way has been a dedicated right-of-way in the city for at least five years." Although the Planning Division staff report quotes this provision without a Staff Response and although Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative indicates that if the right-of-way is vacated, City staff agreed that no compensation would be expected to be required by YMC §14.21.070(A)(4), the Hearing Examiner makes the following finding relative to this criterion: Even though the City has not purchased, maintained or improved the area proposed for right-of-way vacation and the public right-of-way has been a dedicated right-of-way in the City for at least five years, nevertheless the Hearing Examiner finds in view of the position taken by the Planning Division, City Engineer and Fire Chief described above that the record lacks a determination of the City Planning Commission or of the members of the City Development Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 15 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive DOC. RWV#003-24 INDEX 348 OCT 8 2024 ;d .l 1.d, Services Team to the effect that no anticipated public purposes exist for maintaining that portion of the right-of-way. [Attachment p. 7 §B(1)]. This finding is likely irrelevant since the requested right-of-way vacation would not typically be granted without such a determination unless it is made by the City Council. (13) YMC §14.21.050(A)(1): What is the public benefit, reason for, and limitations of the proposed right-of-way vacation? The Findings relative to this disputed criterion are as follows: (1) The limitations of the requested right-of-way vacation would be about 1,285 feet of public right-of-way that is 40 to 50 feet in width for the portion of North 68th Avenue between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive. (2) The Planning Division staff report states that the requested right-of-way vacation does not benefit the public because it would require future development to dedicate or reacquire the right-of-way and reestablish multiple points of ingress/egress which would reduce future development potential in the area and therefore be inconsistent with the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan goals to provide additional housing in the City. [Attachment p. 9 §A]. (3) A resident/property owner and a resident of the same property located toward the southern part of the subject right-of-way opposed the requested right-of-way vacation because it would allow the right-of-way to be gated in a way that would make it difficult for the handicapped resident to open the gate if it failed to operate remotely and would also interfere with crucial deliveries and emergency services to their home. [Attachment p. 2 §§A(2) & A(3) and Attachment p. 24 §E(1)]. (4) Commenters associated with the Active Transportation Alliance, Yakima Bikes and Walks, the Yakima Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee and/or the Yakima Basin Velo cycling club opposed the requested right-of-way vacation if it would allow gating that would prevent non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Drive because it is safer to use than North 66th Avenue for bicyclists and pedestrians to access the Lower Cowiche Canyon trail and the Greenway; because the requested right-of-way vacation is not supported by any traffic data to establish a safety problem; and because it would be contrary to provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan. Many of the commenters expressed hope that a compromise can be reached before Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 16 Vacation of North 68t1' Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive DOC. RWV#003-24 INDEX # A [1 1 349 ' F.CE VE OCT 1 8 2024 f Y i1Yrr 1'�•1'Ki:Aik PL AiN1�&;0 UM the public loses access to this road. [Attachment ps. 2-5 §§A(3)-A(9) and ps. 12-14 §§C(2)-C(3)]. (5) City Fire Chief Aaron Markham commented that the Yakima Fire Department opposes the requested right-of-way vacation due to the already limited access to areas of Scenic Drive from Englewood and because gates significantly increase response times during times of emergency. [Attachment p. 24-25 §E(2)]. (6) The Planning Division opposed gating the right-of-way that would limit through traffic and opposed a Revocable License Agreement that would allow an agreeable manner of gating the right-of-way until it is improved to City street standards or until it becomes clear that it will not likely ever be improved to City standards and may therefore be vacated. [Attachment ps. 25-27 §E(3)]. (7) Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant indicated that the requested right-of-way vacation would benefit the public by relieving the City of the obligation to improve the road and of the liability for its use; by allowing the property owners who use it for access to take actions to limit its use to those property owners, residents and their guests; and by allowing connectivity to be provided by future development in a way that provides better safety, better traffic circulation and less neighborhood disruption. [Attachment p. 6 §B(1)]. (8) Petitioner Ted Palmatier and his representative Thomas Durant both indicated that the evidence indicates that this street is not going to be improved to City standards in the foreseeable future because: (i) the short plat approved in 2023 adjacent to the east side of North 68th for about half the distance south from Scenic Drive was not required to have an access onto North 68th Avenue or to improve that street with full-street or half- street improvements; (ii) the staff report for that short plat stated "The City has no current or future plans proposing the full build out of North 68th Avenue in order to connect Scenic Drive to Englewood Avenue;" and (iii) about two weeks thereafter Petitioner Ted Palmatier and several of his neighbors met with staff and were told again that the City has no plans to maintain North 68th Avenue and were encouraged at that meeting to petition for this right-of-way vacation which they have undertaken at a considerable expense. [Attachment ps. 17-19 §§D(1)&D(2)]. (9) Petitioner Ted Palmatier's representative Thomas Durant also expressed the view that a continuance of the hearing would be helpful to allow the owners a chance to Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 17 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 DOC, INDEX 350 riErrilIVED 202<< consider their position relative to a Revocable License Agreement with the City to use the street with an agreeable type of gating until it can be improved to a City standard or until it is known for certain that it can be vacated because it will never likely be improved to a City standard, an approach which was requested by Petitioner Ted Palmatier as a last resort in lieu of a denial of the petition. [Attachment ps. 18 §D(1) & 29 §G(2)]. (10) Petitioner Ted Palmatier testified that the requested right-of-way vacation would benefit the public by allowing the property owners to address a dangerous situation where vehicles speed and drive in a reckless manner on the narrow single-lane road so as to endanger the other users of the road, including bicyclists and pedestrians. The dangerous situation would be addressed by means of a gate that could be opened remotely from vehicles or emergency vehicles with an opening for bicyclists and pedestrians to pass through. [Attachment ps. 19-21 §D(2)]. (11) Other petitioners and a property owner using North 68th Avenue for access also indicate (i) that gating at the north end of the right-of-way would not prevent bicyclists and pedestrians from using the road and would not prevent emergency vehicles from coming from Englewood or opening the gate; (ii) that their concerns are safety and maintenance; (iii) that the road now needs re-paving because it has holes and alligator cracking; and (iv) that their frustration is that they pay for the road but have no ability to limit its use as to vehicle traffic. [Attachment 22-24 §§D(3)-(5)]. (12) The Planning Division's position is that the reasons for the requested right-of- way vacation to address safety and maintenance concerns do not outweigh the right-of- way vacation's potential effect of reducing development potential in the area due to a need to dedicate or reacquire right-of-way and reestablish multiple points of ingress/ egress or provide new right-of-way that would reduce the area available for development contrary to the Growth Management Act and City Comprehensive Plan provisions. [Attachment p. 9 §C(1)A]. (13) The Planning Division indicated that the right-of-way would be added to the City's street maintenance and improvement schedule; that plans for the development would be included in future updates to the City's Engineering documents without an exact date when it would be improved to City standards; that future development would be required to dedicate needed additional right-of-way; and that the City would likely look at paving the 32-foot-wide section of residential street prior to the installation of Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 18 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 DOC. INDEX 351 u c ! . <: 2024 Vj ° v' ! _1 frontage improvements such as curb, gutter and sidewalk. [Attachment ps. 33-34 §H(2)C]. (14) The main stated reason for the requested right-of-way vacation is safety. The safety concern would be addressed by allowing the residents who are using the road to be in a better position to control the problems by making this explicitly a private road rather than a private road in a public right-of-way so that it could possibly be gated as a physical means to discourage or stop nonresident traffic and make it safer for the users, including bicyclists and pedestrians. [Attachment ps. 15 §D(1) & 19 §D(2)]. (15) An additional stated reason for the requested right-of-way vacation is to address the maintenance problem by limiting the maintenance obligation by limiting the usage of the road. The road is now in need of re-paving and the petitioners who pay for its maintenance are frustrated by the fact that they are paying to maintain the road for the benefit of the general public. [Attachment ps. 22 §D(3) & 29 §G(2)]. (16) Considering all of the evidence regarding the potential permanent adverse effects that the requested right-of-way vacation would have upon development and upon street connectivity in the vicinity of the right-of-way, the requested right-of-way vacation would not be consistent with provisions of the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan or Transportation System Plan or appropriate with anticipated development in the area. (17) Since the requested right-of-way vacation does not satisfy two of the specific criteria for its approval, it also would fail to satisfy the general criterion requiring it to benefit the public and to be supported by a sufficient reason to allow for its approval. (18) Several interested parties requested the consideration of a Revocable License Agreement because it would allow the City to specify and control the manner of gating the property until such time that the right-of-way is either improved to City standards or is vacated due to the certainty that it will never be improved to City standards. That certainty does not appear to exist at this time. Nor do the expert City personnel who provided input wish to see a gate installed in the right-of-way which leaves the petitioners with the City's commitment to place the right-of-way upon a maintenance schedule and perhaps at some point on the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. Since those experts no doubt have many streets in need of similar attention, any additional details regarding this commitment of the City are beyond the scope of this recommendation. Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 19 Vacation of North 68`'' Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive DOC. RWV#003-24 INDEX 352 riForivEn O C T 1 8 2024 Gil 1r 0;.. Yd CONCLUSIONS Based upon the findings set forth above, the Hearing Examiner reaches the following conclusions regarding the requested right-of-way vacation of the portion of North 68th Avenue right-of-way that is about 1,285 feet long between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue: (1) Petition signatures for this requested vacation of right-of-way were obtained from the owners of more than the necessary two-thirds of the linear frontage of the contiguous private property abutting the area proposed for vacation. (2) A traffic study was not required for this proposal. (3) The area of the requested right-of-way vacation is 50-foot-wide at both ends and 40-foot-wide in the middle of the 1,285-foot-long right-of-way. (4) If this requested vacation of right-of-way is approved, the vacated right-of-way will have the same Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation as the contiguous private property and the same Suburban Residential (SR) zoning classification as the contiguous private property. (5) This public right-of-way vacation would be inconsistent with provisions of the Growth Management Act, provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and provisions of the Transportation System Plan. (6) This public right-of-way vacation would not be appropriate with anticipated development in the area based on zoning. (7) This public right-of-way vacation would not result is sufficient public benefit and is not based on sufficient reasons for its approval. (8) Three of the requisite criteria for approval of the requested right-of-way vacation prescribed by RCW Chapter 35.79 and YMC Chapter 14.21 are not satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence submitted for this matter. Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 20 Vacation of North 68t1'Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 DOC INDEX #_ /VIt -1 353 7 `; ED ICI 18 2024 L;fR Y w. . Y.sMablri UV. RECOMMENDATION The Hearing Examiner recommends to the Yakima City Council that this Petition No. 24-09 for vacation of the portion of public right-of-way designated as North 68th Avenue between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue be DENIED. DATED this 18 day of October, 2024. Gary M. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 21 Vacation of North 68`h Avenue Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24 DOC. INDEX # � 1 354 c 1, /UPI ATTACHMENT TO PALMATIER RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIZING THE WRITTEN COMMENTS/EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AND PARAPHRASING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED Table of Contents Pages A. The Written Comments Submitted in Oppositionto the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation either before or during the Hearing on July 25, 2024: 2-5 B. The Written Comments Submitted in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation either before or during the Hearing on July 25, 2024: 5-7 C. Testimony Presented in Opposition to the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation during the Hearing on July 25, 2024: 7-14 D. Testimony Presented in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Hearing on July 25, 2024: 14-24 E. Written Comments Submitted in Opposition to the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8, 2024: 24-27 F. Testimony Presented in Opposition to Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8, 2024: 27-27 G. Testimony Presented in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8, 2024: 27-29 H. Additional Written Information in Opposition to the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation Submitted in Response to the Interim Decision: 29-34 I. Additional Written Information in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation Submitted in Response to the Interim Decision: 34-40 DOC. INDEX # 1 ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 1 of 40 355 ATTACHMENT TO PALMATIER RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIZING THE WRITTEN COMMENTS/EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AND PARAPHRASING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED A. The Written Comments Submitted in Opposition to the Requested Right-of- Way Vacation either before or during the Hearing on July 25, 2024. The written comments submitted in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation either before or during the hearing on July 25, 2024, may be summarized as follows: (1) City of Yakima Planning Manager Trevor Martin (Document Index A-1): The Planning Division staff report set forth reasons why the requested right-of-way vacation should be denied which were summarized by Mr. Martin as his testimony at the July 25, 2024, hearing set forth below in Section C(1) of this attachment. (2) Adjacent property owner Maxine I. Farren (Document Index G-1, G-4 and G- 11): I am a widow living on a fixed income and do not have money to pay for fees for an association or a gate. My family has owned acres on this hill for over 125 years and have never needed a homeowners association or gates. Our mailbox is at the top of 68th and access would be blocked by a gate there. We would not be able to get crucial deliveries to our house if there were a gate at the south end of 68th. Gates would be an inconvenience and hardship for myself and my daughter who is handicapped. She would not be able to get out to open the gate if there were a power outage, and emergency services could not reach our house in case of an emergency. (3) Resident of adjacent property Jennifer J. Farren (Document Index G-2. G-5 and G-11): The suggestion that the new subdivision east of 68th will increase the traffic on 68th is unlikely. Due to poor health and accidental falls in recent years, my mother and I have had to call the fire department and an ambulance which need to be able to get to our house. Technology fails after awhile and I do not want to gamble on whether the gate would work in an emergency. I am a handicapped person who would have trouble getting in and out of a vehicle if the automatic gate failed to work, and that would be dangerous for us in the winter when surface water flows down the hill and freezes at the bottom. The Americans with Disabilities Act was not intended allow barriers to be erected to stop handicapped people from getting around. (4) Tom Robinson of the Active Transportation Alliance, Yakima Bikes & Walks (Document Index G-3): Our group strongly believes this is a mistake to vacate N. 68th and will provide written and in person testimony. We believe it's critical to maintain N. 68th for non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Dr. and hope that a compromise could be reached before the public loses access to this road. Per the attached "Outer Circle" concept map, N. 68th in our opinion is a critical connecting road for the entire west side of the city to access the newly constructed lower Cowiche trail. The City bike master DOC. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 2 of 4Q■DEV # 356' plan has 66th as the access but we believe N. 68th is much safer and a bit less of a % climb for walkers and cyclists to access Scenic Drive and then Lower Cowiche Trail. One thing active transportation citizens in Yakima living west of 40th Avenue lack is a safe access point to the Greenway. This area of North 68th could provide that critical safe access for thousands of residents. See the attached close-up map of Tieton Drive to Cowiche Trail to see our vision. This is an example of a change to the City's Bike Master Plan we hope to propose when updates and public input become possible. (5) Phil Mattoon, Vice Chair of City of Yakima Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Document Index G-6): I am against this petition as this public right-of-way serves as a valuable route for walkers and cyclists to by pass 66th Ave. 66th has no shoulders and you take your life in your own hands to walk this section of 66th. The petitioner has offered no data to support that cut-through traffic has ever been or ever will be a problem on 68th. I walk this route once or twice a week and there is virtually no traffic.The City needs to preserve City owned right-of-way and not vacate for no apparent reason. (6) Coleen L. Anderson, volunteer with the Active Transportation Alliance (Document Index G-7 which is similar to Document Index G-3): Our group strongly believes it would be a mistake to vacate North 68th. We believe it's critical to maintain N. 68th for non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Dr. and hope that a compromise could be reached before the public loses access to this road. In our opinion N. 68th is one of several connecting road options for the entire west side of the city to access the newly constructed Lower Cowiche Canyon trail. The City's Bike Master Plan currently shows 66th as the access, but we believe N. 68th is much safer and a bit less of a steep climb for walkers and cyclists to access Scenic Drive and the Lower Cowiche Canyon Trail. One thing the citizens in Yakima living west of 40th Ave. lack is a safe active transportation access point to the Greenway. This area of N. 68th Ave. could provide that critical safe access for thousands of residents. (7) Cyrus Philbrick (Document Index G-8): I support the Active Transportation Alliance's position to maintain N. 68th for public non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Drive. N. 68th could be a critical connecting road for bicyclists and pedestrians to use to cross the City safely from west to east, and especially to access the Greenway. (8) Phil Hoge, for Yakima Bikes and Walks! (Document Index G-9): Vacating the subject street section should not be approved because it would be contrary to Yakima's Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Transportation Systems Plan. These plans establish the City's policy to ensure a street network with high connectivity as it grows and develops. The reasons causing the City to establish such policies are described in Planning for Street Connectivity (Planning Advisory Service Report Number 515, American Planning Association, May 2003, page 13 and page iv): • Decrease traffic on arterial streets; DOC, ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 3 of DE( 357 Or, 1' al 3 2.l�Zi� CITY G- "vr� • Provide continuous and more direct routes that facilitate travel by nonmotonzed modes such as walking and bicycling and that facilitate more efficient transit service; • Provide greater emergency vehicle access and reduce response time, and, conversely, provide multiple routes of evacuation in case of disasters such as wildfire; • Improve the quality of utility connections, facilitate maintenance, and enable more efficient trash and recycling collection and other transport-based community services; and • Create more livable and sustainable communities. Comprehensive Plan 2040 policy excerpts: Transportation Network Efficiency—A multimodal transportation network moves people and goods safely through the city and nearby areas. These policies include implementing standards that improve safety and efficiency for all roadway users, and maintaining design standards. 6.5.9: Ensure that the city transportation network (all travel modes) have good connectivity to provide safe alternate routes and more direct travel. Where possible, encourage small block sizes. (2.1.2); 6.5.12: Reduce growth in vehicle travel demand through transit, active transportation, and other Commute Reduction strategies. This postpones the need for capital roadway projects. (5.1.4, 8.1.1, 8.1.3). Active Transportation includes pedestrian, bicycling and other modes that promote healthy lifestyles and provide alternative modes to private vehicles for commuting. These modes depend on increasing network connectivity and constructing non-motorized facilities within the city. 6.5.16: Require new development, infill development, and redevelopments to provide pedestrian facilities and transit facilities along their street frontage consistent with adopted street design standards, ADA Transition Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Transit Development Plan. (2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 8.1.4, 10.2.2, 11.2.3); 6.5.17: Give high priority to projects that create or improve safe "Walk to School Routes", provide access to activity centers, provide linkages to transit, and connections to trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. (3.1.6, 4.1.2); 6.5.18: Work to improve pathway linkages to regional and off-street trail systems as identified in the ADA Transition Plan and Bicycle Master Plan. (3.1.8, 4.1.4). Interjurisdictional Coordination— Encouraging coordination between the City and public/private partnerships to help create a cohesive regional transportation network. DOC• INDEX ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 4 of 40 358 XX l ; ?024 Fria .. ... .„ . 6.5.30: Plan and support the transportation networks in the City and region in collaboration with Yakima County, the City of Union Gap, the WSDOT, and other neighboring jurisdictions. (9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3). Transportation Systems Plan excerpts: 1.3.2 Healthy Communities — Recognizing the growing need for physical activity among residents, the Washington State Legislature amended the GMA in 2005 with the Healthy Communities Amendment, ESSB 5186. Comprehensive Plans are directed to address the promotion of Healthy Communities through urban planning and transportation approaches. The two amendments to the GMA require that communities: 1. Consider urban planning approaches that promote physical activity in the Land Use Plan; and 2. Include a bicycle and pedestrian component in the Transportation Plan. Conclusion: For the reasons described above, Yakima has adopted these growth and development policies in order to create neighborhoods with high street connectivity. Vacating the subject section of North 68th Ave is inconsistent with these adopted comprehensive plan policies and therefore should be denied. (9) An Active Transportation Alliance letter similar to the one submitted by Tom Robinson and Coleen L. Anderson was submitted and signed by Tom Robinson, Neil Barg, Ilan Kallis, Phil Mattoon, Edward A. Lisowski, Phil Hoge. Bobby J. Wright, Emily Wright and Pete Dougherty (Document Index 10): Our group strongly believes it would be a mistake to vacate N. 68th. We believe it's critical to maintain N. 68th for public non- vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Drive and hope that a compromise could be reached before the public loses access to this road. Per the "Outer Circle" concept map, in our opinion N. 68th is one of several critical connecting road options for the entire west side of the city to access the newly constructed lower Cowiche trail. The City Bike Master Plan has 66th as the access but we believe N. 68th is much safer and a bit less of a climb for walkers and cyclists to access Scenic Drive and then Lower Cowiche Trail. One thing active transportation citizens in Yakima living west of 40th Avenue lack is a safe access point to the Greenway. This area of N. 68th could provide that critical safe access for thousands of residents. B. The Written Comments Submitted in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation either before or during the Hearing on July 25, 2024. The written comments submitted in favor of the requested right-of-way vacation either before or during the July 25, 2024, hearing are summarized as follows: (1)Tom Durant of PLSA Engineering&Surveying (Document Index E-1): Mr. Durant expressed the following points in the Narrative Statement he submitted for bbc application/petition which is formatted differently as follows: INDEX ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 5 of 4U 359 OCT 1 8 2024 The proposed right-of-way of North 68th Avenue between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive is 40 to 50 feet wide and improved with a hard-surfaced privately maintained road that provides access to 12 parcels of land and sole access to 8 parcels. An easement would be recorded to provide access to all of the parcels and to allow continued maintenance by the parties that use it. The easement would also provide for the extension of utilities and the maintenance of existing utilities within the private road. The petition has been signed by the owners of six adjacent parcels with 75% of the linear frontage on the right-of-way so as to satisfy the 66% requirement. The right-of-way is not maintained by the City or improved to City standards. But it attracts traffic to use it as a short cut between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive. As the area grows and traffic at nearby intersections increases, there is a potential for this additional traffic to increase as well. The public benefit would be that the City would have no obligation to improve the road or liability for its use. Maintenance would be the responsibility of the property owners who use it for access and they would be able to take actions to limit its use to those property owners, residents and their guests. The right-of- way is not appropriate to provide connectivity without being accepted, maintained and improved to minimum public road standards. Connectivity could be provided by future development of these and neighboring properties in a way that provides better safety, traffic circulation and less neighborhood disruption. Eight existing parcels of land have sole access to the public street network using the existing road and four of them front on the right-of-way. The properties that do not front on the road access it by way of easements documented in the title report and on recorded short plats. None of the easements would be affected by the proposed vacation. A new easement will be executed and recorded for the vacated right-of-way to allow continued access to public streets from all of the parcels that front on or have access to the right-of-way. The proposed right-of-way vacation would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City has no plans to improve or maintain the road. It is not on the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program from 2024 to 2029. The proposed street vacation would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.3.2C which expresses an intent to preserve and enhance established residential neighborhoods by prioritizing the upkeep and improvement of streets because it would make it easier for the property owners served by the street to provide such upkeep and improvement in a manner that better protects the neighborhood and with more clear authority to do so. The vacation would also be consistent with Policy 6.5.9 of the 2040 Transportation System Plan regarding connectivity because as a private street not being maintained by the City it is not a good or safe alternative for nearby routes that are constructed to City street standards. The proposed right-of-way vacation is consistent with the existing Suburban Residential zoning and Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation because it does not prevent future residential development at densities contemplated by beibC. INDEX ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 6 of 4Qs ft J 1 , 360 OCT .1 Q)) ?0O4 designations. Future development of vacant property in the vicinity could still occur, possibly utilizing portions of the road by incorporating it into new right-of-way dedications. Regardless, future development can provide for better connectivity that is less disruptive to the neighborhood. On-line documents show a 6-inch Nob Hill Water Association domestic water line in the existing right-of-way and short plats show irrigation lines are in the right-of-way. Power poles are in the right-of-way and title documents indicate that power, telephone and cable television utilities are in the right-of-way. There is no need to relocate any existing utilities and future utility extensions will be accommodated by an easement or easements to be recorded to accommodate them. If the right-of-way is vacated, City staff agreed that no compensation would be expected to be required by YMC §14.21.070(A)(4) because the City has not purchased, maintained or made any improvements to the public right-of-way; it would in that event be determined by the City Council that there is no planned or anticipated public purpose for maintaining the public right-of-way; and the public right-of-way has been a dedicated right-of-way in the City for at least five years. C. Testimony Presented in Opposition to Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Hearing on July 25, 2024. The testimony presented at the July 25, 2024, hearing in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation may be paraphrased as follows: (1) City of Yakima Planning Manager Trevor Martin: Mr. Martin testified in opposition to the requested public right-of-way vacation at the July 25 hearing by reading the following portions of his staff report (Document Index A-1) which are formatted differently as follows: A. Background: On January 30, 2024, the City of Yakima Department of Community Development received a petition from Ted Palmatier for the vacation of a portion of right- of-way. The proponent has requested this vacation for the purpose of eliminating an approximately 1270-foot-long portion of right-of-way that is located in an existing residential neighborhood. C. Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: Technically, street rights-of-way are not designated with an underlying zoning district. However, if a vacation is recommended and approved by the City Council, the previously underlying right-of-way is zoned the same as the properties to which they are immediately contiguous. In this case, the contiguous zoning is Suburban Residential (SR). If the right-of-way is vacated it will be zoned SR upon vacation, consistent with the zoning that is currently located along the right-of-way. 1) Per YMC Table 5-2,the minimum lot size for the SR zoning district is 6,000 square feet. Part of goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan are to encourage housing on small, more efficient lots Policy 2.3.1.C. DOC. INDEX # A FR-- ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 7 of 40 361 OCT C 7024 crry 2) HB1110 Requires the City to allow for up to four dwelling units per parcel r future subdivision in all residential zoning districts. 3) Currently there are approximately 13.69 acres of vacant land adjacent to N. 68th Ave. a. Examining the potential housing development of the adjacent land, 13.69 acres 4 596,336 sqft - —178,900 sqft (30%) for roads and right of way dedication, that leaves 417,436 sqft or potentially 69 residential lots that could be developed on the vacant property surrounding N 68th Ave. b. While these lots have not been created at this time, the City needs to be aware of the development potential and the availability of access to right- of-way and access for emergency services and ingress/egress for building development. Reducing access to public streets reduces development potential. D. Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040: Street rights-of-way do not contain an underlying Comprehensive Plan designation. Upon vacation they will obtain the same Comprehensive Plan designation as the properties to which they are immediately contiguous. The subject portions of right-of-way, once vacated, will have a Future Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential. 1) Referencing C above, the City of Yakima has to be compliant with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) which allocates the City only a certain amount of residential land for development, vacating this portion of right-of-way would limit the development potential of the surrounding properties, and require future development to reacquire right-of-way for emergency services and potential secondary access points. 2) Removing potential developable property would be contradictory to the purpose or the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan is Encourage diverse and affordable housing choices. Removing access to City right-of-way would be contradictory to this goal and remove the potential for housing within the City. 3) Finally, Washington state, along with a significant portion of the US, is experiencing a spike in housing prices and lack of inventory. Ensuring residential property maintains its development potential is within the City's best interest to address the lack of housing. 4) The proposed vacation directly contradicts the following goals and policies of the comprehensive Plan: ■ Goal 6.3. Provide a transportation system that supports the city's land use plan and is consistent with the Washington Transportation Plan, Yakima Valley Metropolitan and Regional Transportation Plan, and Yakima County Comprehensive Plan. DOC. INDEX ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 8 of 40 362 ae OCT „ ?U241 • Policy - 6.5.9. Ensure that the city transportation networks (all travel modes) have good connectivity to provide safe alternate routes and more direct travel. Where possible, encourage small block sizes. o 6.5.12. Reduce growth in vehicle travel demand through transit, active transportation, and other Commute Reduction strategies.This postpones the need for capital roadway projects. • 6.5.16. Require new development, infill development, and redevelopments to provide pedestrian facilities and transit facilities along their street frontage consistent with adopted street design standards, ADA Transition Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Transit Development Plan. (2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 8.1.4, 10.2.2, 11.2.3). 6.5.18. Work to improve pathway linkages to regional and off-street trail systems as identified in the ADA Transition Plan and Bicycle Master Plan. (3.1.8, 4.1.4). o Interjurisdictional Coordination — Encouraging coordination between the City and public/private partnerships will help create a cohesive regional transportation network. • 6.5.30. Plan and support the transportation networks in the City and region in collaboration with Yakima County, the City of Union Gap, the WSDOT, and other neighboring jurisdictions. (9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3). CRITERIA FOR VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY: YMC Ch. 14.21 provides specific guidelines for right-of-way vacations. These guidelines include five criteria that must be met in the granting of vacation petitions. They are as follows — Applicant and Staff responses are listed: { A. The petition must explain the public benefit of the project, the reasoning of the proposed vacation, and the limits of the vacation. Staff Response— Removing potential connectivity points removes future property from its full development potential. This action contradicts the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan, and actively works against Yakima's housing shortage. In order to develop the adjacent properties to the highest use, right-of-way would have to be re acquired and multiple points of ingress/egress would need to be reestablished. Per the Growth Management Act, the City needs to be conscious of the amount of developable space within the City and ensure that proposed land use actions do not contradict and work against the goals of providing additional future housing. While the street has been maintained in a limited capacity, as future development occurs in the area, the City would increase the amount of maintenance on the street. DOC. B. The vacation of right-of-way does not deny sole access to any property. INDEX # P -1 ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 9 of 40 363 a .. Li I 202A Staff Response — vacating this right-of-way would severely limit future development potential. Per the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, the City is required to encourage development within the existing City limits before expanding into the Urban Growth Area. Vacating this portion of right-of-way would limit development potential and potentially cause a reduction in possible new units due to limited access to a public street. C. Petitions should be consistent with the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan, Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and other official city plans and policies. Staff Response — While this section of the City right-of-way is not on an existing plan, this street feeds into Scenic and Englewood Avenues, which are Collector Arterials, and mentioned within the City's Planning Documents. As this area develops, the City is interested that 68th Ave. is developed to residential street standards and appropriately ties in the adjacent street network. The City also needs to consider the overall goals of the transportation network in the Transportation Plan. Currently the 2040 Transportation System Plan outline lists the following concepts: • 2.1.4 Bicycle Facilities — Bicycling is an important and growing mode of travel for people in cities across the country. When appropriately planned, bicycle routes have a role in reducing congestion, improving air quality, providing travel choices, encouraging exercise and recreation, and providing greater mobility for those without access to a vehicle. Existing bicycle facilities and descriptions are coordinated and consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan. • 3.5.1 Maintain Connected Networks — The Transportation System Plan specifically identifies the primary and secondary routes for each of the major travel modes within the city. When layering these separate network plans together, urban corridors were classified as "Auto Priority", "Bike/Ped Priority", or "Shared Priority". • 3.5.4 Bridge Non-Motorized Gaps — A review of the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities shows that there are major gaps in connectivity throughout the overall system... Additionally, several comments were received by the Active Transportation Alliance discussing current efforts to preserve an outer ring biking transportation route around the City, siting 68th Ave. as part of the route. D. Vacation requests should be appropriate with existing and anticipated development in the area, based on zoning, current use and long range plans. Staff Response — Listed in 3.0 above, the vacation would severely limit the development potential of the adjacent properties and would require any future development to reacquire right-of-way, limit access, and directly contradicts the City's Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, there are new rules from the State (HB1110) that all lots allow up to four new units to be built, up to six in specific circumstances. These ri5w0 INDEX # A P\- ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 10 of 40 364 Ot:r I', ., ";1',1! r tiJ lots and units would still be required to meet the City's design standards, but the action to build additional housing on historically single family lots will be permitted in the City. E. Are there any public or franchised utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated and if so, will they be relocated? On-line documents show a 6-inch Nob Hill domestic water line in the existing right- of-way and short plats indicate that irrigation lines are in the right-of-way. Power poles and title documents indicate that power, telephone and cable television utilities are in the right-of-way. There is no need to relocate any existing utilities and future utility extensions will be accommodated by the easement or easements to be recorded to accommodate them. Staff Response— Nob Hill water is currently located in the street. PUBLIC NOTICE: The Yakima City Council set the date of this public hearing for street vacation on July 25, 2024, by Resolution No. R-2024-117, in accordance with RCW 35.79.010. Other notices of this hearing were provided for in the following manner: Adjoining property owners notified July 2, 2024 Legal ad published July 4, 2024 Posting of right-of-way July 4, 2024 Posting in three public places July 2, 2024 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Seven comments were received from the public as of July 17, 2024, generally opposing the vacation or addressing concerns about outcomes of the proposed vacation. Comments are generalized below, to review the full comments, please see the City File: • Coleen Anderson, with Active Transportation Alliance, submitted a letter in general opposition to the vacation of the street siting removing potential multimodal access routes from the City. • Cyrus Philbrick, with the Active Transportation Alliance, submitted a comment opposed to limit the street to through traffic. • Jennifer Farren submitted a comment generally opposed to the vacation, citing access for first responders and citing opposition to gating a vacated street. • Maxing [Maxine] Farren submitted a comment generally opposing any potential gates and restricted access. • Phil Hoge, With Yakima Bikes and Walks, submitted comments generally opposing the vacation, siting several goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Transportation Systems Plan. • Phil Mattoon submitted a comment generally opposing the vacation. • Tom Robinson, with the Active Transportation Alliance, submitted comments generally opposing the vacation of the street and submitted maps of the proposed outer ring route. DOC. INDEX R,A-1 ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 11 of 40 365 1"jlr.4 Y U C t ? 8 2024. CONCLUSION 1. Petition signatures for this vacation were obtained from the necessary two- thirds of the property owners fronting this vacation. 2. N. 68th Ave. appears to have been established through a series of meets and bounds and subdivisions. 3. City of Yakima Planning Division is recommending denial of this vacation request. 4. Vacation of this right-of-way significantly limits development potential of the surrounding properties, limiting potential new housing. 5. The petition for vacation of this public right-of way currently conflicts with the Active Transportation Alliance effort to establish an outer ring bicycle route. 6. A traffic study for this proposal was not required. 7. Seven letters of opposition were received. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends the petition for the vacation of a portion of N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. & Scenic Dr. be denied. (2) The Representative of Several Organizations, Tom Robinson: Mr. Robinson expressed the following points in his testimony: I am here representing the Active Transportation Alliance and Yakima Bikes and Walks and the Yakima Basin Velo cycling club. My original letter to the City Engineers and Planners was as stated in there essentially that we believe there should be some kind of compromise, and listening to Ted and Carol and Barry speak it sounds like we all want to work together to a compromise so that they can have the safety they need, but also the cycling and pedestrians in Yakima would still be able to have access. So it sounds like that is everybody's desire. Just a few things that I wanted to point out that haven't been discussed today — the first of all I think one of the most critical points that hasn't been brought up is the whole reason this problem has existed is the 66th and Englewood intersection. The reason that people are cutting through that North 68th is because 66th gets backed up with all the thousands of residents west of 66th. And they are all trying to get to the freeway or to shopping, etc. So I would propose that the City of Yakima needs to address the 66th and Englewood intersection because if there is a roundabout or light or something there would be far fewer cars cutting through that road. Eastbound vehicles specifically, because I can tell you I drive that road a lot and I tend to be in that line. And I have been tempted to think I know I can go up through there, but I don't because I know it's a small private road and I don't want to do that to these great people. This is difficult for me because Ted and Carol, I know them personally. They are great people. And I want them to be able to get the safety they want on that road. But I also have a duty to the active transportation community and that is, although as Barry has pointed out we don't have all of the infrastructure for the correct cycling and walking, ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 12 cc'e INDEX "--366 and Englewood is on the Bike Master Plan as planned bike lanes, our goal as the Active Transportation Alliance is to actually be that vehicle to begin to fund raise to build the matching funds and apply for grants. So we hope in the next ten to twenty years you will see a much greater growth in the active transportation ability for people in this community. Some of the biggest concerns of Yakima citizens is the health and safety of our citizens. The reason we are here to talk about North 68th is right now we look at there is only about five or six access points to thousands and thousands of residences up to the Scenic area. Why is the Scenic area so important? Well it is the connectivity as has been mentioned here a lot. And the connectivity is our biggest concern. We have the Upper Cowiche Conservancy access point trail-heads, we have the Lower Cowiche Trail, and the newly completed Lower Cowiche Trail and eventually our goal along with WSDOT and the City and the County is to have River Road access points to the Greenway as well. And we look at access from Englewood up and over as a critical, critical part of our, as has been mentioned here, we call it the Outer Circle at the moment. And we haven't had a chance to sit down with the City Planners and the Bicycle Master Plan, this next year and year and a half we are going to be working with them, but in the meantime we just hope that North 68th can be at least maintained for pedestrians and bicyclists to have access. It sounds like the residents agree that that's an important thing to take place. The only thing lastly I would say is that we would like to see, if it is approved for vacation, that there is some kind of agreed contract that bike access would be continued because what could easily happen is that OK these residents all agree to it, but new residents who purchase it might say we don't want all of those cyclists and pedestrians walking through here. So that's concerning if we do do some kind of a compromise. So again, bike and walk safety, yes, we are using North 68th, those of us who do a lot of riding and walking in that area. And I am here also, I know several residents who live on 64th and 63rd who do walk across that crazy 66th and Englewood intersection to get to North 68th. So I hope that you take into consideration that even though the Bike Path and Master Plan isn't completed, we do need to maintain that access. One other note that I thought was discussed, I worry about a gate not being close down to Englewood also would get a lot of people driving up that would have to turn around. And that also presents a bike path safety issue if you do have people walking in that area. (3) Vice Chair of the City of Yakima Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee Phil Mattoon: Mr. Mattoon expressed the following points in his testimony: I am Vice Chair of the City of Yakima Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee became aware of this petition and we brought it up at our last meeting and had a fairly long discussion about it. And after discussion we basically voted to oppose this petition. And for the reason that we want to make sure that this is maintained as a bypass route to 66th because of what has been brought up before, that c. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 13 (} AE 1, 367 2024 66th has no shoulders, traffic is fairly busy, and it is a high traffic volume and it basically is unsafe. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee is entirely interested in pedestrian and cycling use. We would propose that anything that could be done to limit that use is not something we would be in favor of. However, we would certainly be in favor of the neighbors reducing the traffic on that street if it can be done in such a way that didn't require vacation of that right-of-way. Now from a personal note, I actually walk that route once or twice a week. When I started walking, I started walking down 66' and I have noticed that the traffic has increased over the last few years to the point it is basically take your life in your own hands walking down 66t". So now I have started walking primarily across the intersection of 66th and Scenic and walking 68th which I have done once or twice a week. One of the things I have noticed on 68th is virtually no traffic. I think over the period of time that I have been walking I have seen two cars. They are coming up the street, it looks like local traffic, usually waves. I appreciate the fact that the landowners need to control the street. Obviously if they feel it is unsafe, that is something that needs to be addressed. I also feel that it is in the public's interest not to vacate a right-of-way that exists for future use. I feel that possibly something can be worked out with the local residents to mitigate traffic concerns on the street without actually vacating the right-of-way. If you were to look at the traffic- counting program that the Engineering Department has, if you did traffic counts on that street and speed, the street probably would not qualify for traffic mitigation. So I think that if there was quantifiable data that shows that there is enough cut-through traffic to warrant mitigation, that would be one thing. But the petitioner has not demonstrated in quantifiable data collection on that street. I also feel that there has got to be a way to mitigate traffic on that street without actually having to give up public right-of-way. D. Testimony Presented in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Hearing on July 25, 2024. The testimony presented at the hearing in favor of the requested right-of-way vacation may be summarized as follows: (1) The representative of the petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier for this matter, Tom Durant of PLSA Engineering & Surveying: Mr. Durant expressed the following points in favor the requested right-of-way vacation in his testimony at the July 25, 2024, hearing: The right-of-way proposed for vacation is a private road in a public right-of-way that was paved to a width of between 11 to 16 feet by the property owners that use and maintain it. It does not meet City street standards or fire code standards. Since it is a straight road between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive, it is attractive to motorists to use as an alternative to North 66th Avenue, particularly when there is any reason for delay on 66th Avenue. Dr. Palmatier has personally observed 15 to 20 nonresident cars and pickups during the day using 68' and he suspects there are more because he doesn't DOC. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 14 NtiEx # - 368, 0l I 2Or r� watch the street constantly. Some of the vehicles are speeding or driving recklessly. He and his neighbors are concerned about the hazards of this traffic being that it is a private road, and also about maintenance. It is being maintained by and at the expense of the property owners. The purpose of the requested right-of-way vacation is so that the residents who are using the road would be in a better position to control the problems\ by making this explicitly a private road rather than a private road in a public right-of-way. There has been talk about possibly gating it as a physical means to discourage or stop nonresident traffic. Our client personally has no objections to the use of the road by bicyclists or by pedestrians. In fact part of the concern is the potential for a mishap by someone driving recklessly or too fast and someone on a bicycle or on foot. I want to make sure there are some things on the record that I think are important. First, based on some of the statements made by staff, one of the things that is just an observation I want to make, is that he mentioned that all of the letters are in opposition and of course he also referenced the fact that several of the petitioners are presumably in favor, so I see no reason to provide their written comments. I also want to point out that there are a number of properties served by this private road that don't have frontage. My impression is that they are also in favor. I can't speak for all of them, I don't know, but at least one of them may be here today. The other thing I want to make clear is the right-of-way width because I think there is some inaccurate information in the record about that. The site map that is technically not a survey but was prepared by a surveyor shows the right-of-way [Document Index C- 1]. The original right-of-way for North 68th Avenue is a 40-foot-wide right-of-way that was dedicated by a plat that was recorded in 1907. It was dedicated by the Yakima Orchards Highlands Company Orchard Tracts Plat recorded in 1907. It was a 40-foot-wide strip. South of Scenic Drive for a distance of 656.9 feet according to the surveys I have looked at is a 10-foot-wide dedication of right-of-way on the west side. It was dedicated by short plats in 1989 and 1990. So for the first 660 feet or so, and that is all of the property adjacent to the short plats alluded to, you have right-of-way width of 50 feet which the City considers full right-of-way width for residential use. On the south end of the dedication, north of Englewood for 345 feet there is another 10-foot right-of-way dedication on the east side. I don't know when that was dedicated, our surveyor might. The oldest I could find was that it appears on a survey that was recorded in 1974 which shows it as an existing dedicated right-of-way. So it is at least that old. So you have 50 feet of right-of-way for about 345 feet from Englewood north. And there is a strip in the middle that is 281.75 feet where there is only 40 foot right-of-way. So that's a factual thing that needs to be in the record. I am going to disagree with staff's statements that this right-of-way vacation limits development potential. There is some vacant property now, mostly on the south side of the street, that can be developed. I don't believe that the right-of-way vacation prevents DOC. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 15 111415EX N# 1 t\ -\369 it. It would have to be developed in some fashion that conforms to City standards. To make the argument that this substantially limits development potential such that it is in violation of the Growth Management Act is a little like crying fire in a crowded theatre. I don't agree that that is really the case. I do recognize that it potentially limits the connectivity, but again I think we need to think about how serious that is and I am not certain that that couldn't be resolved in the future if there were development. 68th Avenue is two blocks to the west of the arterial, it's a collector arterial, 66th Avenue. I am not sure that connectivity calls for a straight road that connects to other streets that close to another arterial. I think you can accomplish connectivity in other ways. If you look at a map of how especially the west side of Yakima has been developed, you are not seeing straight connections between arterials on a two-block interval. I think probably the best argument about connectivity is that it does potentially create an issue for bicyclists and pedestrians. Something else I want to get in the record so that it is in the record is a map from the Yakima Bicycle Master Plan which as I understand is an adopted document. It is referenced in the Comp Plan and the staff report. The Bike Plan shows North 66th Avenue to be part of a bicycle route. It's labelled climbing lane and shared roadway. North 66th Avenue is a Collector Arterial, it is designated as a Collector Arterial. As it is constructed now, it is a rural road. It does not have curbs, gutters or sidewalks. It is not constructed to the level that City standards would say is appropriate for an urban Collector Arterial. And it doesn't have any bike lanes. I understand why the bicyclists don't want to use it. But the important point is that it is not currently constructed to standards either. What else do I want to get in the record? Let's talk about the short plat [of the property abutting the east side of the right-of-way southerly from Scenic Drive]. It was mentioned and I was going to put that in the record too. The condition for the short plat requires a dedication of right-of-way if it is necessary to bring it up to 50 feet. 50 feet is there. There is no need for additional dedication. I think it is possible to bring 50 feet between the two sections without having to require additional right-of-way, That would be engineering. You might just have to angle the road slightly to keep it within the alignment. There are several large vacant parcels to the south that could be developed. They may not have a connection to Scenic, but to say that they can't be developed or it is substantially limited I think is a bit exaggerated. We may be limiting connectivity, but I don't think we are necessarily limiting developability. Condition D says 68th Avenue is designated as residential requiring a total of 50 feet of right-of-way, 25 feet each side of centerline. Applicant shall determine existing right-of-way along the frontage and dedicate any right-of-way necessary. My point is the 50 feet is already there. The short plat was approved without any required access to 68th Avenue and without any improvement of 68th Avenue. I don't say that that was necessarily wrong given the design and size of the lots in the short plat. They all had frontage on and access to Scenic Drive and 66th Avenue. But what that does is that it potentially creates a difficult situation for DOC. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 16 mi3Ex # '370 the existing developable parcels to the south if they are going to be required to improve the entire length of 68th Avenue in order to provide that required street connection. With the approval of the short plat we have taken half of the length of 68th that was not improved at that time. So that potentially becomes the responsibility of the relatively small parcels to the south if they were to develop if they were required to improve that entire length because it is apparent that the City is not going to build the street. The City's typical approach is to require the developers to improve it. So now we're asking the developers of the properties to the south to basically improve the entire street length. The evidence is that this street is not going to be improved to City standards in the foreseeable future. And that leads us back to the situation the property owners have. They are trying to maintain basically a private street and they want to have some way of controlling some of the traffic that is using it. In the staff report for the short plat on page 9 is the following statement: "The City has no current or future plans proposing the full build out of North 68th Avenue in order to connect Scenic Drive to Englewood Avenue." That was one of the Findings in the 2023 short plat. The short plat was approved on August 14, 2023. Dr. Palmatier and several of his neighbors met with City staff on August 315t, about two weeks later, and they were told again that the City has no plans to maintain 68th Avenue. They were also encouraged at that meeting to petition for this right-of-way vacation. I guess the point I am making, and I guess we may proceed to the City Council depending upon what happens as a result of this hearing, is that there is no evidence that this street will be ever improved as a City street in the foreseeable future. And so my clients are stuck with having to maintain it and having to deal with the traffic on it. That is what they are asking for relief from. At least Dr. Palmatier, I can't speak for the others, he has told me that he has no objection to use of the street by bicyclists. That is not his concern, or pedestrians. We mentioned the gate. What they are talking about now is that if this were to be vacated and they were to gate it, it would be to gate somewhere near the north of the street because that is where most of the support for the gate is. All of the opposition is at the south end of the street, so they would gate it at the north end of the street. That would discourage motor vehicles from using that as a through street. And anybody who lives on the street who doesn't want to deal with a gate because of concerns about accessibility or what have you, they can exit onto Englewood and avoid using the gate. The other thing that I have been told is that they are willing to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians by allowing a way of accessing around the gate. The gate details are really not before the City, just the issue of vacation of the right-of-way. The other thing that is not before the City but has been brought up is that I am being told is that there are no plans to form a homeowners association or a road maintenance association. They plan to deal with bejc. they have done which is to voluntarily maintain the road. INDEX # f\ 0--1 ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 17 of 40 371 I wanted to get to your question about one of the maps in the record because I think I had a similar question when I first looked at it and I think I understand it. It was attached to one of the comments. There is a map in the record and my impression after looking at it is that it is not an official map that has been prepared or part of a document of the City of Yakima. It has a City insignia on it as if taken out of an official document, but was likely just printed off of the City's website [Document Index G-3 Outer Circle ATA Network map]. The main problem is that 66th Avenue is not constructed to the standard it should be. If it were completed with curb, gutter, sidewalk and a bike lane as stated in the bicycle plan, it may not be as bad as it is perceived to be now. One more detail is that I want to take issue with the staff report on page 5, Criterion B. The criterion is that the vacation of right-of-way does not deny sole access to any property.The answer to the question that this vacation of right-of-way does not deny sole access to any property is No. This vacation of right-of-way as proposed does not deny sole access to any property. We will provide easements to make sure that anybody who has sole access to this street will continue to have sole access to the street. That would be expected to be a condition of the vacation of the right-of-way. Access to property that is adjacent to the North 68th right-of-way and to Englewood Avenue could still access Englewood west of North 68th right-of-way. That would be the same as the recent short platted Sevigny property on the northeast corner of the North 68th Avenue right-of-way and Scenic Drive that was developed into eight lots with no access to this right-of-way. I don't think it was the City's intent when that was approved to continue this street as a public street, or it should have been done as part of that short plat. They could have required it to have frontage on 68th. They could have required 68th to be built maybe as a half street or as a full street. They could have improved the street at that time, and they didn't. A continuance of the hearing is helpful because that gives the owners a chance to think about and to maybe talk about it among themselves as to whether a Revocable License Agreement with the City to use the street with an agreeable type of gating until it can be improved to a City standard street or until it is known for certain that it can be vacated because it will never likely be improved to a City standard street sounds interesting to them. Another thing, I just wanted to make a point, we heard some conflicting opinions about how serious of a problem this is. I am a little concerned about the recommendation that we try to quantify and determine that we meet some kind of a level before any mitigation is done. I hope we don't get to a point where we are applying a standard that would normally be applied to the City on a City street on these homeowners with limited resources. We have already established that this street isn't built to the current standards. I hope we don't go to the Traffic Engineer and try to raise the bar so high that we can't do anything. I thank you for coming up with some ideas that we can think about. DOC. INDEX # h/ ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 18 of 40 372 OCT 82024 ,. ;v n' ti (2) Petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier: Mr. Palmatier expressed the following points in his testimony at the July 25, 2024, public hearing: I live at 708 North 68th Avenue. I moved there in 1978. The road has been an orchard access road and a private road with a public right-of-way since, according to my neighbors who have been there forever, the late 1800s. Yakima County and then the City of Yakima following annexation of our area has never maintained or improved the road. When I moved to the area it was a dirt road. A group of cooperative neighbors paid to apply dust abatement and grade and re-gravel the road. Somewhere around 20-25 years ago, a group of cooperative neighbors with property on the road paid to have the road paved. We paid to have the snow plowed in the winter. We paid to seal cracks and seal coat the road. The road is essentially a single lane and is not built for two-way traffic. It is not built according to County specifications and it is not safe for excess vehicular use beyond that needed by the neighbors who live on that section of the road. Nonresidents of the road frequently use the road as a shortcut between Englewood and Scenic. This at times includes people driving at excessive speed and in a reckless manner. This endangers those who live on the road when they are using their own vehicles to come and go from their homes. It also endangers walkers and bicyclists who use the road for recreational purposes. This use also creates a nuisance for property owners along the road when cars approaching oncoming traffic pull off of the road to let another vehicle pass, often damaging landscaping and irrigation sprinklers.This happened to me last week. A group of neighbors living on the road expressed concern about this dangerous situation. All the neighbors along the road were notified in writing and by personal visits regarding the issue. And some of us came to the City of Yakima Planning Department about a year ago and met with the Director at the time, Joseph Calhoun, and the City { Engineer, Bill Preston. We were assured that the City had no plans to ever improve the road or to provide maintenance for the road. It was suggested that we file a petition to vacate the public right-of-way so that we could enact any needed safety measures. We followed that advice and spent close to $6,000.00 now completing the requirements for the petition. The Planning Department staff in response to 7 letters protesting our petition has recommended denial of the petition. Had we been aware of this as a possibility even, we would not have undertaken this expensive process. The Planning Department staff concern is also that maybe sometime in the future the City may wish to improve the road bringing it to City or County specifications, doing such things as installing sidewalks, curbs and gutters as population density increases to provide the needed housing.This contrasts with what we were told when we first met with the Planning Department staff. It also appears unlikely when you consider the over one century history of County and then City lack of maintenance of the section of the road and lack of any interest in improving it.Bbc INDEX # /\ i\ 1 ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 19 of 40 373 area around there on 66th Avenue, Englewood and Scenic does not have any improvements such as curbs, gutters and sidewalks. This recommendation to deny our petition and further concerns by the Planning Department is inconsistent based upon that recent approval of the short plat by the Sevignys adding 7 added homes in the subdivision on the north part of the road 6 months ago. That short plat was approved without requiring any improvements on North 68th Avenue. It seems inappropriate to allow that and now to tell us that we have to not do the vacation for the safety issues and for the maintenance issues that we stated. The City Planning staff implies that this vacation of City right-of-way would reduce public access to development potential in the future for the parcels that perhaps could be subdivided in the future. But this doesn't make any sense in deciding this vacation petition since all the available building lots or parcels affected would have access to the road and have the right-of-way by virtue of the easement provided for that purpose. There are ample streets already available in the immediate vicinity for connectivity. And that would satisfy the Washington Transportation Plan cited without conversion of this non-City-maintained road into some kind of a major highway. The utility easement concerns were already satisfied in the vacation agreement. The statement on [page] 5 [section] A [of the staff report] that the street has been maintained, implying that the City has done so, in a limited capacity is not true as far as I am aware. From a historical perspective, the restatement on page 5 [of the staff report] of the findings of fact by the Planning Department alleging that vacation of public right- , of-way would somehow limit future development for potential building of homes in undeveloped acreage adjacent to the street is again not true as far as I can see because there is no limitation in access or right-of-way that would affect those potential lots available on the road. The concerns of those citizens who wrote protests are easily addressed. The walkers and bicycle rider groups are welcome. It was never our intent to block their access or use of the road. The only two neighbors living on the road who are not in favor of our petition to vacate the right-of-way raised objections to a possible HOA and a possible future barrier on the road such as an automatic gate. No HOA has been proposed. None is deemed needed by the neighbors who support this petition. We have been able to maintain the road for 46 years since I have lived there without an HOA. The possibility of a future automatic gate installation is not currently a definite planned action. If that was decided in the future, these same neighbors who object would not have a gate installed on their section of the road anyway and would have unlimited access to Englewood Avenue to gain egress and ingress to their property. If they wished to have access to drive through the gate potentially placed on the north part of the road, they could easily purchase a remote to open and close the gate from their vehicles like any of the adjacent property owners would use. Emergency vehicle access would always be guaranteed by compliance with area requirements to provide that access. These two DCC. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 20 of t&DEX /1374-- neighbors have not participated in payment for this petition and have not been mandated by anyone to participate financially in any road improvements or in payment for preparation of the petition. Participation has always been voluntary. If a barrier or gate was installed in the future, there would be open access for walkers or bicyclists. Only automobiles or trucks or motor vehicles would need to use the gate for through traffic. There are only two neighbors in opposition, the Larsons and the Ferrans on the south side on the east side of the street. There is no plan to have a gate on the south side of the street. The only plan if there ever was one, and again, that hasn't been put in writing and there has been no contract for anything like that for a gate. It would only be on the north side. It would just be a barrier so that if someone were to drive up the road, they would only do it once because it is usually only local traffic. So they would drive up and see the gate and go back down and go around on 66th which is the official access anyway. There is plenty of room to do a three-point turn. If you are able to drive, you can do that. There are some circular driveways that they can turn around in. They could turn around in my driveway.They could turn around in Wagar's driveway if they had to. Those are both circle drives out front. I probably wouldn't want it, but it would be okay for the occasional person who came there. And again this is local traffic mostly and those people would learn that the road is blocked for through traffic. They wouldn't come again, so I don't think that would go on as an ongoing issue of importance. I don't ever see this becoming a City street. After living there for 46 years and seeing no action in that regard. And hearing my neighbors talk about going back to the late 1890s, there has been no action by the County or the City to do that and at this point no plans to do so that I am aware of. And that came from the Planning Department. I do believe that this is for safety. Our main concern is for the safety of the walkers, the bicyclists and the people who use the road to access their properties. I think currently it is unsafe the way it is, and there has been no solution offered by the City other than recommending that we apply for a vacation of the public right-of-way which we have done, faithfully expecting a different result than we have gotten so far. This isn't necessarily about a gate. We would love to consider other options, you know speed bumps, better signage. But we need the City to commit if they don't grant a vacation. So that's the problem. And the City didn't seem to have the resources or interest in being able to do anything for 68th. Where are we left where we are concerned about safety and maintenance? What can we do? What are we allowed to do? So we need to have some sign that the City has some interest in doing that. And it is more than a couple. I know it isn't very frequent, but I have encountered just coming up my driveway to hit 68th numerous times people speeding and coming over, and that happens several times a week. And it just takes one accident and then it is sorta like 66th and Englewood. It took how many accidents before we put up more impressive stop signs. I remember taking care of accidents from 64th and Nob Hill. And it took how many deaths before a stop light was put in there? So I think prevention is a lot better than reactive planning. DOC ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 214OEX 375 OCT 1 y 2024 a inf (3) Petitioner / adjacent property owner / resident Carol Wagar: Carol Wagar expressed the following points in her testimony at the July 25, 2024, public hearing: I live at 710 North 68th Avenue. My front door is about 30 feet from the road. I am actually the closest to the road. I am directly across from the orchard. I have the dark brown house with the semi-circular driveway. The first thing I would like to say is that the road is busy. One of the letter writers commented that because they walk on it that it is dead. Well I live there, it is busy. Just the other night I was out there and four cars in a row at relatively high speed came up the road. The letters of opposition mostly were from people that want to use it for biking and walking. And as has been said numerous times, there is no opposition to that. We welcome bikers and walkers and we would certainly make an opening in the gate to let bikers and walkers continue to use the road. As far as I know, there has been no discussion of gating the south end. I understand the Ferrans' concern about emergency vehicles and that would not be a problem. My mother until April lived at 714 North 68th right below me and she passed away in April. We had numerous emergency vehicles at her house and they all came from Englewood. That's the way they come. So that wouldn't be an issue that I can see. I just don't really understand the details of what the City says that gating one end of it would hinder development because the developments that I have observed rarely have a through street. Most developments you go in one entrance and you turn around and come out the same entrance. I guess my biggest complaint is that the City has never paid to maintain or develop the road. Not all of the neighbors, but most of the neighbors have joined together to pay for paving and re-paving that road, and the road right now needs to be re-paved again. It has got holes and alligator cracking. And so the frustration for us is that we pay for the road, but we have no ability to limit its use as to vehicular traffic. We are only trying to restrict nonresidents' use of the road as a shortcut. There is a new development as you know up on Scenic that will only increase the number of people that are trying to use our road as a shortcut. I see it all the time. I walk every night. And people are regularly cutting down our road. I feel like stopping them and saying you know this doesn't have access. When 66th was under construction for at least 6 weeks, the traffic on our road was unbelievable and I think people at that point got used to using it as a shortcut. The main opposition seems to be from the bicyclists and I would say they are welcome. And I would be willing to have people turn around in my semi-circle driveway at 710 North 68th because if it is only gated at the north end you can't see that from the bottom. So there will be people the first time come off and go oh I can't get through. I guess we would for sure be putting up some type of sign at the south end that not only said dead end but probably said this is no longer through access to Scenic. DOCU INDEX # F\R ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 22 of 40 376 (4) Resident/property owner who uses North 68th Avenue as his sole access, Barry Bernfeld: Mr. Bernfeld expressed the following points in his testimony at the July 25, 2024, public hearing: My address is 718 North 68th Avenue. I am a property owner but without direct frontage on 68th. But my only access to my property, I have two plots there, is from 68th I have no other egress or access. I am a retired physician, general surgeon, who had to take care of trauma like car accidents. So just to reiterate, this all came about not about a gate, it came about because of initial concerns about safety and maintenance, neither of which the City or County before were really addressing. And that's why we approached the City. And really the City has been unable, maybe because of resources or choice, to do anything for either problem, safety or maintenance. Because of lack of resources, and somewhat intent, has no plans to do so in the future was made clear to us when we met with the City. So that's number one and those problems aren't going to go away, safety and maintenance regardless. Another point, the development of that land on the northeast side has already been subplotted and the developer who I have spoken to had said his intent was to build a house for himself and these other lots would be accessed from Scenic. He had no plans to access from 68th except maybe having one gate for his property on 68th and had no intent or wish to have a public road there and did not want to have access to those other plots from there. So that's already been discussed. I am a bicyclist and I have taken care of people with bicycle accidents. I think this whole thing about a bicycle ring of development is a little bit of a red herring. I mean I appreciate it, I would love to have more bicycle paths in Yakima, it would be safer. But we don't even have safe access to our schools. Like with Apple school they didn't build a sidewalk all the way, and now they maybe are going to do it, a full sidewalk from Tieton to Summitview. You know, 68th connects two roads that are unsafe for bicycling, especially Englewood. There is no sidewalk, there is a blind hill there, there is no shoulder. And we're talking about preserving 68th as a link to what? To unsafe roads. Scenic is safer because it's flat and there is some visibility, but it's not designed particularly for biking either. So I think from my point of view, resources to develop that in the future as a public road could better be spent making roads like Englewood and Scenic safer with more sidewalks and a safe walking path there. Anything we do just to control safety and maintenance on this road would not interfere with people walking or if they choose to bicycle on this very steep hill. Most people walk their bicycle up. They might bicycle down, but they walk them up. We would do nothing to block that. The owner of that southeast property that there was some concern about hasn't expressed concerns. Again our basic concern is safety and maintenance. We don't know where to go with it if we don't get approval.Who is going to maintain it? Are we expected to continue that? CDC, INDEX # -A Pk- ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 23 of 40 377 OCT 1 8 2024 (5) Petitioner/adjacent property owner Matthew Sevigny: The testimony of Mr. Sevigny at the July 25, 2024, public hearing may be summarized as follows: I am Matt Sevigny, 7402 Scenic Drive. I own the orchard and am developing that short plot. I don't think anyone has any intent or desire to shut off any access to anybody walking or bikes for that matter. The general consensus is safety. The road is not built nor designed for anything but local use for that matter. There is really no reason for any other traffic besides local traffic to be using that road. The only other thing I had was it talks about there being potentially 6 to 9 residential units or lots to be developed, but that's not really a very accurate statement if you take into consideration that my subdivision takes over half of that property away and we are only adding 6 lots over and above the one that is already there. Our intent when we did that subdivision was for no access onto 68th. All of our access was either to 66th or Scenic Drive. The gate onto 68th was more just for maintenance, a lawnmower or whatever, it was not necessarily a driveway per se. Because the road isn't wide enough, everybody drives in the orchard over sprinklers and everything else. It isn't wide enough for two cars to pass without actually going into the grass and up against trees. E. Written Comments Submitted in Opposition to Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8, 2024,. The written comments submitted in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation at the continued hearing on August 8, 2024, are summarized or set forth with different formatting as follows: (1) Additional letter received August 5, 2024, from adjacent property owner/resident Maxine I. Farren and adjacent resident Jennifer J. Farren (Document Index G-13). This additional letter expressed the following points: A gate at the north end of North 68th Avenue would block their access to their mailbox located at the north end. The City is requested to collect data on actual road traffic. If the vacation or a license agreement is granted, it should include a stipulation that there cannot be a gate at the south end of North 68th Avenue or along the Farren property that blocks access. ADA rules should be evaluated as to how they apply to the proposed gates since Jennifer Farren is physically disabled and she would not be able to get out of her car and open a gate by hand if there were a power outage. A gate on the south would block deliveries of crucial supplies and emergency services if there were a power outage. Even though it has been said that there is no plan for a gate yet, that is actually the whole purpose of having 68th vacated so that a gate could be installed to reduce traffic. (2) City of Yakima Fire Chief Aaron J. Markham (Document Index G-14): A Memorandum from Fire Chief Aaron Markham dated July 30, 2024, expressed the following points: DOC. . ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 24 of itilDpS f, } 378 OC1 Y. 8 2024 The Yakima Fire Department is in opposition to this requested right-of-way vacation due to the already limited access to areas of Scenic Drive from Englewood Avenue. The installation of gates or other barriers to fire department access roads significantly increases response times during times of emergency when every minute counts. (3) City of Yakima Planning Manager Trevor Martin (Document Index G-15): Mr. Martin submitted and summarized his Memorandum dated August 7, 2024, in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation at the continued hearing on August 8, 2024, which is set forth with different formatting as follows: The City of Yakima Planning Division is responding to several of the items mentioned in the July 25, 2024, initial hearing for the proposed Right-of-Way vacation for a segment of N. 68th Ave., in between Englewood Ave. and Scenic Dr. Regarding the gate and Revocable License Agreement, the City may enter into a Revocable License Agreement if there is a shared benefit between the grantor and grantee. The City would be required to charge the property owner for the license agreement, finding that the agreement is not going to hamper any City or Utility operations. If a license is entered into, it would be on the City's terms, if no such agreement can be found, then an agreement will not be entered into. At this time, the agreement would be for a traffic limiting gate at the northern end of 68th Ave., which is not favorable for the City. The proposed gate would limit through traffic for emergency services in between Englewood and Scenic, and limit the use of a public right-of-way. The } City of Yakima Fire Chief has provided a letter against the proposed vacation, included in the file. Next, the concept of vacating a section of right-of-way and forming an access easement outside of a platting process - the Planning Division highly discourages this action due to the potential creation of new lots and the creation of a nonconforming use. Per YMC § 14.25.040.E Lot Design — "All lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement. Access easements cannot serve more than one lot. Minimum street frontage and/or access easement width shall be at least twenty feet. Lots intended for residential use should not access a principal or minor arterial." Additionally, the creation of a nonconforming situation is contrary to the City's Municipal Code under YMC § 15.19.080.1-2: "The following procedures shall be followed to change a nonconforming use to a different nonconforming use; expand a nonconforming use throughout a structure; and/or expand a nonconforming structure or use throughout a lot or onto an adjoining lot. These procedures shall be used to expand a nonconforming structure throughout a lot; provided, a structure that is nonconforming only by reason of excessive building height or substandard setbacks, or is a nonconforming single-family dwelling, may be altered or expanded under the modification provisions of YMC 15.17.020 when the alteration or expansion: DOC. INDEX ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 25 of g 379 )C i' 1 (2) Complies with development standards of the district in which it is located;" Seven of the eight homes will be considered nonconforming, and no new parcels or driveways will be permitted to have access to 68th Ave in the future, including parcel# 18131744401, which is the vacant orchard at the intersection of Scenic and 68th Ave. This further reinforces the argument that future housing and subdivision within this area will be substantially limited, negatively affecting the City's vacant land use inventory as it relates to the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.115). The proposed Vacation also contradicts Chapter 8.96—Complete Streets Policy, of the Municipal Code. Per YMC §8.96.010 Purpose — "The purpose of the complete streets policy is to ensure all users are planned for in the construction of all city transportation improvement projects as outlined in the comprehensive plan and detailed in the soon to be adopted bike master plan and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan. By enacting the ordinance codified in this chapter the city of Yakima encourages healthy, active living, reduction of traffic congestion and fossil fuel use, inclusion and maintenance of trees and appropriate landscaping, and improvement in the safety and quality of life of residents in the city of Yakima by providing safe, convenient and comfortable routes for walking, bicycling and public transportation. The complete streets policy will improve street connectivity for all modes." Establishing a gate over a portion of the City right-of- way removes connectivity opportunity for vehicles and first responders to adjacent residential properties. Finally, it is important to mention the importance of public right-of-way and the purpose of the street system. As mentioned in the Compete Streets Policy, streets are intended to provide conveyance for a variety of people from all different walks of life, regardless of whether or not they live in a certain neighborhood, the type of vehicle they drive, or their socioeconomic status. Maintaining and improving connectivity within the City helps reduce trip times, reduces air and noise pollution, increases exercise opportunities, makes it easier for people to access services, and helps first responders by providing open routes to a call. It was mentioned in the public hearing that people who did not live in the area were observed using the right-of-way, which is the purpose of the public right-of-way, it is intended for the public to use. The City of Yakima has provisions for a Master Planned Development and the creation of a private street system in a private neighborhood, this is not the case for this situation. The City understands that there has been limited maintenance on the right-of-way, but that is the case with many streets and different rights-of-way within the City. The City has a certain amount of money allocated for maintenance, and the status of this street/right-of-way will be updated and included in a future maintenance schedule. Vacating this right-of-way may potentially establish a precedent allowing other people to apply to vacate their street simply because they are bothered by limited through traffic. DOG. INDEX ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 26 of 40 380 OCT 1 8 2024 For the reason stated above, the Planning Division still maintains denial of the proposed Vacation and that no Revocable License Agreement be established in lieu of vacating the right-of-way. F. Testimony Presented in Opposition to Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8, 2024. The testimony presented at the continued hearing on August 8, 2024, in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation includes the following: (1) City of Yakima Planning Manager Trevor Martin: Mr. Martin testified in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation at the continued hearing on August 8, 2024, by summarizing his Memorandum dated August 7, 2024, which is set forth above in Subsection E(3) of this Attachment to the recommendation (Document Index G-15). He also testified as follows in response to questions as to whether the street can ever be public in the future and regarding the Fire Department's position as to gating the street: From my understanding is that this right-of-way was platted back in 1907 and the concept of a private street in a public right-of-way is something that was created in the County awhile back, but as far as I understand it this is a public right-of-way. And as I mentioned in the Memorandum, the street would be added to our maintenance schedule. We will have to figure out a time to improve the street and start maintaining the street, but part of the expectation is also that as the properties adjacent to the street develop more in the future, that there would be improvements installed as well and right- of-way that is dedicated. So everything leads me to believe that a street that meets the local street standards could be created in this area. I have had conversations with the acting City Engineer that it would be added to a maintenance schedule, depending on the outcome of this proceeding it could be put on a maintenance schedule. I don't exactly know the Fire Department's position on the Knox box gates at this time. I know that we have allowed them to be installed in the past, but I don't know their exact position on them at this point in time. G. Testimony Presented in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation at the Continued Hearing on August 8, 2024: The testimony presented at the continued hearing on August 8, 2024, in favor of the requested right-of-way vacation includes the following: (1) Representative for petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier, Thomas Durant of PLSA Engineering & Surveying: I think one of the questions you asked the City to answer was not answered. I would be curious to find out which I think is key is to ask the City Engineer what the prospects of this street being improved to a City street are because as you recall from the last hearing one of the points we made is that the street has not been improved and a a ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 27 of C. INDEX E /� ) ) 381 ()CI 1, 3 202M! - r r large portion of it was platted without any requirement for street improvement and there is really a question about whether it would even be possible for the remaining owners of the vacant land to subdivide and if there is the rational nexus that they could even be required to improve the street. I would still be interested in knowing what the answer to the question is — what are the prospects of this street being improved to City standards? I think we should at least take that to the Council before denying this application. I haven't had a chance to look at the City Code because I only got this Memoran- dum a couple minutes ago. But YMC 14.25.040(B) says all lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street — "upon a dedicated public street." I don't know what the definitions are in Chapter 14. I would say this is not a dedicated public street. It is a dedicated right-of-way and a private street. So the argument that we are creating a nonconforming situation, I would say that the nonconforming situation is already there. And "lots within a subdivision," does that mean all lots within a new subdivision, a new plat being proposed under the City Code? Again, I haven't had a chance to look more closely at the City Code with respect to that. And finally with regard to the Fire Department's concern about blocking access with a gate, there is a number of developments that have been approved over the last few years that are gated communities. It seems to be possible to install gates that satisfy access requirements of emergency responders. And we have said that we would be willing to do whatever it takes to make this available for that purpose. And my client had a question. I think I know the answer, but I am going to ask it so that everybody is clear and it is on the record. He was saying that he thought this property was within Fire District 12. I guess if we could get that clarified as to what the City's jurisdiction is with regard to fire services. Those are the questions that I have. (City Attorney Sara Watkins responded to Mr. Durant's question as follows: When I looked up the property on the Yakima County Assessor's site, and then I compared it with my own property within Fire District 12, the property is not being assessed Fire District 12 assessments, so I think that would indicate that they do fall under the Yakima Fire Department jurisdiction.) (2) Petitioner/adjacent property owner/resident Ted Palmatier: Mr. Palmatier expressed the following points in his testimony at the August 8, 2024, continued public hearing: I live at 708 North 68th Avenue and I am one of the neighbors of the neighborhood trying to do something about road maintenance and safety which was our primary concern. And it seems like the outcome of this particular hearing thus far does not address that to our satisfaction. I mean it is all very nebulous. Right now the road is crumbling from overuse. We are the ones that pay to maintain it and we have done so for the last 46 years that I have lived on the property. It's at that point that if the City is going to deny us the opportunity to control the road, then the City needs to maintain it. We pay property taxes for that purpose and I find it very disappointing that our concerns DOC. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 28 ofjNDEX # i 382 OCT 1 43 20Z4 regarding the safety of the public right-of-way are being ignored here. I know there is not much I can do about it, but despite the recommendation for denial, I think I would like to take it to the City Council and see if we can get a different opinion. We have no problem with walkers, bicycle riders, recreational use of the road. The only issue again has been vehicular traffic and at times it has been excessive. It has been reckless driving. It has been speeding. It has been a situation where the current residents of the road are put in a dangerous situation sometimes coming out of their driveways. And the walkers and bicyclists could be put in a dangerous situation. There are some blind spots because of the steep hill. If the City is going to do nothing, then I guess we are powerless. But we are asking you to lift this denial and at least allow the revocable license. If you do it for others, why not for us? And the Fire District thing, as has been pointed out, there are gated communities all over town. Why is that an issue here and not in other places. I mean I would just appeal to logic and common sense here. We need to do something to help improve the safety of the road and we need to maintain the road. And what I am hearing is that there is no guarantee or no plan to do any of that in the immediate future. Meanwhile it is crumbling. Potholes are developing. We are going to have to go ahead and repair it again ourselves without any help from the City. But yet we are being limited and we are being put in a situation where I guess there is no win here. I feel like we're being let down by our government. Sorry to say that, but I would hope that we could come up with a better conclusion, a better answer, something that would meet all needs rather than just one side here. H. Additional Written Information in Opposition to the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation Submitted in Response to the Interim Decision.The additional information submitted in opposition to the proposed right-of-way vacation in response to the Interim Decision includes the following: (1) Opinion of City Attorney on the Applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to a Street Right-of-Way Vacation that Requires One or More Private Access Easements as a Substitution. The opinion of City Attorney Sara Watkins dated September 4, 2024, regarding the applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to this requested street vacation (Document Index G-16) is set forth with different formatting as follows: 1. QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) What is the applicability of the wording of YMC 14.25.040(B) to a street right- of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way? (2) If applicable, what is the effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access? DOC. INDEX ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 29 of 40# j'C' 1, 383 /�OCT 1 8 2024 C.". 4 l' l _ \:.... .. . 2. BACKGROUND Applicant submitted a request to vacate the portion of North 68th Avenue from Englewood Avenue to Scenic Drive. There are 8 parcels that abut North 68th Avenue, and, based on aerial mapping, an additional 3 parcels currently use North 68th Avenue for access, or would need to use North 68th Avenue for access if developed. Some of the properties adjacent to North 68th are not yet developed, while others are large enough to be subdivided if a property owner wished. These properties all appear to be part of the 1907 Plat of Orchard Highlands Orchard Tracts, which divided a large portion of the area into tracts. Over time the tracts have been further subdivided. After the public hearing and review of the City staff report recommending denial of the application, the Hearing Examiner left the record open for additional information, including the City Attorney's opinion on the applicability of the wording in YMC 14.25.040(B) to a street right-of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way, and, if applicable, what is the effect that granting the requested right- of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access. 3. ANALYSIS A. YMC 14.25.040(B) is applicable to street right-of-way vacations that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way if the administrative official determines that it is applicable. The administrative official can evaluate any ordinance requirements, or other information that the administrative official determines is appropriate to review and evaluate when determining their position in the staff report. YMC 14.21.040 states: The administrative official shall prepare a report concerning the proposed vacation for the hearing in front of the hearing examiner. The staff report shall evaluate the advisability of the proposed vacation based on a development services team (DST) meeting and/or submitted application materials. The report shall address the criteria to be considered in determining whether to vacate the public right-of-way, and such other information as deemed appropriate by the administrative official. YMC 14.21.040(B). The administrative official is tasked with evaluating the application in light of the criteria and formulating a staff report and recommendation. Id. Therefore, the administrative official has the opportunity to evaluate any information relevant to the following criteria: 1. The public benefit, reason for, and limitations of the proposed right-of-way vacation; 2. Whether the vacation would deny sole access to a public street or alley for any property; DOC. INDEX r ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 30 of 40 384 VI! 1 3 2024 3. Whether the proposal is consistent with existing plans of the city, such as the six-year transportation improvement plan, the urban area comprehensive plan, or other official city plans and policies; 4. Whether the vacation is appropriate with existing and anticipated zoning and land use; and 5. Whether there are any public or franchised utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated and, if so, whether they will be relocated, or whether an easement will need to be reserved. YMC 14.21.050(A). Specific to the Examiner's question, YMC 14.25.040(B) is relevant to criteria 3 and 4. Criteria 3 evaluates consistency with existing official plans and policies. The City has a Pedestrian Master Plan, which has a goal of creating a safe, complete and connected pedestrian network that supports travel for people of all ages and abilities.' There is a City of Yakima Bicycle Master Plan, Bike Yakima, which has a goal of improving bicycle transportation throughout the city of Yakima and to guide planning, development, and management of existing and future bicycle connections within the City.2 The Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, We are Yakima, has a number of sections that guide transportation, housing and development of the City.' The City adopted a Housing Action Plan to promote affordable housing options for all community members across the city's neighborhoods, including encouraging diverse housing development within existing neighborhoods.4 All of these plans and policies are to be evaluated under YMC 14.21.050(A)(3). In so doing, the restrictions associated with the creation of a private easement for access for an area should be analyzed. Those restrictions include any possible future impacts on the goals and policies of the plans caused by removing a street from the public streets of the City. Criteria 4 evaluates whether the vacation is appropriate with existing and anticipated zoning and land use. The existing and anticipated land uses in the area are single family residential. However, with upcoming mandated changes to the law regarding the types of housing which will be allowed in single family zones, the City's desire to increase affordable housing and the goals of the City's Housing Action Plan, and transportation needs, it is appropriate for the administrative official to evaluate the effects of YMC 14.25.040(B) on an application to vacate a right-of-way. Here, the administrative official determined it was appropriate to evaluate YMC 14.25.040(B), and the affect it would have on future development in the area. The language is applicable when looking at the long-term plans and policies of the City and 'https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/files/2021/09/Yakima-Pedestrian-Master-Plan-Design-Guide=Public- ��r Draft_20210915-2.pdf zhttps://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/files/2018/03/Bicycle-Master-Plan_Final_11.29.2017reduced.pdf ND EX 3 https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/files/2018/07/Yakima-Comprehensive-Plan-2017_0612-FINAL.pdf 4 https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/files/2021/08/Yakima-Housing-Action-Plan-FINAL-Plan_June-2021.pdf ► ` �� ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 31 of 40 385 (Jr , .1 1024 Ili anticipating the land uses of the properties abutting the road. Any future subdivisions would be subject to YMC 14.25.040(B), and the restrictions found therein could have an impact on the City's ability to carry out its housing, growth, bicycle, pedestrian, and transportation plans. B. If approved, the right-of-way vacation could limit growth and development of the area due to the restrictions of YMC 14.25.040(B). If approved, any property that seeks further subdivision is subject to YMC 14.25.040(B) which states that "all lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement. Access easements cannot serve more than one lot." "Subdivision" is defined as the division or redivision of land into 10 or more lots. YMC 14.10.020. Therefore, the approval of vacating the right-of-way will preclude properties that do not abut a public street other than North 68th Avenue from subdividing into 10 or more lots. Although some of the larger lots abut Scenic, North 66th, or Englewood, there are large lots that are only accessible by North 68th Avenue. Not having access to North 68th Avenue also may require designs that reduce the number of lots that can be created, such as if a hammerhead or cul-de-sac is required rather than a street that intersects with North 68th Avenue. A restriction in subdivision ability could limit the possible growth and development in the area. Although the current owners may not be interested in subdividing their properties, future property owners may want to create subdivisions. The administrative official is required to look at all of the possible outcomes of the vacation when making their determination, including speculative future growth opportunities, and how vacating a right-of-way could limit growth in the future—especially in light of the long-range plans of the City. 4. CONCLUSION Based on the language of the Yakima Municipal Code, the administrative official has the authority to evaluate any information deemed appropriate when evaluating an { application for a right-of-way vacation. As such, YMC 14.25.040(B) can be applicable to a right-of-way use vacation in some circumstances. Since the section is applicable, it should be considered when evaluating whether the right-of-way vacation petition should be recommended to City Council. (2) City of Yakima Response to Interim Decision for Petition for Right-of-Way Vacation. Planning Manager Trevor Martin's Response to the Interim Decision received on September 24, 2024, (Document Index 15) is set forth with different formatting as follows: RESPONSE TO INTERIM DECISION: A. Information that is as specific as possible from Mr. Durant and either Mr. Martin or City Attorney Sara Watkins regarding the applicability of the wording of YMC §14.25.040(B) to a street right-of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way and, if applicable, the effect that ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 32 ofE2OC• INDEX # { 1 386 Or, .I. ) 21)[/1- granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access. Staff Response: YMC § 14.25.040.E —All lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement. Access easements cannot serve more than one lot. Minimum street frontage and/or access easement width shall be at least twenty feet. Lots intended for residential use should not access a principal or minor arterial. Currently 68th Ave. is designated as a public right-of-way, which currently provides access for the surrounding residents. Technically, the adjacent residential lots have access to a public right-of-way, meeting the criteria within YMC Chapter 14. Removing the public right-of-way would make the existing lots non-conforming and prevent them from further subdivision because the lots would not have access to an adjacent public right-of-way. This action has a direct contradiction to the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Goal 5.1. Encourage Diverse and Affordable Housing Choices. Goal 5.2. Preserve and Improve Existing Residential Neighborhoods. Policy 5.4.7. Promote complete streets and trails to interconnect Yakima's neighborhoods and promote walkability. The City has an obligation to ensure that land can continue to be used to its highest potential. Finally, removing developable residential land from future development actively contradicts the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires cities to account for the amount of residential developable space within the existing City limits, and design a plan that best addresses the development of existing City limits (RCW 36.70A.140.2). Ultimately, removing this portion of right-of-way would mean that no existing lots along 68th Ave. would be allowed to subdivide and use 68th as their primary access in the future. B. Information from Mr. Martin provided to him by engineering that is as specific as possible regarding the expected timing and result of including this street in a future maintenance schedule if the requested right-of-way vacation is denied and whether the expected type of maintenance would likely include any improvements to the street, and if so, whether the expected type of improvements would make it safer for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians to use. Staff Response: The right-of-way would be added to the City's street maintenance and improvement schedule. There is not an exact date on when this street would be developed at this time. Plans for the development of the street would be included in future updates to the City's Engineering documents. C. Information from Mr. Martin provided to him by engineering that is as specific as possible regarding the prospects or likelihood of this street right-of-way ever being improved to City street standards. Staff Response: Portions of the right-of-way meet the City standards for a residential street, specifically,the approximately 350 feet of the southern portion of right- DOC. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 33 of iQ�DEX���y99 387--- of-way. Other parts of the right of way would need additional right-of-way dedication in order to meet the standards of a residential City street. Right-of-way is usually requested during development applications of parcels adjacent to the subject right-of-way. This would more than likely be the strategy for acquiring the necessary right-of-way for the complete residential street development of 68th Ave. At this time, the City would likely look at paving the 32 foot wide section of residential street prior to the installation of frontage improvements such as curb, gutter, and sidewalk. D. Additional information from Mr. Martin provided to him by Fire Chief Markham as to whether Chief Markham considers Knox box gates or other types of emergency gates that have been approved for residential development in the past in order to discourage the use of unimproved public street right-of-way to be of a type which significantly increases response times and should no longer be allowed even to make a street safer (See e.g., A DLT Investment Group LLC, PD#002-21, CL2#019-21, PLP#002-21, SEPA#010- 21 dated October 7, 2021). Staff Response: The intent of the denial for this specific request is because it was to block off a public street. Although access gates into private secured neighborhoods can still be reviewed and approved as necessary, the occupants of these neighborhoods choose security over a delay in emergency response agencies. The blocking of a street will have an effect of reducing responses to residential properties that are not adjacent to the closed road but may be along the best travel path to get to the incident address. In addition, PD#002-21 is a Planned Development, and was designed as a private development from the start, which included private streets. There are currently specific conditions addressing access to 92nd Ave. and if those conditions are to change in the future, the applicant will be required to go through another Class 3 Review to analyze the impact on 92nd Ave. Additionally access to 92nd Ave. was removed from the DLT development because the applicant did not agree to the installation of frontage improve- ments along the 92nd right-of-way. In addition, access to the residential properties in the DLT development is coming from the North in both scenarios. The total distance an emergency vehicle would have to travel in this instance is approximately 1,400 feet. In the case of the properties along 68th Ave., which was not initially constructed as a private development, the furthest distance would be approximately 3,800 feet. I. Additional Written Information in Favor of the Requested Right-of-Way Vacation Submitted in Response to the Interim Decision.The additional information submitted in favor of the requested right-of-way vacation includes the following: (1) Letter of Thomas Durant dated September 10, 2024, Relative to the Applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to this Requested Street Right-of-Way Vacation. The letter from Thomas Durant of PLSA Surveying and Engineering dated September 10, 2024, DO . ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 34 bNDEX # P4A-1 388 . 3 ?Oa regarding the applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to this requested street vacation (Document Index 17) is set forth with different formatting as follows: This responds to the request for additional information made by the Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision to Reopen the Record issued on August 22, 2024. We were asked to respond to one of the four questions posed by the Interim Decision: The applicability of the wording of YMC 14.25.040(B) to a street right-of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way and, if applicable, the effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access. We are responding to this request in two parts: Applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to the right-of-way vacation and the effect that granting the right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses. All emphasis (bold-faced italics) in the following code citations has been added and emphasis in the conclusions is intended to be corresponding. YMC 14.12.020 definitions are not in the same order as they are in the Municipal Code. Their order corresponds to the analysis being presented. A. Applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to the right-of-way vacation. 14.25.040 Lot design Each lot within a subdivision shall comply with the following design standards and requirements: B. All lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement. Access easements cannot serve more than one lot. Minimum street frontage and/or access easement width shall be at least twenty feet. Lots intended for residential use should not access a principal or minor arterial. 14.10.020 Definitions. "Street"means a public or private road. "Road, private" means a road not designed, built, or maintained by the city, the Washington State Department of Transportation, or any political subdivision of the state. "Road, public" means the physical improvement of the public right-of-way, including, but not limited to, surfacing, curbs, gutters and drainage facilities, which is maintained and kept open by the city of Yakima or Yakima County for public vehicular and pedestrian use. "Right-of-way, public" means land deeded or dedicated to or purchased by the city of Yakima or Yakima County for existing or future public pedestrian or vehicular access. "Easement" is a dedication by a property owner to specific persons or to the public to enter onto, cross, or otherwise to use land for a specific purpose or purposes. "Subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into ten or more lots for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership in the present or future except as expressly exempted by this title. DOC ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 35 INDEX 389 J. 3 21_)2i! Conclusions: 1. While N. 68th Avenue does meet the YMC definition of "street" as a "private road", it is not a "public street" as that term is used by YMC 14.25.040(B) because it is not maintained by the city of Yakima or Yakima County. 2. The lots accessed from N. 68th Avenue conform to YMC 14.25.040(B) to the extent that they either have frontage on and access to or they are accessed by an easement to Scenic Drive, N. 66th Avenue or Englewood Avenue, all of which meet the definition of "public road" and are public streets under YMC 14.25.040(B). 3. To the extent that the lots accessed from N. 68th Avenue are nonconforming to YMC 14.25.040 (B) because they are served by easements that serve more than one lot, such nonconformity would not be increased by the right-of-way vacation because the number of lots that are accessed from the public streets: Scenic Drive, N. 66th Avenue and Englewood Avenue, does not change. It appears that YMC 14.25.040 may not be applicable to this property at all because it applies to subdivisions at the time they are considered by the City and not subdivisions or short subdivisions approved and recorded in the past. All of the lots served by N. 68th Avenue were part of a subdivision that was recorded in 1907, although all of those lots have since been reconfigured and further subdivided; none of them exist today in the exact configuration from 1907. Seven of the present lots were created by short subdivision in the 1980s and 1990s. That YMC 14.25.040 may not be applicable is based on the following: 1. YMC 14.25.040 states that "Each lot within a subdivision shall comply with the following design standards and requirements:" 2. "Subdivision" is defined as the division or redivision into 10 or more lots. It apparently does not include short subdivisions. 3. The definition of "Subdivision" is the division or redivision of land for the pur- pose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership in the present or future. It apparently does not include such division or redivision that has occurred in the past. B. Effect that granting the right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses. 15.05.020 Site design requirements and standards. B. Development on Nonconforming Lots. Development on nonconforming lots is governed by this section and YMC 15.19.040. Except as limited by this title, any permitted use may be allowed on any lot legally created prior to the adoption of this title. Such development and structures are subject to the following additional provisions: 1. Detached single-family dwellings erected on nonconforming lots must meet the following criteria: a. The setback dimensions of the structure conform to the regulations of this title; DOC. INDEX ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 36 of 40 390 ()I, I' "l 20144 b. The lot has at least twenty feet of frontage on, or a minimum twenty- foot-wide access easement to, a public or private road; c. All other site design and development criteria other than the lot size requirements of Table 5-2 are met. 4. Zero lot line, common wall, duplex or multifamily development is not allowed on such lots in the SR and R-1 zones unless such development is the replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use, as defined in YMC Chapter 15.19. H. Access Required. All new development shall have a minimum of twenty feet of lot frontage upon a public road or be served by an access easement at least twenty feet in width. The purpose of this standard is to provide for vehicular access to all new development; provided, the construction of single-family and two-family dwellings on existing legally established lots is exempt from the requirements of this section. Conclusions: 1. Existing non-agricultural land use of the property accessed by the right-of-way proposed for vacation is detached single family residential. 2. Detached single family residences would be allowed on any of these parcels in accordance with YMC 15.05.020 even if YMC 14.25.040(B) were determined to be applicable to this case subject to setbacks and other site design and development criteria except for lot size requirements of Table 5-2. New detached single-family residential development would be exempt from the minimum 20-foot frontage and access easement requirements of YMC 15.05.020(H). 3. Two-family dwellings would also be allowed on any of these parcels in accor- dance with YMC 15.05.020 even if YMC 14.25.040(B) were determined to be applicable to this case subject to setbacks and other site design and development criteria except for lot size requirements of Table 5-2. New two-family residential development would be exempt from the minimum 20-foot frontage and access easement requirements of YMC 15.05.020(H). Duplexes would be limited to the replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use (detached single-family residence in this case). 4. Multiple family residential, subdivision and other land uses permitted in the Suburban Residential zone would generally not be permitted on these lots. However, this is an existing non-conformity regardless of the applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to this case. It would also not apply to development on those properties that have frontage and direct access to or that can gain direct access to Englewood Avenue, N. 66th Avenue or Scenic Drive or from an easement serving only one lot from those public streets or approved as a Planned Development, mobile or manufactured home park, condominium or binding site plan in accordance with YMC 15.09.100. Also, subdivision and the development of these C. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 3P diX # i\frL391 land uses would be allowed when right-of-way is dedicated and developed as a public street. (2) Letter of Thomas ❑urant dated October 4, 2024, Submitted Relative to the City Attorne 's 0 inion and the Plannin Mana er's Res onse to the Interim Decision. The letter dated October 4, 2024, from Thomas Durant of PLSA Surveying & Engineering addressing the City Attorney's Opinion and the Planning Manager's Response to the Interim Decision is set forth with different formatting as follows: I reviewed the City Attorney opinion requested by the Interim Decision to Reopen the Record and offer the following comments in response: For the most part, I agree with the City Attorney's findings and interpretation of the Municipal Code provisions that were analyzed, specifically: Any future subdivisions would be subject to YMC 14.25.040(B), (p. 5). IAjny property that seeks further subdivision is subject to YMC 14.25.040(B)..."subdivision" is defined as the division of land into 10 or more lots....Therefore, the approval of vacating the right-of-way will preclude properties that do not abut a public street...from subdividing into 10 or more lots, (p.5) Where I don't agree is the implication that this right-of-way vacation would restrict growth and development in a significant way. The City Attorney's response also includes a statement that not having access to North 68th Avenue may require designs that reduce the number of lots that can be created, such as if a hammerhead or cul-de-sac is required rather than a street that intersects with North 68th Avenue (p. 5). While this is true, developers always face limiting constraints that could include such things as the possible number of lots or housing units due to hammerheads and cul-de-sacs as well as a myriad of other things. The short subdivision of the Sevigny property is an example of where there may have been a limitation of the number of housing units because it is improved with a hammerhead or cul-de-sac. Yet, the City approved it without requiring intersection to abutting North 68th Avenue. The City Attorney opinion did not confirm Trevor Martin's testimony and Memorandum that if this right-of-way is vacated, then YMC 14.25.040(B) would make [any] of the homes non-conforming or would prevent any other property in the future from using the access easement[s] substituted for the vacant right-of-way. (Hearing Examiner Interim Decision, p. 3, Sec. A(9)(a)). The only effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses would be on future subdivisions (10 lots or more) that do not have frontage on a public road, duplexes that are not the replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use and other permitted non-agricultural land uses that are not detached single family dwellings. I have the following comments on reviewing Trevor Martin's statements: Mr. Martin's statements that vacating the public right-of-way would prevent the existing lots from further subdivision or that they would not be allowed to [be] ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 38 oif4 C. INDEX subdivide[d] and use 68th as their primary access are inaccurate. Subdivision, use of N. 68th Avenue or both would be allowed under the following circumstances: a. The lots being subdivided have frontage on and direct access to the perimeter streets: Scenic Drive, Englewood Avenue or N. 66th Avenue. This could include where more than one lot is involved in a proposed subdivision, such as lots that do not now have frontage on any improved City street where the subdivision is developed with dedicated City streets extending to the interior properties. b. Subdivision or the development of existing lots where a private road is extended to serve no more than one lot per YMC 14.25.040(B). c. Development, including subdivisions, with private roads approved as a Planned Development, mobile or manufactured home park, condominium or binding site plan in accordance with YMC 15.09.100. The Sevigny Short Plat (City File PSP#006-23) demonstrates that it is possible to develop property fronting N. 68th Avenue without access to the N. 68th Avenue right-of-way. The proposed development is to be improved with presumably a City streets. None of the proposed lots have access to N. 68th Avenue and its improvement was not required for the short subdivision. There should be no reason that a similar development could not take place on any of the other vacant or partially vacant lots that have frontage on or are otherwise served by N. 68th Avenue. These lots could include 181317-43405, 43406, 43407, 43418, 43419 and 44412. All or some of them could be developed individually, combined or reconfigured using boundary line adjustments, subdivided and developed with public or private streets connecting existing nearby City streets as provided for by the Municipal Code. Mr. Martin did not really answer the question about maintenance of the existing private street, or it was his intent for the answer to be inferred. He refers to the street being developed. Development is not the same as maintenance.The inference being what I have always understood, that the City will not maintain a street until it has been constructed to City standards and accepted into the street system. If that is the case, then the street could not be added to any maintenance and improvement schedule until after it has been built to City standards and accepted. No documentation was provided of how this would be accomplished. If necessary to improve the street before it can be put on a maintenance schedule, it would seem that it would first have to be put on a 6-year Transportation Improvement Program. The response to the question regarding the likelihood of N. 68th Avenue ever being improved to City standards seems to suggest that the City may be willing to improve the street. However, this response is stated in hypotheticals. It seems to describe what the City would do, if it were to improve the road, rather than what the City intends to do. 5 The August 14, 2023 staff report does not state whether or not the access street serving the development is to be a public or private street.This is an important point since as a short subdivision,the development is not subject to YMC 14.25.040(B). a.. ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 39 ct4'(J`y H INDEX # .) ) -.393 O(, 1 :1 3 ?V Our experience that the City relies on developers to bring existing streets up to standards would indicate that such improvements should not be expected anytime soon. An "unintended consequence" of the Sevigny short subdivision is that one half of the length of the right-of-way remains unimproved and if it was not the City's intent to require that developer to make the improvement, it certainly would not be required for any development of the vacant or partially vacant properties that front on the southern half of the right-of-way. Mr. Martin's response about whether the Fire Chief still considers the use of gates in private communities does indicate that gates can still be considered, the answer to the question being asked. However, referring to this as the "denial" of a "specific request" is not accurate. Staff requested and received an opinion from the Fire Chief. While it may very well be his intent to not allow a gate in this situation, it is not a "denial". In fact, the Fire Chief's letter characterizes his statement as a "recommendation" indicating that the decision may not be under his authority to make. If what he meant was that the right-of- way vacation should not be approved, it misses the point that gating the road after the right-of-way is vacated would not "block off a public street", the stated intent of making the recommendation because with approval of the vacation it would not be a public street or a public right-of-way. Likewise, we did not make a "specific request" with respect to the right-of-way vacation. The application stated what the petitioners intend to do, if the vacation is approved, subject to the agreement of other property owners and any other required approvals. While my understanding is that the City will typically not allow a public street to be gated, private streets can have gates as allowed by the International Fire Code. Concerns raised about reduction of response time seems to overlook the installation of a "Knox Box" and more sophisticated automated systems that open the gate on approach of an emergency vehicle. If the vacation were approved and it were determined that the gate cannot be approved under applicable laws and requirements, the petitioners would simply have to consider other means of addressing their concerns, basically that they are trying to control safety and other adverse effects on a road, the maintenance of which they continue to be responsible for and notwithstanding the input received from the City, there is no certainty that they will not have to continue to have this responsibility indefinitely. DOC. INDEX ATTACHMENT TO RECOMMENDATION RE PALMATIER PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - Page 40 of 40 394 TED PALMATIER RWV#003-24 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER A Staff Report DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX# A-1 Staff Report 07/25/2024 395 AMIri ,,lk DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT III ■i\''\ AIM II Planning Division PlCITY r n K a Trevor Martin, AICP, Manager an n I n a 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor, Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning CITY OF YAKIMA FINDINGS of FACT, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATION for PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION Application File: RWV#003-24 PETITIONER: Ted Palmatier PROJECT LOCATION: N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. & Scenic Dr. ADJACENT PARCEL(S): 18131743419, 18131743405, 18131743407, 18131743422, 18131743424, 18131744401 DATE OF REQUEST: April 29, 2024 DATE OF HEARING: July 25, 2024 STAFF CONTACT: Trevor Martin, AICP, Planning Manager DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Proposal to vacate a portion of N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. & Scenic Dr. II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: From the view of the site, the matters contained in the application, Development Services Team comments, and a review of the Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040, the Yakima Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and RCW 35.79, Planning Staff is requesting denial of this proposed vacation based on the following fact and findings: III. FINDINGS: A. Background: On January 30, 2024, the City of Yakima Department of Community Development received a petition from Ted Palmatier for the vacation of a portion of right-of-way. The proponent has requested this vacation for the purpose of eliminating an approximately 1270-foot-long portion of right-of-way that is located in an existing residential neighborhood. B. Hearing Examiner Authority: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to conduct public hearings on petitions and resolutions to vacate streets and public right-of-way pursuant to RCW Ch. 35.79. Decisions of the examiner on such matters shall constitute a recommendation to the City Council (YMC § 1.43.080(H)). C. Urban Area Zoning Ordinance: Technically, street rights-of-way are not designated with an underlying zoning district. However, if a vacation is recommended and approved by the City Council, the previously underlying right-of-way is zoned the same as the properties to which they are immediately contiguous. In this case, the contiguous zoning is Suburban Residential (SR). If the right-of-way is vacated it will be zoned SR upon vacation, consistent with the zoning that is currently located along the right-of-way. DOC INDEX #. 396 1) Per YMC Table 5-2, the minimum lot size for the SR zoning district is 6,000 square feet. Part of goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan are to encourage housing on small, more efficient lots Policy 2.3.1.C. 2) HB1110 Requires the City to allow for up to four dwelling units per parcel for suture subdivision in all residential zoning districts. 3) Currently there are approximately 13.69 acres of vacant land adjacent to N. 68th Ave. a. Examining the potential housing development of the adjacent land, 13.69 acres 4 596,336 sqft - —178,900 sqft (30%) for roads and right of way dedication, that leaves 417,436 sqft or potentially 69 residential lots that could be developed on the vacant property surrounding N 68' Ave. b. While these lots have not been created at this time, the City needs to be aware of the development potential and the availability of access to right-of-way and access for emergency services and ingress/egress for building development. Reducing access to public streets reduces development potential. D. Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040: Street rights-of-way do not contain an underlying Comprehensive Plan designation. Upon vacation they will obtain the same Comprehensive Plan designation as the properties to which they are immediately contiguous.The subject portions of right-of-way, once vacated, will have a Future Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential. 1) Referencing C above, the City of Yakima has to be compliant with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) which allocate the City only a certain amount of residential land for development, vacating this portion of right-of-way would limit the development potential of the surrounding properties, and require future development to reacquire right-of-way for emergency services and potential secondary access points. 2) Removing potential developable property would be contradictory to the purpose or the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan is Encourage diverse and affordable housing choices. Removing access to City right-of-way would be contradictory to this goal and remove the potential for housing within the City. 3) Finally, Washington state, along with a significant portion of the US, is experiencing a spike in housing prices and lack of inventory. Ensuring residential property maintains it development potential is within the City's best interest to address the lack of housing. 4) The proposed vacation directly contradicts the following goals and policies of the comprehensive Plan: • Goal 6.3. Provide a transportation system that supports the city's land use plan and is consistent with the Washington Transportation Plan, Yakima Valley Metropolitan and Regional Transportation Plan, and Yakima County Comprehensive Plan. o Policy - 6.5.9. Ensure that the city transportation networks (all travel modes) have good connectivity to provide safe alternate routes and more direct travel. Where possible, encourage small block sizes Palmatier DOC RWV#003-24 INDEX 2 # 397 O 6.5.12. Reduce growth in vehicle travel demand through transit, active transportation, and other Commute Reduction strategies. This postpones the need for capital roadway projects. O 6.5.16. Require new development, infill development, and redevelopments to provide pedestrian facilities and transit facilities along their street frontage consistent with adopted street design standards, ADA Transition Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Transit Development Plan. (2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 8.1.4, 10.2.2, 11.2.3) O 6.5.18. Work to improve pathway linkages to regional and off- street trail systems as identified in the ADA Transition Plan and Bicycle Master Plan. (3.1.8, 4.1.4) O Interjurisdictional Coordination — Encouraging coordination between the City and public/private partnerships will help create a cohesive regional transportation network. O 6.5.30. Plan and support the transportation networks in the City and region in collaboration with Yakima County, the City of Union Gap, the WSDOT, and other neighboring jurisdictions. (9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3) E. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.115: Comprehensive plans and development regulations must provide sufficient land capacity for development. 1) Counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall ensure that, taken collectively, adoption of and amendments to their comprehensive plans and/or development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and employment growth, including the accommodation of, as appropriate, the medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to such growth, as adopted in the applicable countywide planning policies and consistent with the twenty-year population forecast from the office of financial management. 2) This analysis shall include the reasonable measures findings developed under RCW 36.70A.215, if applicable to such counties and cities. F. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.79: This chapter of state law stipulates the state's requirements for the process of vacating street right-of-way. All requirements of this chapter that can be accomplished prior to the public hearing 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). IV. ZONING AND LAND USE The portion of N. 68th Ave. being vacated is considered public right-of-way and surrounding properties have the following characteristics: DOC. Palmatier INDEX RWV#003-24 3 398 Direction Zoning Land Use North none Public Right-of-Way South none Public Right-of-Way East Single-Family Residential (R-1) Detached Single-Family Dwelling, Vacant Land West Single-Family Residential (R-1) Detached Single-Family Dwelling, Vacant Land V. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEAM (DST) REVIEW On May 21, 2024, a DST meeting was held to discuss the possible impacts of this vacation. The following comments were received from public agencies and private companies with an interest in the development herein being reviewed: A. Nob Hill Water Association: Nob Hill Water has infrastructure within the entirety of N 68th Ave between Englewood and Scenic Dr. If the right of way is to be vacated, then the applicant will be required to grant Nob Hill Water a 20ft easement over the existing pipe. B. Traffic Engineering: Traffic Concurrency Review (TCO) is not required as part of this vacation proposal. VI. PUBLIC USE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY The subject right-of-way has a narrow paved surface. There are at least 40 feet of right- of-way dedicated along the entire length of N. 68th Ave., this right of way is slightly increased to 50 feet near the north and south end of the right-of-way. 50 feet of right-of- way is required for residential access street, so when the adjacent properties develop, only a small amount of additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated to meet residential street standards. VII. CRITERIA FOR VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY YMC Ch. 14.21 provides specific guidelines for right-of-way vacations. These guidelines include five criteria that must be met in the granting of vacation petitions. They are as follows —Applicant and Staff responses are listed: A. The petition must explain the public benefit of the project, the reasoning of the proposed vacation, and the limits of the vacation. This public right-of-way is improved with a private road that is not owned or maintained by the City and not constructed to minimum City public road standards. Since it provides a continuous connection between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue, both City streets, it attracts traffic to use it as an alternate route and short cut between the two public streets. As the area grows and traffic at nearby public intersections increase, there is a potential for this additional traffic to increase as well. The public benefit results from placing the substandard road under more direct control of the property owners who have legal access to it further allowing them to take any actions necessary to limit traffic from other than the property owners, residents and their guests. The City would have no obligation to improve the road or Palmatier DOC. RWV#003-24 I N D X 4 399 liability for its use. Maintenance of the roadway will more clearly be the responsibility of the landowners. The only potential limitation is a reduction in connectivity. However, the right-of-way is not in an alignment or spacing necessary to maintain connectivity and not appropriate for such use as it has not been accepted or maintained by the City and not constructed to minimum public road standards. Finally, connectivity that is appropriate to this location within the transportation network can be provided by future development of these and neighboring properties in a way that provides better safety, traffic circulation and less neighborhood disruption. Staff Response— Removing potential connectivity points removes future property from its full development potential. This action contradicts the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan, and actively works against Yakima's housing shortage. In order to develop the adjacent properties to the highest use, right-of-way would have to be re acquired and multiple points of ingress/egress would need to be reestablished. Per the Growth Management Act, the City needs to be conscious of the amount of developable space within the City and ensure that proposed land use actions to no contradict and work against the goals of providing additional future housing. While the street has been maintained in a limited capacity, as future development occurs in the area, the City would increase the amount of maintenance on the street. B. The vacation of right-of-way does not deny sole access to any property. Eight existing parcels of land have sole access to the public street network using the existing private road, of which four parcels actually front on the right-of-way. The properties that do not front on the road all have legal access to it via easements as documented in the title report and on recorded short plats. None of these easements will be affected by the proposed vacation. A new easement will be executed and recorded for the vacated right-of-way to allow continued access to public streets from all of the parcels that front on or have access to the right-of-way. Staff Response—vacating this right-of-way would severely limit future development potential. Per the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan, the City is required to encourage development within the existing City limits before expanding into the Urban Growth Area. Vacating this portion of right-of-way would limit development potential and potentially cause a reduction in possible new units due to limited access to a public street. C. Petitions should be consistent with the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan, Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and other official city plans and policies. No inconsistencies with comprehensive planning documents adopted by the City were identified especially since the City has no plans to improve or maintain this road. It is not on the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program from 2024 to 2029. The vacation is consistent with Policy 2.3.2C of the City Comprehensive Plan (intended to preserve and enhance established residential neighborhoods) to prioritize the upkeep and improvement of streets, sidewalks, landscaping, parks, Palmatier RWV#003-24 5 _.�... __. . 400 utilities, and community facilities in established neighborhoods, because it would make it easier for the property owners served by the street to provide such upkeep and improvement in a manner that better protects the neighborhood and with more clear authority to do so. The vacation is consistent with Policy 6.5.9 from the 2040 Transportation System Plan to ensure that the city transportation networks have good connectivity to provide safe alternate routes and more direct travel because as a private street not being maintained by the City, it is not a good or safe alternative to nearby routes constructed to minimum City standards and maintained by the City. Staff Response—While this section of the City right-of-way is not on an existing plan, this street feeds into Scenic and Englewood Avenues, which are Collector Arterials, and mentioned within the City's Planning Documents. As this area develops, the City is interested that 68th Ave. is developed to residential street standards and appropriately ties in the adjacent street network. The City also needs to consider the overall goals of the transportation network in and the Transportation Plan. Currently the 2040 Transportation System Plan outline lists the following concepts: • 2.1.4 Bicycle Facilities — Bicycling is an important and growing mode of travel for people in cities across the country. When appropriately planned, bicycle routes have a role in reducing congestion, improving air quality, providing travel choices, encouraging exercise and recreation, and providing greater mobility for those without access to a vehicle. Existing bicycle facilities and descriptions are coordinated and consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan. • 3.5.1 Maintain Connected Networks—The Transportation Systems Plan specifically identifies the primary and secondary routes for each of the major travel modes within the city. When layering these separate network plans together, urban corridors were classified as "Auto Priority", "Bike/Ped Priority", or"Shared Priority".. • 3.5.4 Bridge Non-Motorized Gaps— A review of the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities shows that there are major gaps in connectivity throughout the overall system... Additionally, several comments were received by the Active Transportation Alliance discussing current efforts to preserve an outer ring biking transportation route around the City, siting 68th Ave. as part of the route. D. Vacation requests should be appropriate with existing and anticipated development in the area, based on zoning, current use and long range plans. The proposed vacation is appropriate to the existing Suburban Residential zoning and Low Density Residential current use designation because it does not prevent future residential development at the densities contemplated by both designations. Future development of vacant property in the vicinity could still occur, possibly utilizing portions of the road by incorporating it into new right-of-way dedications. Regardless, future development can provide for better designed connectivity that is less disruptive to the neighborhood. DOC. Palmatier N DEX RWV#003-24 #, 1 6 401 Staff Response— Listed in 3.0 above, the vacation would severely limit the development potential of the adjacent properties and would require and future development to reacquire right-of-way, limit access, and directly contradicts the City's Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, there are new rules from the State (HB1110) that all lots allow up to four new units to be built, up to six in specific circumstances. These new lots and units would still be required to meet the City's design standards, but the action to build additional housing on historically single family lots will be permitted in the City. E. Are there any public or franchised utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated and if so, will they be relocated? On-line documents show a 6-inch Nob Hill domestic water line in the existing right-of- way and short plats indicate that irrigation lines are in the right-of-way. Power poles and title documents indicate that power, telephone and cable television utilities are in the right-of-way. There is no need to relocate any existing utilities and future utility extensions will be accommodated by the easement or easements to be recorded to accommodate them. Staff Response— Nob Hill water is currently located in the street. VIII. COMPENSATION A. YMC § 14.21.070 (A) states, "The applicant shall compensate the city in an amount which does not exceed one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated. If a public right-of-way has been part of a dedic ated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or more, or if the subject property or portions thereof were acquired at public expense, the city may require the owners of the property abutting the public right-of-way to compensate the city in an amount that does not exceed the full appraised value of the area vacated." B. YMC § 14.21.070 (A)(4) states, "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." IX. TRAFFIC STUDY A. The City of Yakima Traffic Engineer has determined that a traffic study is not required for this right-of-way vacation. X. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A. Street vacations are categorically exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(2)(i) and YMC Ch. 6.88). XI, PUBLIC NOTICE The Yakima City Council set the date of this public hearing for street vacation on May 7, 2024, by Resolution No. R-2024-075, in accordance with RCW 35.79.010. Other notices of this hearing were provided for in the following manner: DOC. Palmatier INDEX RWV#003-24 t 7 402 Adjoining property owners notified July 2, 2024 Legal ad published July 4, 2024 Posting of right-of-way July 4, 2024 Posting in three public places July 2, 2024 XII. PUBLIC COMMENTS Seven comments were received from the public as of July 17, 2024, generally opposing the vacation or addressing concerns about outcomes of the proposed vacation. Comments are generalized below, to review the full comments, please see the City File: • Coleen Anderson, with Active Transportation Alliance, submitted a letter in general opposition to the vacation of the street siting removing potential multimodal access routes from the City. • Cyrus Philbrick, with the Active Transportation Alliance, submitted a comment opposed to limit the street to through traffic. • Jennifer Farren submitted a comment generally opposed to the vacation, citing access for first responders and citing opposition to gating and vacated street. • Maxing Farren submitted a comment generally opposing any potential gates and restricted access. • Phil Hoge, With Yakima Bikes and Walks, submitted comments generally opposing the vacation, siting several goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Transportation Systems Plan. • Phil Mattoon submitted a comment generally opposing the vacation. • Tom Robinson, with the Active Transportation Alliance, submitted comments generally opposing the vacation of the street and submitted maps of the proposed outer ring route. XIII. CONCLUSION 1. Petition signatures for this vacation were obtained from the necessary two-thirds of the property owners fronting this vacation. 2. N. 68th Ave. appears to have been established thought a series of meets and bounds and subdivisions. 3. City of Yakima Planning Division is recommending denial of this vacation request. 4. Vacation of this right-of-way significantly limits development potential of the surrounding properties, limiting potential new housing. 5. The petition for vacation of this public right-of way currently conflicts with the Active Transportation Alliance effort to establish an outer ring bicycle route. 6. A traffic study for this proposal was not required. 7. Seven letters of opposition were received. XIV. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends the petition for the vacation of a portion of N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. & Scenic Dr. denied. Palmatier RWV#003-24 P l 8 403 TED PALMATIER RWV#003-24 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER B Maps DOC DOCUMENT DATE I INDEX# B-1 Vicinity Map 05/02/2024 B-2 Zoning, Future Land Use,Aerial Maps 05/03/2024 404 , .i.,...:.4". ..•:\ I) ,-! i.' • i\I ,0 1 CD tO .110 C •'-I (.9 ___ . (1.1 a .,,, /.•,. —_-- .....i C ID U •- 0 0 C) .., 67 C. C C.: c E .ku •c li-.; L.! II II .‹ a) :-- cri 0) .iy, ID ‘I) •, c- C +-I ';': 0 ,r, vi. t:-. ,(13 • - -711- ij 0 (---) Tii -0--- -7 .6 (51 c o 1_, _0 0 Ili .Ji= Lri •---L z-_-__ a) b .._ ,..,-, c -t ‘-'1' -0-) 1-• 4) 'Tu. i5 n:i Cr' C ID ,L-: .,(-1 0 0 ,..r ro O E L_ s- 0 •- 01 ___J c 0..) E .,—. _ , .— C" crc ‘--- c-? rn II) '---' ' ' ›•' s- Lf, O 0_ • • . • • CO CO = C O 0 --- 1 ----: — I—1—C.----- L-1>n i 1 ' C 0_ V) E ua) O c v, ra v, — ro (7., ro i- E .2 ',I c',5;,-, >- D 9- Z 11 \ [-----' g . ›. ... W 0 E CIMI I- 5. 1-19 Z 40.NM ..( C 0/3 n VI al C 0• = 0 0 )jt 4 LI VI E 0 z 4 0 c O M tIO C C M W ..... s- 4 L\ s E 0 M s_ W E-I sill 7- a 0 lk L_ -0 0 0.1 71- 4- mn, 1.11 '= C.1 •- > < Cr) C) a 0 L- CO a • oo 1\4— W VD \ c E E—, Z co• 0 •• •. •• cl.,) CA ....., s L • T. I.iiiiii°14.041 11 glir; O — In ct 6 ti 4 "cl ..0 V 1 1111 r ti -tc E cD cij = ..,. 4- 4 © •, 1 (----• c• U •••,„ !.* Z CLO .1. •ml .--. - CO • -....., '- C CL11 \\I__ 77g— / cu •• — 0 LA c -o cu vi -0 ._ Et .LrI > CU ",r 405 , Olr.-.3.) 0 • '')...i. lie- 4 0 Mill- Q43 V 0MI L U Or N 0} Uj _- rn lit U To i]] ID O as tE li a E (.' .n 0 u 0 4- O O w yy rn Q} Cb ` -' C N C ro c O 0 C a \ '.7-1 I il I ..r) = al t E u u — ;L....11T LI ,./ ,__. FEE t II U lilt . 1 ' j 1 -C C Q H- Y > Y L En• C Q �a [ 4 a 121 J C 4 . . .p ] 1 C. •y a) Y 4-7 W �n c z ilI,N_ c al x WI 0 W U M a O a Q II a; U ;-:, ).),R I —_, .1.-- t WI "F .4-. 4 11%.4111111 E u •,i- r mum E o 2 -o (—r—r-Hr-r< fi I .11 ro vi.• -c -. DOC as 2 o •° u NDEXpp o_ .v > v ig�➢ 2 o o_ o sa Rer 406 4' ,' , #410'- Z CI \--..f...i,1 a',./ NMIoC ■� H� C �, ° vi al o v 0 T C C ro O H i of 7 Tali _ •L e • 1 [1 C/ C lr ,I ` .Y" ,� •y t a. ! of a) Hfy L14 _ . i .. i r C • 4. r r ar • I I . "F . U T Jr'f"- t lit'.' II`l I in I— Y I--1 .a tl i 'i I �, l `I t, ], ate•+ a Z lit lli*:-:-., ' - ''''.6 W .•�'q* �}'t ! it ii i'�4. i • —- --- Is• IA- C pi acre 0 ;Y O O O '` G - -• c ti o -.et '11/..' , i ito i . PP CO • ,. ` to r r ' � ow I !_ 7--:`, ; \ p d. gink '_ (ry :.' h0 CW rr - 'R Y} .- ' I C ,_ - frl N ,r " i VI -0 MO 4 1awl '.. , _' f0 a W 9.9. {5 a-, rO C HI Z xo .0 E et e� x. c "O cD ^C U •m a) E 'u CIJ y 0 0 O . c '- U M .,-14.1 C ,C IA DCO . r0 N L fa Lel C N INDEX O 0 o 407 Project Name: TED PALMATIER NV I I r" Site Address: 708 N 68TH AVE „W CITY OF YAKI File Number(s): RWV#003-24 P c�n n i n Proposal: Proposal to vacate a portion of N 68th Ave between Englewood Ave and Scenic Drive. N VICINITY MAP 0 r \ \. i7 - - AREATO„FE\ACArr ��_� FP I / '......\"4 L 3 -3, , N, N . - - _ � r Huas) `- may 1 r $_,01, _ ___ 4, d_ 1 • ' 3.c? ''''' Lill ____ I - .__.J EngleeraccI Ave Ei-Il -.vuul.f Avg; DOC. INDEX # .„..4.7.L. Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only.The City of ' Yakima assumes no liability for any errors, omissions,or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any I w action taken,or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. i .•} Date Created:5/2/2024 *".,....,0��' 408 TED PALMATIER RWV#003-24 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER C Site Plan DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX## C-1 Site Plans 04/29/2024 409 1 ;I I 11 1 I o 0 0 —q >gEna -a w 63-13 I 21 13' IT! -,0 I rA 0 0 tA z 1.r tri 25'k i NORTH 68TH AVENUE '--7.7, 0 3°11,1" .\ \ -.I •\IIILIVNI:111k - IkIli. 111 .\7< rn 1 8-0 s•Z ; 6 3, 1 s, S228 -.4() ' P64 C.333 V.,,Zi 1 P h. .t..g ,. 1`,ITE 4 Ei RD,9 b ©2 o ID I 1 1 1 1 I 8 P , . Aill'0111%. _.. . tn .—...w. „t.tfl ty s PLSAENGINEERING—SURVEYING—PLANNNG 521 NORTH 20th AVENUE. KIITE 3 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902 15091 S75-6990 MKT Of WAY VACATION MAP 2A1E312/23/2023 No1115.11118-Moe?OW 1221.eat 4,41.wak um ---'— ,t -,• ,11. xa 101 23246 —PREPARED FOR— r5a427 HO. TED PALHATIER 2 or 2 s 1.31.SE 1/4,SEC. 37,I-13 K.R-is EXIA 1 XX ......... DOC. i NI['EX # .......02Lw—....---• 410 I / © .2 ©z D o< A an CD © sQ �D C4�© 5 g4g � go mD gt 4. rs Gr2 ' alZ rm I O -1 o W)A 82d DP ca r._ w .. AZ 00U5 4 S P IA N 2..- _.,.. Ap 1. I n tri NORTH 68TH AVENUE kol20' :; my §§2o e0 00 0 4 ..P sg © op ao9j J z©6 • I 1 1Illijv 8 q11. 1 i P r S A ENGINORTH SURVEYING-M.UITENG c L 521 NORTH 2Olh AVEMIE, SURE 9 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902 r,1 i ... 15091 57 S--6990 = .. a '°0'""°" R1u1 RIGHT OF WAY VACATION MAP =� R S 12/21/2023 RWl 1ok 1N11-e41 W@. opt WK NpL log l 4ND `11 .. !CN No.23246 -PREPARED FOR- WET NO. TED PALMATIER OF 2 s 1/2,SE 1/4,SEC. 17,T-13 N.R-10 E,19N aw+:e+n.,1xa-iwm0.11 1.4,4M..w"•.s...bwyw.VANP.Hww+W134Non1py wrem+.05,3}AYxMA DOGN TED PALMATIER RWV#003-24 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER D DST Review DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX# ^^ D-1 DST Request for Comments 05/17/2024 D-2 DST Comments in SmartGov 05/13/2024 412 c uJ P' D a N 0 N (+7 0 2 G C C/�C a Y N d w C7 2 I_ - N Z ■/may O LU 2 W z an 4 J o a CO U Q pco co 2 ( -7:3a _• a N eaa o y Z a x a W Wr Um N j LC ai 0 aE d N ~ V c V �, ° o coin " c 0 u a `a v w A/ III Fil W ICI F QI O a W II a. /� YC as •• o cu um trs Doc EC■ �•S " w Z o 413 ° "w.. City of Yakima Development Services Team Request For Comments CITKIMA May 17, 2024 Pl YanOninA g To: City of Yakima Development Services Team From: Trevor Martin, Planning Manager _ Subject: - Request for Comments Applicant: Ted Palmatier File Numbers: RWV#003-24 Location: Vicinity of N. 68th Ave. between Englewood Ave. &Scenic Dr. Parcel Number(s): 1 81 31 7-43405, -43407, -43419, -43422, -43424, &-44401 DST MEETING DATE: 5/21/2024 Proposal Proposal to vacate a portion of N. 68th Ave. between Englewood Ave. and Scenic Dr. Please review the attached application and site plan and prepare any written comments you might have regarding this proposal. This project will come up for discussion at the weekly DST meeting to be held May 21, 2024 at 2:00 p.m,;As always, should you have comments, but find you are unable to attend, please submit your comments prior to the meeting. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me at eric.crowell cz.vakimawa.gov or(509) 576-6736. Comments: Contact Person Department/Agency DO . INDEX 414 TED PALMATIER RWV#003-24 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER E Applications DOC DOCUMENT DATE INDEX# E-1 Right-of-Way Vacation Application 04/29/2024 415 CITY OF YA IMA CODE PDMIN.DIVISI©N - AWN'_■_W1. LAND USE APPLICATION 024 .iIl■ WV\ �EC'VD FAX D " k CITY OF YAKIMA,DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP ❑❑ PCITY OF YAKI g 129 NORTH SECOND STREET'2ND FLOOR,Y AID F Y I i n n i n g AlO1VIA,WA 98901 _._ PHONE: (509)575-6183 EMAIL:ask.plainning@yaldmawa.gov INSTRUCTIONS—PLEASE READ FIRST Please type or print your answers clearly. - Answer all questions completely. If you have any questions about this form or the application process,please ask a Planner. Remember to bring all necessary attachments and the required filing fee when the application is submitted.The Planning Division cannot accept an application unless it is complete and the filing fee paid.Filing fees are not refundable. This application consists of four parts.PART I-GENERAL INFORMATION AND PART IV--CERTIFICATION are on this page.PART 1I and III contain additional information specific to your proposal and MUST be attached to this page to complete the application. PART I—GENERAL INFORMATION Name: Ted Palmatier 1.Applicant's Information: Mailing Address: 708 N.68th Ave City: Yakima St: Wa Zip: 98908 Phone:( 509 )952-9780 E-Mail: 2.Applicant's Interest in Property: Check One: ® Owner 0 Agent ❑ Purchaser ❑Other Name: See attached petitions 3.Property Owner's Information (If other Mailing Address: than Applicant): City: St: Zip: Phone:( ) E-Mail: 4.Subject Property's Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 181317-43405,43407,43419,43422,43424,44401 S.Legal Description of Property.(irlengthy,please attach it on a separate document) Attached 6.Property Address:614,708,710 N.68th ave;6804 Scenic Dr,6909 Englewood Ave 7.Property's Existing Zoning: !a SR ❑R-1 ❑ R-2 ❑ R-3 ❑ B-1 ❑ B-2 ❑ HB ❑ SCC ❑ LCC ❑ CBD ❑ GC ❑ AS ❑ RD ❑ M-I ❑ M-2 8.Type Of Application:(Check All That Apply) ® Right-of-Way Vacation ❑ Other: ❑ Other: PART II—SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION,PART III—REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS,&PART IV—NARRATIVE SEE ATTACKED SHEETS PART V—CERTIFICATION I certify that the Information on this application and the required attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 4/26/24 Property Owner's Signature Date 4/26/24 Applicant s Sig r Date FILE/APPLICATION(S)# DATE FEE PAID: RECEIVED BY: AMOUNT PAID: RECEIPT NO: . nrL\ $' 1(6t q L AL/1/GCS k �_ Revised 10/2023 DOC Pagel 3 INDEX 416 RECEIVED APR 2 9 2024 Supplemental Application For:Aiwa ,, 111 RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION Di Planning PART II-LOCATION 1.VICINITY-LOCATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED: North 68th Ave. between Englewood Ave. and Scenic Drive 2.LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED:(Attach if lengthy) See Attached Narrative PART HI-APPLICATION INFORMATION 1.A WRITTEN NARRATIVE:(Please submit a written response to the following questions) A.What is the public benefit,reason for,and limitations of the proposed right-of-way vacation? See Attached Narrative B. Does the vacation deny sole access to a public street for any property? No See Attached Narrative C. Is the proposal consistent with existing plans of the City? (Petitions should be consistent with the Six-year Transportation Improvement Plan,the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and other official City Plans and policies) Yes See Attached Narrative D. Is the vacation appropriate with existing zoning and land use? (Vacation of Right-of-Ways should be appropriate with existing and anticipated development in the area,based upon zoning,current use and long-range plans) Yes See Attached Narrative E.Are there any public or franchised utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated and if so,will they be relocated? Yes,No. See Attached Narrative F. Please choose one: ❑ I have enclosed an appraisal of the property to be vacated t I am electing to have the City of Yakima Planning Division determine the value of the property to be vacated per YMC 14.21.070. PART IV-REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS 1. PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY REQUIRED(attached) Attached 2.TITLE REPORT FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES Attached 3. SURVEY OF THE AREA TO BE VACATED Right of way Vacation Map is Attached 4.APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY(an appraisal is required unless the applicant elects to have the City determine the value of the property to be vacated in accordance with YMC 14.21.070) Not needed per previous discussion with planning _ 5. ENGINEERING PLAN (may be required to indicate how the curb, gutter and other physical features will be treated after the vacation is enacted.) Not needed per previous discussion with planning _ 6. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS (A traffic analysis prepared by a Certified Engineer, which describes the impact to the City transportation network of the closure of the right-of-way, may be required depending on the right-of-way being vacated.As a result of that analysis,a Traffic Study may also be required) Not needed per previous discussion with planning Revised 10/2023 DOC. Page 14 INDEX 417 tinutivrtui APR 2 9 2024. Y 01- YAKli'iA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ORIGINAL RIGHT OF WAY FOR NORTH 68TH AVENUE a Dial. TO BE VACATED That portion of a strip of land 40 feet wide lying between Tracts 34, 35, 46 and 47,YAKIMA ORCHARD HIGHLAND COMPANY'S ORCHARD TRACTS, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume "B" of Plats, Page 31, records of Yakima County, Washington; EXCEPT any portion thereof lying 30 feet South of the centerline of Scenic Drive; AND EXCEPT any portion thereof lying 30 feet North of centerline of Englewood Avenue. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR NORTH 68TH AVENUE DEDICATED ON SHORT PLAT NO. 90-132 TO BE VACATED A strip of land 10 feet wide lying Easterly of and contiguous to the East boundary lines of Lots 1 and 3 of Short Plat No. 90-132, recorded under Auditor's File No. 2907227, records of Yakima County, Washington, as dedicated thereon; EXCEPT any portion thereof lying within the South 30 feet of right of way for Scenic Drive. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR NORTH 68TH AVENUE DEDICATED ON SHORT PLAT NO. 89-85 TO BE VACATED A strip of land 10 feet wide lying Easterly of and contiguous to the East boundary line of Lot 4 of Short Plat No. 89-85, recorded under Auditor's File No. 2864544, records of Yakima County, Washington, as dedicated thereon. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR NORTH 68TH AVENUE DEED FROM PARCEL NO. 181317-44412 TO BE VACATED The West 10 feet of the South 350.12 feet of 47,YAKIMA ORCHARD HIGHLAND COMPANY'S ORCHARD TRACTS, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume `B" of Plats, Page 31, records of Yakima County, Washington; EXCEPT the South 5 feet for County Road. Ted Palmatier Job No.23246 DO . INDEX 418 RECEIVED APR 2 9 2024. Part III Project Narrative — Palmatier Right-of-Way Vacation CITY O` Y�11(IV. PLANNING DIV. Proposed is vacation of the right-of-way of North 68th Avenue between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive. The right-of-way is 40 to 50 feet wide and improved with a hard-surfaced privately maintained road that provides access to 12 parcels of land and sole access to 8 parcels. An easement will be recorded to maintain legal access to all of the parcels involved and allow for continued maintenance of the private road by the parties that use it. The easement will also provide for the extension of utilities and maintenance of existing utilities within the private road. The petition for right-of-way vacation was signed by six owners of property with 75 percent of the linear frontage on the right-of-way exceeding the minimum two-thirds (66.7%) of the frontage as required by Municipal Code. A. What is the public benefit, reason for and limitations of the proposed right-of-way vacation? This public right-of-way is improved with a private road that is not owned or maintained by the City and not constructed to minimum City public road standards. Since it provides a continuous connection between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue, both City streets, it attracts traffic to use it as an alternate route and short cut between the two public streets. As the area grows and traffic at nearby public intersections increase, there is a potential for this additional traffic to increase as well. The public benefit results from placing the substandard rdad under more direct control of the property owners who have legal access to it further allowing them to take any actions necessary to limit traffic from other than the property owners, residents and their guests. The City would have no obligation to improve the road or liability for its use. Maintenance of the roadway will more clearly be the responsibility of the landowners. The only potential limitation is a reduction in connectivity. However,the right-of-way is not in an alignment or spacing necessary to maintain connectivity and not appropriate for such use as it has not been accepted or maintained by the City and not constructed to minimum public road standards. Finally, connectivity that is appropriate to this location within the transportation network can be provided by future development of these and neighboring properties in a way that provides better safety,traffic circulation and less neighborhood disruption. B. Does the vacation deny sole access to a public street for any property? Eight existing parcels of land have sole access to the public street network using the existing private road, of which four parcels actually front on the right-of-way. The properties that do 1 1,,f j r;, not front on the road all have legal access to it via easements as documented in the title report and on recorded short plats. None of these easements will be affected by the proposed vacation. A new easement will be executed and recorded for the vacated right-of-way to allow continued access to public streets from all of the parcels that front on or have access to the right-of-way. C. Is the proposal consistent with the existing plan of the City? No inconsistencies with comprehensive planning documents adopted by the City were identified especially since the City has no plans to improve or maintain this road. It is not on the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program from 2024 to 2029. The vacation is consistent with Policy 2.3.2C of the City Comprehensive Plan (intended to preserve and enhance established residential neighborhoods) to prioritize the upkeep and improvement of streets, sidewalks, landscaping, parks, utilities, and community facilities in established neighborhoods, because it would make it easier for the property owners served by the street to provide such upkeep and improvement in a manner that better protects the neighborhood and with more clear authority to do so. The vacation is consistent with Policy 6.5.9 from the 2040 Transportation System Plan to ensure that the city transportation networks have good connectivity to provide safe alternate routes and more direct travel because as a private street not being maintained by the City, it is not a good or safe alternative to nearby routes constructed to minimum City standards and maintained by the City. D. Is the vacation appropriate with existing zoning and land use: existing and anticipated development in the area, based upon zoning, current use and long range plans? The proposed vacation is appropriate to the existing Suburban Residential zoning and Low Density Residential current use designation because it does not prevent future residential development at the densities contemplated by both designations. Future development of vacant property in the vicinity could still occur, possibly utilizing portions of the road by incorporating it into new right-of-way dedications. Regardless, future development can provide for better designed connectivity that is less disruptive to the neighborhood. E. Are there any public or franchised utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated and if so,will they be relocated? On-line documents show a 6-inch Nob Hill domestic water line in the existing right-of-way and short plats indicate that irrigation lines are in the right-of-way. Power poles and title documents indicate that power, telephone and cable television utilities are in the right-of-way. There is no need to relocate any existing utilities and future utility extensions will be accommodated by the easement or easements to be recorded to accommodate them. 2 DOC, INDEX 420 F. I am electing to have the City of Yakima Planning Division determine the value of the property to be vacated per YMC 14.21.070. No compensation is expected to be required under YMC 14.21.070(A)(4) because the City has not purchased, maintained, or made any improvements to the public right-of-way,there is no planned or anticipated public purpose for maintaining the public right-of-way and the public right-of-way has been a dedicated right-of-way in the city for at least five years. This response is based on advice given by City staff. RECEIVED APR 2 9 2024 CITY OF YAkik.,u1 n di\,R Evr;a w. 3 D C► INDEX S r '\ 421 1r' E 2 9 2021 PETITION NO. LA I Y t3i= YAKIMA CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON PLANNING DIV. PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY F,_kI To the City Council of the City of Yakima,Washington. Comas now the undersigned petitioners and, pursuant to ROW Chapter 35.79, now respectfully show; • The undersigned petitioners request that the following described street, alley or portion thereof, located in the City of Yakima, be vacated pursuant to ROW 35.79 (provide toga!description below, or attach to petition if lengthy). Each of the undersigned petitioners is the owner of an interest in real estate abutting on the above doscribed area'. The undersigned petitioners constitute owners of more than two-thirds of said abutting property. Wherefore, petitioners pray that proceedings be heard hereon for the vacation of said area in the manner prescribed by ROW Ch.35.79, 0,6949 rf e- + , Yeti y [' f 7 e$ ia f l 21 ph-7wOwner Address pc, elk 1/461,1644;= Signature _ Ownership %_e Date jvA_4;tt_ 64, kone,fiatr' 7pY Owner Address , 44,24 eg% Aug, 1;444,7,, /me Date Ownership % Owner Address Signature Date Ownership% • (iftlwre are more property owners Mae what is room for please attach a separate list of property owners abutting the right-of.way to be vacated as wall as their address,percentage of frontage on the right-of-way, end signature with dale and the total ownership percentage of the property owners participating In this vacation) Revised 10/2023 Page 16 C. ''"- - -�--� 422 '77,CEIVED. APR 2 9 2024 el rY OF YAKIMr1 PLANNING DIV. PETITION NO. Alp" CITY OF YAKIMA,WASHINGTON PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY To the City Council of the City of Yakima,Washington, Comes now the undersigned petitioners and, pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.79, now respectfully show: The undersigned petitioners request that the following described street, allay or portion thereof, located in the City of Yakima, be vacated pursuant to ROW 35.79 (provide legal description below,or attach to petition If lengthy),, Each of the undersigned petitioners Is the owner of an Interest in real estate abutting on the above-described area, The undersigned petitioners constitute owners of more than two-thirds of said abutting property. Wherefore, petitioners pray that proceedings be heard hereon for the vacation of said area In the manner Prescribed by ROW Ch.35.79. ulkickt.11a G,tr�� .. . 0 )B 131 L 4 ct o f Owner Address rpoi,eak.5 OZ. S guatura - , .a.. DateOwnership% Owner Address Signature Date Ownership% Owner Address ,-- Signature — Date Ownership (tf thous ere more property owners thorn what Is room for please attach a separate list of properly ownors shutting the,right-Or-Way to ha vacated as weal/os their eddrass,percentage of frontage en the tight-of-way, end signature with date and the total ownership percentage of the pmporty owners partielpoting!n Nrls vacation) Revised 10/2023 Page'ti Dy 423 RECEWE APR 2 9 202/, PETITION NO. f]l CI 'E, �4 . CITY OF YAKIMA, WA HINGTON PLAiC; PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY To the City Council of the City of Yakima,Washington. Comes now the undersigned petitioners and, pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.79, now respectfully show: The undersigned petitioners request that the following described street, alley or portion thereof, located in the City of Yakima, be vacated pursuant to RCW 35.79 (provide legal description below, or attach to petition if lengthy). Each of the undersigned petitioners is the owner of an interest in real estate abutting on the above-described area. The undersigned petitioners constitute owners of more than two-thirds of said abutting property. Wherefore, petitioners pray that proceedings be heard hereon for the vacation of said area in the manner prescribed by RCW Ch. 35.79. Owu r Address ark �- Li)pc �'8 �7 nt�a /jnature Date Ownership% Owner Address Signature Date Ownership Owner Address - Signature Date Ownership% (if there are more property owners than what is room for please attach a separate list of property owners abutting the right-of-way to be vacated as well as their address, percentage of frontage on the right-of-way, and signature with date and the total ownership percentage of the property owners participating in this vacation) Revised I012023 Page 6 DOG. N' DEX 424 • AP3 2 9 /VI CITY OF YA sa,,.,, PETITION NO. c�4.-t PLANNING `v. CITY OF YAKIMA,..WASHING ON PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY To the City Council of the City of Yakima,Washington. Comes now the undersigned petitioners and, pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.79, now respectfully show: The undersigned petitioners request that the following described street, alley or portion thereof, • located in the City of Yakima, be vacated pursuant to RCW 35.70 (provide legal description below, or attach to petition if lengthy). Each of the undersigned petitioners is the owner of an Interest In real estate abutting on the above-described area, The undersigned petitioners constitute owners of more than two-thirds of said abutting property, Wherefore, petitioners pray that proceedings be heard hereon for the vacation of sold area in the manner prescribed by RCW Ch.35.79, '` a.9 axe 1 ,� „ ,2,.1 m t'7'1 G W !'irt u':. 79:4Owner Address 'j 4It. 10 Caid- , � � leeStgnsti .e te Owner Date Owner Address • Signature V._.�. Date Ownership% Owner Address Signature Date Ownership % (If there are more property owners than what is mom for please attach a separate list of property owners abutting the right-of-way to be vacated as well as their address, percentage of frontage on the right-of-way, and signature with date and the total ownorshlp poroontoge of the properly owners participating In this vacation) Revised 10/2023 Page 16 D•OCN INDEX =' W.__ . .........._.. 425 11ECE (E.A 'y. APR 2 9 2024 PETITION NO. 6 I Of Y�$��9�oad~ CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTONPLA feING DI PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY To the City Council of the City of Yakima,Washington. Comes now the undersigned petitioners and, pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.79, now respectfully show: The undersigned petitioners request that the following described street, alley or portion thereof, located in the City of Yakima, be vacated pursuant to RCW 35.79 (provide legal description below, or attach to petition if lengthy). Each of the undersigned petitioners is the owner of an Interest in real estate abutting on the above-described area. The undersigned petitioners constitute owners of more than two-thirds of said abutting property. Wherefore, petitioners pray that proceedings be heard hereon for the vacation of said area in the manner prescribed by RCW Ch. 35.79. a cro( VV6Leyt -�i 0 N . $�"` Ave) a l tvv ", °cF o S' Owner Address T ..ce , 7 t125/202`4 50,°/ Signature ate % `_- Date Ownership wnerKea Mid re ) 7)0 looe. ik,uea7 p Signature Date Ownership�% Owner Address Signature � - Date Ownership (If them are more property owners than what is room for please attach a soparate list of property owners abutting the right-of-way to be vacated as well as their address,percentage of frontage on the right-of-way, and signature with date and the total ownership percentage of the property owners participating in this vacation) Revised 10/2023 Page 6 INDEX ,_.- �.__.. _ 426 RECEIVE" APR 2 9 2024 !Jill OF )i � PfrANNf NG DIV PETITION NO., `� CITY OF YAKIMA,WASHINGTON PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY To the City Council of the City of Yakima,Washington. Comes now the undersigned petitioners and, pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.79, now respectfully show: The undersigned petitioners request that the following described street, alley.or portion thereof, located In the City of Yakima, be vacated pursuant to RCW 35.79 (provide legal description below,or attach to petition if lengthy). mach of the undersigned petitioners Is the owner of an interest in real estate abutting on the above-described area. The undersigned petitioners constitute owners of more than two-thirds of said abutting property. Wherefore, petitioners pray that proceedings be heard hereon for the vacation of said area In the manner prescribed by RCW Ch.35.79. Graham Snyder: Kaulin Stavik Gracie Snyder-614 N 68th Ave., Yakinria,WA98908 Owner Address 3/5/23 100% Signature Data Ownership% Owner Address Signature Date Ownership% Owner Address Signature Date Ownership% Of there are more property owners than what is room for please attach a separate fist efpmperiy owners obutting the right- f-wayta be vacated as wail as thalr address, ponaentege of frontage on the right-ef-way, and siggnelere with dale and the total ownership percentage of the property owners participating to this vacation) Revised 10/2023 Page 16 DOC. 427 TED PALMATIER RWV#003-24 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER F Public Notices DOCUMENT F-1 Notice of Complete Application 06/04/2024 F-2 Agenda Statement: Set Date for Hearing Examiner Public 07/02/2024 Hearing (Resolution No. R-2024-117) F-3 Affidavit of Posting 07/02/2024 F-4 Notice of Petition & Public Hearing 07/02/2024 F-4a: Legal Ad F-4b: Press Release and Distribution Email F-4c: Parties and Agencies Notified F-4d: Affidavit of Mailing F-5 HE Agenda & Packet Distribution List 07/18/2024 F-6 HE Agenda & Sign-in Sheet 07/25/2024 F-7 Affidavit of Posting along Right-of-Way 07/04/2024 F-8 Continuance of Hearing Sign-in Sheet 08/08/2024 Notification of Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision to Reopen the Record F-9 F-9a: Press Release and Distribution Email 08/26/2024 F-9b: Parties and Agencies Notified F-9c: Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation (See DOC INDEX#AA-1 for HE Recommendation) F-10 F-10a: Press Release and Distribution Email 10/22/2024 F-10b:Parties and Agencies Notified F-10c: Affidavit of Mailing F-11 Letter of Transmittal to City Clerk: City Council Hearing 7 01/10/2025 (Mailing Labels, Site Plan,Vicinity Map) F-12 Notice of City Council Hearing 01/11/2025 428 � �� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ;i i , 129 North Second Street 1-,1I Pia Yakima, Washington 98901 \„- Phone (509) 575-6037 • Fax (509) 576-6614 CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING Right of Way Vacation Petition for a portion of North 68th Avenue NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Yakima City Council will conduct an open record public hearing to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding a right-of-way petition for Ted Palmatier to vacate a portion of N. 68th Ave between Englewood Ave and Scenic Drive. Saida ter, hearing will e in the Council Chalmbers at Citylocated Hall at 129 N. 2nd d on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., or soon d Street, Yakima, WA. thereae , Open Record Hearing means public testimony will be allowed and may be considered in the final decision. Any interested person wishing to provide testimony on this proposal is welcome to attend the public hearing in person or via Zoom (information on the agenda). The City Council agenda will be posted online at: https:Ilwww.vakimawa.gpvlcouncilfagpndas-anti-minutes) Or contact the City Council in the following manner: 1) Send a letter via regular mail to "Yakima City Council, 129 N. 2"d Street, Yakima, WA 989,01"; or, 2) E-mail your comments to citvcouncil a(}vakimawa.cicv Include in the e-mail subject line, "Palmatier— N 68''Ave right of way vacation"Please also include your name and mailing address. Please contact City Planning for additional information at (509) 575-6183. Dated and published this 11th day of January, 2025. Rosalinda Ibarra City Clerk Dock INDEX ,I Yakima ;iilIl 2015 1994 429 I L © 4 1 ©G`� ' \A. o ©g x> Z m. 02 Dg Ea o P g � m Nzao _ o © vD00 � zA 0 ,y oA n C7 , ° 9 s s.to� 1 rn � -0 r n O z-%i mxmRAr' 0o I © Az r c mN o o p o co 0 s a tsr- D�i'x10 A Z - oO NAD�.1 00OK N E A O (nn Pit rw.riiih.hww r ww� N . 20• z � I 30 C7 � \ \ zo' r, NORTH 68TH AVENUE C tz D>I 28- AAy S WR A r ›2- b• �D L D 00 0<! h E m J - c - RJ 0 s.1 O �fs , ,14 3.41.,9 RING-SURVE PING-PLANNING, = =� TE A 52YAKIMA, WASHINGTONE 989I 2 3 _ I509) 575-6990 _ oRk"'T RICK RIGHT OF WAY VACATION MAP DOCw _ '01,12/21/2023 PIER la MIR-_h16 ow,no.9 not on.iN17 8 0II7 we NO. 23246 —PREPARED FOR— - INDEX 'sMrt7 No, TER P►RLIrdA71ER W 1 ov 2 5 1/2, SE 1/4, SEC. 17.T-13 N, RR-18�y, ISi +01,102.n 10 430 I 1 1 1 © / § \ e 1> // / \ c \ \ § t a§ B; © a 1m §� {k §§ § \7 ril NORTH 68TH AVENUE ss \ \ \ \ \ : w 8,3z'-.0-, \ ) » \� \ > 2 /� x x x � >� Z� �� ��. ® §; § 222& -, )", ///. 1 P \)\ I§ !!,§ g _ {! t z ©Vj© \ » / lU :« z \ / \ ; °\iv \ yE{ \ § 2 ) \ xk = I \ © § 1 1 1 1 , 1 . 1 I. \ 'Ag\ � . E 8 ° gi S § w PLSA ENGINEERING—SURVEYING—PLANNING 521 NORTH 20th AVE .« SUITE 3 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98902 O . ,509. 57 _ - O : RICK RIGHT OF WAY VACATION A . INDEX f '12032 NO3.WOK/-«®®___-._ - 7-1 -- 23246 -PREPARED m— » 2- :? . 4KEL7 No TS PALMATIER �_ 2e 2 s ,A � ,a aw„ R15 - - __.__,_S _* . _,_411_.ISO_ 431 wsasrliti Project Name: TED PALMATIER ///1 I% % Site Address: 708 N 68TH AVE c,rr � vAxl�nn File Number(s): RWV#003-24 P l a n n i n g Proposal: Proposal to vacate a portion of N 68th Ave between Englewood Ave and Scenic Drive. ó VICINITY MAP . i AREA Tot E .-' L.., F I 1 i - _ z — ' Ha,a ft • Y- if I1 ` 4- .Y ( ? , ` • F; i ' �; DOCK INDEX # V-'I Map Disclaimer:Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only.The City of Yakima assumes no liability for any errors,omissions,or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any 117 _ii action taken,or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. Date Created:5/2/2024 432 CITY OF YAKIMA, PLANNING DIVISION LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL I, Eva Rivera, as an employee of the City of Yakima, Planning Division, have transmitted to: Rosalinda Ibarra,City Clerk, by hand delivery, the following documents: 1. Mailing labels for RWV#003-24,Ted Palmatier 2. E-mail distribution lists for In-House and Local Media 3. Site Plan and Vicinity Map Signed this 10th day of January, 2025. Eva Rivera Planning Technician Received By: _ Gt�. -� Date: 0I/i0/o1 .2.S DOC, INDEX -1 433 Rivera, Eva From: Rivera, Eva Sent: Friday,January 10, 2025 9:28 AM To: Ibarra, Rosalinda Subject: Mailing for City Council Hearing -Ted Palmatier- RWV#003-24 Attachments: In-House Distribution E-mail List_updated 10.14.2024; Local Media List_07/03/2024 Hello Rosalinda—on the 7th of January City Council set February 4 as the public hearing date for the right-of-way vacation "Ted Palmatier". Please provide the City Council public hearing notice to the attached e-mail distribution lists: • In-house Distribution • Local Media List Please also email the notice to the following parties of record/interested parties/project representatives: Email Tom Duran tdurant@plsaofyakima.corrti Tom Robinson robinsontr@charter.net Eva Rivera Planning Technician Phone:509-575-6261 ('N.t.r[Vera@yakimawa.gov This email is a public record of the City of Yakima and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt under the Washington Public Records Act. This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule. D . C. 434 In-House Distribution E-mail List Revised 10/14/2024 Name Division E-mail Address Jaime Vera Air Terminal Jaime.Vera(rvakimawa.gov -Silvia Corona Clerk's Office Silvia.Corana@vakimawa.t*ov Glenn Denman Code Administration Glenn.Denman@yakimawa.gov -Julia Rosales Code Administration _ iulia.rosales(c?vakimawa.aov John Zabell Code Administration John.Zabell[ctZvakimawa,gov Pedro Contreras Code Administration Pedro.Contreras@Yakimawa.gov Suzanne DeBusschere Code Administration Suzanne.DebusschereC vakimawa.gov _Lisa Maxey Community Development Lisa.MaxeyQvakimawa_gov Kirsten McPherson Engineering Kirsten.McPherson(a3vakimawa.aov Aaron Markham Fire Aaron.markham(cvakimawa.gov Jeremy Rodriguez Fire Jeremy.Rodriauez@vakimawa.gov Sara Watkins Legal Sara.WatkinsAyakimawa.aov. Trevor Martin Planning trevor.martin@sakimawa.gov Eva Rivera Planning Eva.rivera(c?vakimawa.aov Shawn Boyle Police Shawn.boyle@vakimawa.eov Scott Schafer Public Works Scott.Schafer(aiyakimawa.gov Leovardo Cruz Refuse Leovardo.Cruz@yakimawa.aov Randy Layman Refuse Randy.Lavman(Wyakimawa.gov Gregory Story Transit _ Gregory.Storv(iyakimawa.gov Anabel Chavez Utilities anabel.chavez(ivakimawa.gov Dana Kallevig Wastewater Dana.Kallevia(c?yakimawa.gov Randy Meloy Wastewater Randy.Meloy@yakimawa.gov Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Mike.Shane@yakimawa.aov Chris Redick Water/Irrigation Chris.rediek gyakimawa.gov Chris Kohler GIS Chris•kahler(li+�akimawa•aov Outside Distribution Name Address Notified? (Subdivision notices ONLY) 500 N Keys Rd,Yakima,WA 98901 ❑ Yes ' No Pacific Power Attn:Estimating Department 111 University Parkway,Suite 200 0 Yes No 1 (Projects Adjacent toBNSF Right of'Way ONLY) Yakima,WA 98901 (509)453-9166 ���, Central Washington Railroad Tim Marshall,General Manager,tmarshall@rlcbrr.com ❑ E-mail Kim Yea er Real Estate Mana er,k ea a ihdllc.com (Shoreline swam OW.)') crosepa(¢Decy.wa.gov ❑ E-mail Department of Ecology Additional Parties of Record or Interested Parties Notified - Name Address E-mail j2 nrt $AiMir\ tutu Cori-t- Ci1a4eiiA + ;:-TY ,,, ', 1 W NI, t5 Ne, '°9 o Tom 1 vr(, - ' —Cd.tpram-eVis a 06-1 faktivuz,cvm Type of Notice: Mt_k Qz ,k,„,,,,or File Number(s): .A 1� GO3 L( Date of 1CI'�ttfitg" � "-10Lj j 141 DOC, INDEX tt . ._ V--!L_�,�z...�, 435 18131743424 18131743418 18131743421 GRIMM FAMILY HOLDING TRUST BARRY BERNFELD BARRY FELD 6804 SCENIC DR 718 N 68TH AVE 718 8TH AVE YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 KIMA,WA 98908 18131743420 18131743405 18131743407 BRENT C&JUDITH P ROZELLE GRAHAM& KAULIN STAVIK GRACIE JAY RANDALL&SHARLE SLOOP 720 N 68TH AVE SNYDER 6909 ENGLEWOOD YAKIMA,WA 98908 614 N 68TH AVE YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 18131743423 18131743422 18131744401 JOANN S SPIEGELBERG KENNETH E &CAROL WAGAR MATTHEW&MICHELLE SEVIGNY 714 N 68TH AVE 710 N 68TH AVE 7204 SCENIC DR YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 18131744417 18131744412 18131743419 MAXINE I FARREN RICHARD C &BEVERLY J LARSON THEODORE H&ALIDA PALMATIER 611 N 68TH AVE 6711 ENGLEWOOD AVE 708 N 68TH AVE YAKIMA, WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 12 PLSA ENGINEERING&SURVEYING Total Parcels-TED PALMATIER- WADE KABRICH RWV#003-24 521 N 20th AVE STE 3 VC 346()1/4-° ?C YAKIMA,WA 98902 —1D64.0 6?-10413D-7;S DOC. INDE 436 W4.M'WV 141.1;MOM fr'FI P9kyrtrr MwniAtr g.aeVan.YWw-NM1r.wu.KwYM9tozuv1-w+ .R1•11 it. °v. >0\ ,MIµ"3 Sl-N 'N £L-1'LL 'O S 'b/l 3S 'Z/L S Z AO I.f / H3I1YVl1Y.I 031 ON,MHO Q —Nod 173NVd3Nd— 9PZBZ ON oor time d1n'(Rst'IAf1'um lust Y@c •(It19I Sat TN CZOZ/IZ/zlarm o - dYYV NOILYDVA AVM AO DON NO18 tmo Noma is ,'- 0669-S S (605) 't �?•� Z06B6 NOlDNIHSVM 'VWINVA vslcil E aims '3f1N3AV Ma H1HON IN DNINNVId-DNIA3AH f 1S-DNII 33NIDN3 f`I 8 joik. .1-71 0 0 0 0 4 I oa m06 >� do 41 2 ELF3o5EI-" Zv 0 oax ry(r a Wa Ur ratio 2� E xx ,- a_m UU W goon "" .oz 141 1 3f N Ad H,L89 ILL ION P4 CI ti tic IR` gI N b T 1 k.I Z •OZ L Ira Cr) O a )-a¢ YUn A O N [O�Z rz O zt QV kgi V � a7 G092 ._w 00 Hli Z P s=m 0 XI 0 0 F. > � o / DOC. INDEX 437 • OM WO Zvi L I k INCl/fitfal.1.1P.HATIN.L.AMI XXMI 9L-N 'N £1.-1'L l '03S '4/l 3S 'Z/l S Z AO Z E1311VIN1Vd OIL 'ON ME 0 —80A 03Nt/c13Nd— 9P?e? 'ON d'Y V.',- 2 -I a: _ MN i ZIM UM'Ne VIct%II*7010'SDIO-LIBBI VI ION i70.zi"i-,rt i am cIVIN NOI1V3VA AVM AO .LHDII:1 slaill :AS woati 0869-5LS 1805) 306136 NO.I.DNIHSVM '\MOM, 11 S 1 cl C lune 3(11,13AY illOZ KLUON 1Z5 DNINNY1.1-DNIA3ALIIIS-DN11133NIDN3 1 tet likii, w 1 - NT1 O. 1 , S I 1 I 1 a o I m p _ 0 0 L. Q Bab im z . cl >-▪›-2 •C%1 gr o- x 0 0 xo=o z v E'5,_, d ' I M ▪' g a z;i- v• > © ,-._,,, Lu I 5p, _.Nr ,f,L., U r•-• MI la 1 - cc zi u r•- ' 55 a Q. ;El i o_a) Z <.- 0_co F.L1 > .Tci c\cOmsz... ,•:ij F.6.1 0 _ •ii 0 anNanv H.L89 HINON sz 41 •r. .4 o o in z ci.o t'n Z V cg CI 0 lal 1 W.I U r.:.. —I 41f a.2 a e) * 0 © a_aa 0 0 g El oil c:g 2 I 0 I 1 I 1 I -."..r. INDEX 1 .. _ ._ _. _ — • -----• - 438 Sw a a iwl► Project Name: TED PALMATIER #,,1 ■\\\. Site Address: 708 N 68TH AVE AM lik File Number(s): RWV#003-24 plan' 'n{i n g Proposal: Proposal to vacate a portion of N 68th Ave between Englewood Ave and Scenic Drive. N VICINITY MAP 0 .r 1 1 / AREA TOE VACAT Dr ' i , ___ r •u r 4 ',\\"),. Ha an _.�' 13 ;_- J oily J of . . _ / g ,,__J R s�p r � :5�h7, I 4 !' Ir t _ 1 Englewood Ave a Englewood Ave INDEX ----T-1-1---- Map Disclaimer: Information shown on this map is for planning and illustration purposes only.The City of (--r6 -:`Yakima assumes no liability for any errors,omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided or for any I ) action taken,or action not taken by the user in reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. r Date Created:5/2/2024 439 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: RWV#003-24 TED PALMATIER N 68TH AVE BTWN ENGLEWOOD AVE AND SCENIC DR I, Irene Linos, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation; a true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant, parties of record, and all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of subject property; that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division; and that said notices were mailed by me on this 22nd day of October, 2024. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Eva Rivera Planning Technician DOC. INDEX 440 18131743424 18131743418 18131743421 GRIMM FAMILY HOLDING TRUST BARRY BERNFELD BARRY BERNFELD 6804 SCENIC DR 718 N 68TH AVE 718 N 68TH AVE YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 18131743420 18131743405 18131743407 BRENT C&JUDITH P ROZELLE GRAHAM &KAULIN STAVIK GRACIE JAY RANDALL&SHARLE SLOOP 720 N 68TH AVE SNYDER 6909 ENGLEWOOD YAKIMA,WA 98908 614 N 68TH AVE YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 18131743423 18131743422 18131744401 JOANN S SPIEGELBERG KENNETH E&CAROL WAGAR MATTHEW&MICHELLE SEVIGNY 714 N 68TH AVE 710 N 68TH AVE 7204 SCENIC DR YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 18131744417 18131744412 18131743419 MAXINE I FARREN RICHARD C&BEVERLY J LARSON THEODORE H&ALIDA PALMATIER 611 N 68TH AVE 6711 ENGLEWOOD AVE 708 N 68TH AVE YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 12 PLSA ENGINEERING&SURVEYING Total Parcels-TED PALMATIER- WADE KABRICH RWV#003-24 521 N 20th AVE STE 3 1 - A . q0E-• r YAKIMA,WA 98902 %(11(\A 16 0,7,. 1)61/'-i DOC. INDEX 441 In-House Distribution E-mail List Revised 10/14/2024 Name Division E-mail Address Jaime Vera Air Terminal Jaime.Vera@yakimawa.gov -Silvia Corona Clerk's Office Silvia.Corona(cyakimawa.gov Glenn Denman Code Administration Glenn.Denman@yakimawa.gov Julia Rosales Code Administration julia.rosales@yakimawa.gav John Zabell Code Administration John.Zabell(rt�.yakimawa.gov Pedro Contreras Code Administration Pedro.Contreras[a?,yakimawa.gov Suzanne DeBusschere Code Administration Suzanne.Debusschere(t yakimawa.gov Lisa Maxey Community Development Lisa.Maxey@yakimawa.gov Kirsten McPherson Engineering Kirsten.McPherson(aiyakimawa.gov Aaron Markham Fire Aaron.markham@,yakimawa.gov Jeremy Rodriguez Fire Jeremy.Rodriguez@vakimawa.gov Sara Watkins Legal Sara.Watkins@yakimawa.gov. Trevor Martin Planning trevor.martki@vakimawa.gov vakimawa.aov Eva Rivera Planning Eva.rivera@,yakimawa.gov Shawn Boyle Police Shawn.boyle c(�yakimawaa, ev Scott Schafer Public Works Scott.Schafer(aivakimawa.gov_ Leovardo Cruz Refuse Leovardo,Cruz@Yakimawa.gov Randy Layman Refuse Randy.Layman c+,Yakimawa.aov Gregory Story Transit Gregory.Storv(-7a,vakimawa.gov Anabel Chavez Utilities anabel.chavezc@l,vakimawa.gov Dana Kallevig Wastewater Dana.Kailevig 4Yakimawa.Rov Randy Meloy Wastewater Randy.Meloy a.vakimawa.gov Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Mike.Shane@.yakimawa.gov Chris Redick Water/Irrigation Chris.redick rr vakirnawa.gov Chris Kohler GIS Chris.kohler[crivakirnawa.gov Outside Distribution Name Address Notified? (Subdivision notices ONLY) 500 N Keys Rd,Yakima,WA 98901 0 Yes ` No Pacific Power Attn: Estimating Department 111 University Parkway,Suite 200 0 Yes okiNo (Projects Adjacent to BNSF Right of Way ONLY) Yakima,WA 98901 (509)453-9166 Central Washington Railroad Tim Marshall,General Manager,tmarshall@.cbrr.eom 0 E-mail Kim Yeager,Real Estate Manager,kyea ter(dlihdllc.com (Shoreline notices ONLY) ❑ E-mail Department of Ecology Crosepa@ecy.►va.gov Additional Parties of Record or Interested Parties Notified Name Address E-mail Turn 6i hirg )-f„&c .n I44 Pv r&U3 i S oU Ni � e 9''OB 1 dent t- I- (011 N. toe itvc c Lo+' Type of Notice: mei File Number(s): , Date of Mailing: t O f 7/ CO 34c� N- 'L`tt- Prve., e$90? C CC. � INDEX H 0 V 442 Rivera, Eva From: Rivera, Eva Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 11:59 AM To: 'Wade Kabrich'; 'matthew7e@hotmail.com'; robinsontr; 'Tom Durant'; Boyle, Shawn; Bradburn,Trace; Chavez, Anabel; Contreras, Pedro; Corona, Silvia; Cruz, Leovardo; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Kallevig, Dana; Kohler, Chris; Layman, Randy; Markham,Aaron; Martin, Trevor; Maxey, Lisa; McPherson, Kirsten; Meloy, Randy; Redick, Chad; Rivera, Eva; Schafer, Scott; Shane, Mike; Story, Gregory;Vera,Jaime;Watkins, Sara; Zabel!,John Subject: NTC OF HE REC -TED PALMATIER- RWV#003-24 Attachments: NTC OF HE REC_RWV#003-24.pdf Good morning, I have attached a Notice of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation for the project mentioned above. If you have any inquiries about this proposal, please contact the assigned planner, Trevor Martin, at tre;vor.martin@vakimami.gov. Thank you for your time. . ` %. Y�I .' \„ 1 Eva Rivera0 /i. =, Planning Technician •7:1 .5 Phone:509-575-6261 '' , ii eva.rivera@yakirnawa.gov This email is a public record of the City of Yakima and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt under the Washington Public Records Act. This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule. DOC. 1 INDEX 443 0 .YrAI,'''o, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r:' '+,, Bill Preston,P.E.,Director • Trevor Martin,AICP,Manager � ,� ►.4'a Planning Division '<;` ... , 129 North Second Street,2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 ih%, 40a aT to4. Phone(509) 575-6183 • Fax(509) 575-6105 • Email:ask.planning@yakimawa.gov NOTIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 22, 2024 TO: Applicant, Adjoining Property Owners and Parties of Record SUBJECT: Notice of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation FILE #(S): RWV#003-24 APPLICANT: Tom Durant—PLSA Engineering& Surveying PROJECT LOCATION: N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. & Scenic Dr. On October 18, 2024, the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered their recommendation on RWV#003-24, a proposal to vacate right-of-way at N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. & Scenic Dr. The application was reviewed at an open record public hearing held on July 25, 2024, and was subsequently continued to August 8, 2024 and an interim decision was issued on August 22, 2024 requesting additional information. Enclosed is a copy of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation. The Hearing Examiner's Recommendation will be considered by the Yakima City Council in a public hearing to be scheduled. The City Clerk will notify you of the date,time, and place of the public hearing. For further information or assistance, you may contact the assigned planner, Trevor Martin at (509) 575-6042 or email: trevor.martin@vakimawa.gov. Eva Rivera Planning Technician Date of Mailing: October 22, 2024 Enclosures: Hearing Examiner's Recommendation Yakima DOC. MA.YtLby INDEX 2015 1994 1 ... AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: RWV#003-24 TED PALMATIER N 68TH AVE BTWN ENGLEWOOD AVE & SCENIC DR I, Eva Rivera, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notification of Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision to Reopen the Record; a true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to the applicant and parties of record, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 26th day of August,2024. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. Eva Rivera Planning Technician DOC. INDEX 445 18131743424 18131743418 18131743421 GRIMM FAMILY HOLDING TRUST BARRY BERNFELD BARRY FELD 6804 SCENIC DR 718 N 68TH AVE 718 8TH AVE YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 IMA,WA 98908 18131743420 18131743405 18131743407 BRENT C&JUDITH P ROZELLE GRAHAM & KAULIN STAVIK GRACIE JAY RANDALL&SHARLE SLOOP 720 N 68TH AVE SNYDER 6909 ENGLEWOOD YAKIMA,WA 98908 614 N 68TH AVE YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 18131743423 18131743422 18131744401 JOANN S SPIEGELBERG KENNETH E&CAROL WAGAR MATTHEW&MICHELLE SEVIGNY 714 N 68TH AVE 710 N 68TH AVE 7204 SCENIC DR YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 18131744417 18131744412 18131743419 MAXINE I FARREN RICHARD C&BEVERLY J LARSON THEODORE H&ALIDA PALMATIER 611 N 68TH AVE 6711 ENGLEWOOD AVE 708 N 68TH AVE YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 12 PLSA ENGINEERING&SURVEYING Total Parcels-TED PALMATIER- WADE KABRICH RWV#003-24 521 N 20th AVE STE 3 ` fr YAKIMA,WA 98902 if *fa_ cy(b 1 Z (c) /760 DOC. INDEX # h 446 In-House Distribution E-mail List Revised 08/09/2024 Name Division E-mail Address Jaime Vera Air Terminal Jaime.Vera@yakimawa.gov Silvia Corona Clerk's Office Silvia.Corona[ctyakimawa.gov Glenn Denman Code Administration Glenn.Denman tt,yakimawa.gov Julia Rosales Code Administration julia.rosales@yakimawa.gov yakimawa.gov John Zabel] Code Administration John.Zabell@vakirnawa.gov Pedro Contreras Code Administration Pedro.Cnntreras@vakimawa.gov Suzanne DeBusschere Code Administration Suzanne.Debusschere@yakinawa.gov Lisa Maxey Community Development Lisa.Maxey@yakimawa.gov Bill Preston Community Development/Engineering Bill prestongyakimawa.gov Kirsten McPherson Engineering Kirsten.McPherson@yakimawa.gov_ Aaron Markham Fire Aaron.markham@yakimawa.gov Jeremy Rodriguez Fire Jeremv.Rodriguez a vakimawa.gov Sara Watkins Legal Sara.Watkins ayakimawa.gov. Trevor Martin Planning trevor.martin@yakimawa.gov yakimawa.gov Eva Rivera Planning Eva.rivera t(Iiyakimawa.gov Shawn Boyle Police Shawn.boyle@yakimawa.gov Scott Schafer Public Works Scott.Schafer@vakimawa.gov Leovardo Cruz Refuse Leovardo.Cruz@yakimawa.gov_ Randy Layman Refuse Randy.Lavman[cyakimawa.gov Gregory Story Transit Gregory.Story@yakimawa.gov Anabel Chavez Utilities anabel.chavez@vakimawa.gov Dana Kallevig Wastewater Dana.Kalleviggyakimawa.gov Randy Meloy Wastewater Randy.Meloy a yakimawa.gov Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Mike.Slian ,q yakimawa.gov Outside Distribution Name Address Notified? (Subdivision notices ONL19500 N Keys Rd,Yakima,WA 98901 ❑ Yes \, No Pacific Power Attn: Estimating Department s 111 University Parkway, Suite 200 ❑ Yes )(No (Projects Adjacent to BASF'Right of WayONLI) Yakima,WA 98901 (509)453-9166 Central Washington Railroad Tim Marshall,General Manager,tmarshall@ebrr.com Kim Yeager,Real Estate Manager,kyeager(2i ihdllc.com ❑ Email (Shoreline notices ONLY) Department of Ecology crosepa(r ecy..wa.gov ❑ E-mail Additional Parties of Record or Interested Parties Notified Name 4�} �/� 1 Address _ E--mailyo fly, ri rob i.[ -r 50a N- 51` tom; l e I kern stivitill,i. 613. i Afv.t-iiltm,ice heir, AL corn -itnyvq54.-- Type of Notice: ilt 3.4Aextin 4.0„To f2e.oect)--C1,14wel z::1: 3. 1v. 46,3 EV DOC. INDEX # L 447 Rivera, Eva From: Rivera, Eva Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 11:06 AM To: 'Wade Kabrich'; 'matthew7e@hotmail.com'; 'robinsontr@charter.net; Boyle, Shawn; Bradburn, Trace; Chavez, Anabel; Contreras, Pedro;Corona,Silvia;Cruz, Leovardo; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Kallevig, Dana; Layman, Randy; Markham, Aaron; Martin,Trevor; Maxey, Lisa; McPherson, Kirsten; Meloy, Randy; Preston, Bill; Rivera, Eva; Schafer, Scott; Shane, Mike; Story, Gregory;Vera,Jaime;Watkins, Sara; Zabell, John Subject: NTC OF HE INTERIM DECISION TO REOPEN THE RECORD -TED PALMATIER- RWV# 003-24 Attachments: NTC OF HE INTERIM DEC TO REOPEN_RWV#003-24.pdf Good morning, I have attached a Notice of the Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision to Reopen the Record for the project mentioned above. If you have any inquiries about this proposal, please contact the assigned planner, Trevor Martin, at ire\or.inartiii@.%1'akimaiva.go'. Thank you for your time. 5t ti - -`, Eva Rivera 7 Planning Technician •� Phone:509-575-6261 • evasivera@yakimawa.gov This email is a public record of the City of Yakima and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt under the Washington Public Records Act. This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule. DOC. INDEX 448 ~1\a & -,-1 '++, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT --It , i� 4,, Bill Preston,P.E., Director i (4‘ , Trevor Martin,AICP,Manager J►� PlanningDivision a. r ,t : 129 North Second Street,2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 %�.(. `_ Phone (509) 575-6183 • Fax (509) 575-6105 • Email:ask.planning@yakimawa.gov NOTICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S INTERIM DECISION TO REOPEN THE RECORD DATE: August 26, 2024 TO: Applicant, Adjoining Property Owners and Parties of Record SUBJECT: Notice of the Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision to Reopen the Record FILE #(S): RWV#003-24 APPLICANT: PLSA Engineering & Surveying - Kabrich, Wade PROJECT LOCATION: N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. & Scenic Dr. On August 22, 2024, the City of Yakima Hearing Examiner rendered their Interim Decision to Reopen the Record on RWV#03-24, a proposal to vacate a portion of N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. & Scenic Dr. The application was reviewed at an open record public hearing held on July 25, 2024, and was subsequently continued to August 8, 2024. Enclosed is a copy of the Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision to Reopen the Record. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation to the City Council for this matter will be issued and delivered to the Planning Division within ten business days of the receipt of the additional information. For further information or assistance, you may contact the assigned planner, Trevor Martin at (509) 576-6042 or email: trevor.martin@vakiniawa.gov . Eva Rivera Planning Technician Date of Mailing: August 26, 2024 Enclosures: Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision to Reopen the Record DOCYakima INDEX •a.1ou 2015 1994 449 City of Yakima, Washington HEARING EXAMINER'S INTERIM DECISION TO REOPEN THE RECORD August 22, 2024 In the Matter of an Application and ) Petition for the Vacation of Street ) Right-of-Way Submitted by: ) ) Ted Palmatier ) RWV#003-24 ) For Vacation of the North 68th ) Avenue Right-of-Way Between ) Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive ) A. Introductory Findings. The Hearing Examiner conducted an open record public hearing commencing on July 25, 2024, and concluding on August 8, 2024. The findings relative to the open record public hearing for this application/petition for vacation of the North 68th Avenue street right-of-way between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive may be summarized as follows: (1) The staff report which was prepared and presented by Planning Manager Trevor Martin at the July 25, 2024, hearing recommended denial of this requested vacation of street right-of-way which the agenda statement for the petition states is 1,285 Ted Palmatier,Property Owner: 1 Vacation of North 68t1' Avenue Right-of-Way located between RECEIVED Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24: Interim Decision DOC, AUG 2 2024 INDEX CITY Of YAKIMA 04 _Li_ PLANNING DIV. 450 feet long and which varies from 50 feet in width for some distance at both ends to 40 feet in width in the middle of right-of-way area. (2) The following people testified at the July 25, 2024, hearing in favor of vacating this right-of-way: (i) the representative of the petitioner/adjacent property owner Ted Palmatier, Torn Durant of PLSA Engineering & Surveying; (ii) petitioner/adjacent property owner Ted Palmatier; (iii) petitioner/adjacent property owner Carol Wagar; (iv) North 68th Avenue resident Barry Bernfeld; and (v) petitioner/adjacent property owner Matthew Sevigny. (3) Written comments in favor of the requested street right-of-way vacation were submitted prior to the July 25, 2024, hearing in the form of a Narrative Statement of Tom Durant. (4) The following people testified in opposition to this right-of-way vacation at the July 25, 2024, hearing: (i) Tom Robinson of the Active Transportation Alliance and (ii) Phil Mattoon of the City of Yakima Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee. (5) Written comments were submitted in opposition to the requested right-of-way vacation prior to the July 25, 2024, hearing in the form of: (i) letters from Maxine I. Farren; (ii) a letter from Jennifer J. Farren; (iii) a letter from Tom Robinson; (iv) an email from Phil Mattoon; (v) a letter from Coleen Anderson; (vi) a letter from Cyrus Philbrick; (vii) a letter from Phil Hoge; and (viii) a letter from the Active Transportation Alliance (ATA) group signed by Tom Robinson, Neil Barg, Ryan Kallis, Phil Mattoon, Edward A. Lisowski, Phil Hoge, Bobby J. Wright, Emily Wright and Pete Dougherty. (6) The hearing was continued until 9:00 a.m. on August 8, 2024, in the same hearing room at City Hall for the following purposes: (a) For the City Planning Division and the petitioners to consider and report back as to whether a Revocable License Agreement to use the right-of-way should be recommended in lieu of continuing the status quo by denying the requested street vacation or in lieu of granting the requested street vacation. More specifically, the Hearing Examiner asked for input regarding the feasibility of recommending a Revocable License Agreement between the City and the petitioners to use and gate the right-of-way under agreed conditions that would allow use by pedestrians and bicyclists and serve the purposes of the petitioners Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 2 Vacation of North 68th Avenue ��+ ���� Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24: Interim Decision DOC. 2 2 2024 DOC. CITY OF YAKIMA INDEX _ PLANNING DIV. 451 until the right-of-way can either be improved to City standards or be vacated if and when it is known for certain that it will never be improved to City standards. (b) For the Planning Division after consideration of the testimony presented at the hearing and consultation with the City Traffic Engineer to report back as to whether the City's position is that improvement of the street to City standards is foreseeable or possible in the future based on the situation presented and whether there would be other accesses possible for development. (7) At the continued hearing on August 8, 2024, Trevor Martin summarized his Memorandum explaining in greater detail why the Planning Division recommends that the requested vacation of street right-of-way should be denied and that no Revocable License Agreement should be established. Torn Durant and Ted Palmatier testified in greater detail why the requested vacation of street right-of-way should be granted. City Attorney Sara Watkins answered a question that arose during the continued hearing by indicating that this area is not assessed for County fire protection services which indicates that those services are provided by the City. (8) Written comments submitted at the August 8, 2024, continued hearing included: (i) Mr. Martin's written Memorandum in opposition to the requested vacation of street right-of-way; (ii) a letter from Yakima Fire Chief Aaron J. Markham in opposition to the requested vacation of street right-of-way; and (iii) another letter from adjacent property owner/resident Maxine I. Farren and adjacent resident Jennifer J. Farren in opposition to the requested vacation of street right-of-way. (9) The following testimony and written comments presented at the continued hearing lead the Hearing Examiner to conclude that the following information should be available to the Hearing Examiner for consideration in making a recommendation to the City Council and should be relayed to the City Council for consideration in making its decision relative to this matter: (a) Mr. Martin's testimony and Memorandum states that if this right-of- way is vacated, then YMC §14.25.040(B) would apply to make all but one of the homes nonconforming and would prevent any other property in the future from using the access easement or easements that would be substituted for the vacated right-of-way. Mr. Durant's testimony was to the effect that he did not have a chance to look at the City Code regarding YMC §14.25.040(B) because he Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 3 Vacation of North 68t"Avenue Right-of-Way located between DECEIVED Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24: Interim Decision DOe, AUG 2 2 2024 INDEX CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV. 452 received the Memorandum a couple of minutes before he was called to testify. (b) Mr. Martin's testimony and Memorandum states that the City has a certain amount of money allocated for maintenance, and that the status of this street/right-of-way will be updated and included in a future maintenance schedule. Mr. Palmatier testified that the hearing thus far has not addressed the petitioners' primary concern about road maintenance and safety to their satisfaction because it is all very nebulous. (c) Mr. Durant testified to the effect that what he considers to be the key question that should be answered and relayed to the City Council was not answered regarding what the prospects are of this street right-of-way ever being improved to City street standards. (d) Yakima Fire Chief Aaron Markham's Memorandum dated July 30, 2024, states that the fire department staff recommend denying the request because the installation of gates significantly increases response times. B. Interim Decision: In order to consider information that is as specific as possible in arriving at a recommendation and in order to be able to relay it to the City Council, the Hearing Examiner requests the following additional information be provided to the Planning Division for the assignment of Document Index numbers and for its inclusion within the official record within 15 business days of the date of this Interim Decision so that it can then be emailed or mailed to the parties of record who will receive this Interim Decision: (a) Information that is as specific as possible from Mr. Durant and either Mr. Martin or City Attorney Sara Watkins regarding the applicability of the wording of YMC §14.25.040(B) to a street right-of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way and, if applicable, the effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access. Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 4 Vacation of North 68th Avenue Right-of-Way located between RECEIVED Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24: Interim Decision DOC. AUG 2 2 2024 NDEX t iiY OF YAKINIA # PLANNING DIV. 453 (b) Information from Mr. Martin provided to him by engineering that is as specific as possible regarding the expected timing and result of including this street in a future maintenance schedule if the requested right-of-way vacation is denied and whether the expected type of maintenance would likely include any improvements to the street, and if so, whether the expected type of improvements would make it safer for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians to use. (c) Information from Mr. Martin provided to him by engineering that is as specific as possible regarding the prospects or likelihood of this street right-of-way ever being improved to City street standards. (d) Additional information from Mr. Martin provided to him by Fire Chief Markham as to whether Chief Markham considers Knox box gates or other types of emergency gates that have been approved for residential development in the past in order to discourage the use of unimproved public street right-of-way to be of a type which significantly increases response times and should no longer be allowed even to make a street safer (See e.g., A DLT Investment Group LLC, PD#002-21, CL2#019-21, PLP#002-21, SEPA#010-21 dated October 7, 2021). C. Authority for Issuance of this Interim Decision: This Interim Decision is issued pursuant to Rule 2.6 of the Hearing Examiner's Rules of Procedure adopted on August 1, 2000 which provides as follows: "The Hearing Examiner may continue or reopen proceedings for any good cause he deems reasonable and appropriate provided an order for such action is entered prior to the filing of the recommendation or decision." This procedure has been utilized in the past when there is a need for additional information to be considered in making a recommendation and to be relayed to the City Council for consideration in making the decision (See e.g., A DLT Investment Group LLC, PD#002-22, PSP#011-22, SEPA#022-22, CAO#018-22, TCO#010-22 dated May 11, 2023). If either Mr. Martin or Mr. Durant is faced with a need for more than fifteen Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 5 Vacation of North 68th Avenue ;RECEIVED Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive �� 2 2024 RWV#003-24: Interim Decision DOC. INDEX vw s Y ui— Y MINA PLANKING D1V• 454 business days from date of this Interim Decision to provide the requested information for the record and for its mailing or emailing with the assigned Document Index numbers to the parties of record who will be provided this Interim Decision, additional time may be requested for good cause. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation to the City Council for this matter will be issued and delivered to the Planning Division within ten business days of the receipt of the additional information. DATED this 22nd day of August, 2024. cLAZO—I-- GaryM. (Wither, Hearing Examiner Ted Palmatier, Property Owner: 6 Vacation of North 68'Avenue ���E� Right-of-Way located between Englewood Avenue& Scenic Drive RWV#003-24: Interim Decision AUG 2 2 2024 DOC. t;IIY 1f YAKIIVIA NDEX PLANNING DIV. # (1 455 4 elk:I--; SIGN—IN SHEET 44 „,, �' . . City of Yakima Hearing Examiner J Open Public Hearing at City Hall Council Chambers i,, , 'lift $t Thursday, August 8, 2024 ;l�44 ®�` ''�•_• • Beginning at 9:00 a.m. '"`�••q , Public Hearings CASE FILE # PROJECT NAME _ —_ SITE ADDRESS A. RWV#002-24 HOGBACK HEALTHCARE PARTNERS LLC/YWCA S 10th AVE BTWN W CHESTNUT AVE&W WALNUT ST N 68TH AVE BTWN B. RWV#003-24 TED PALMATIER ENGLEWOOD AVE AND SCENIC DR C. CPA#002-24, PAC INVESTMENTS LLC 7500 W Nob Hill Blvd. CL3#003-24 _ PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY Agenda ' --- - � ZIP Item of NAME MAILING ADDRESS or E-MAIL CODE Interest J o}cie 1 C� /Lout- J c.41/1' e_ 1/ c,'v I_ to..., 1b71,2_ 5 re, ( 7 d cl A/ ‘6T4-14 .e /9.; 1-7 --210 NI 6, 0- A-pe, cUcio? 0 ---- ) Pf ®O Page 1 INDEX 08/08/2024 HE Hearing # 456 -OW■I ■111L\ Arai'■ ■1'L\ CITY OFn YAKIMA AMIE IVIL. P n ain AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON RE: g u' f 4;,t,1- o f 1ALI File#: RV Oo 3 -24 Applicant Name: I vwkti-•r Project Name: (, feFt` A . ,f Site Location: N , *Aft trgiw+cc.� ��G 10,v)►Wry ` ���'�- Pei As an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, I have posted a copy of the Notice fixing time of public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner Public Hearing is scheduled for the f a day of a J 20 Notices were posted on the 1_ day of Sv\I 20 t`L at the following locations: Along the portion of right-of-way proposed for vacation. Signed Job Title dfr 2•1/ Date 457 � �■pro r 1W #71i It1%% �°••""•' SIGN-IN SHEET f c' Y of i x i g City of Yakima Hearing Examiner P I C rl illytiAhlikbA Pir�ninir� Open Public Hearing at City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, July 25, 2024 Beginning at 9:00 a.m. _ Public Hearings CASE FILE # PROJECT NAME SITE ADDRESS A. RWV#002-24 HOGBACK HEALTHCARE PARTNERS LLC/YWCA S 10th AVE BTWN W CHESTNUT AVE& W WALNUT ST N 68TH AVE BTWN B. RWV#003-24 TED PALMATIER ENGLEWOOD AVE AND SCENIC DR PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY _ Agenda — — ZIP Item of NAME MAILING ADDRESS or E-MAIL CODE Interest / c ;.y-1 &() iselsc. .� rc, 61visC;-, F'r64 ( IIC- iZr, v12 e i-l) ...- , {„ (- Itz, I' s - J,1 id 9 s B '- - ' � S),-,0,-7-,,,i-f-,,,,, 7z) /L/ - P LZ 0:- 2r ? 74; -B4,,t-v\--ce\ (1 1g 't . 6C1'444cIt% cick'' 1 43 4 r()1r linfrjeE-ieJr\ c 6 - G' F c6-7`de-S` r �. 0 T-- (i-c.4,14: PR fr,,,i f i W 13 l- S i.1�j 1ZO� Steer 7, � Y is z • 1 DOC. Page 1 INDEX 07/25/2024 HE Hearing 458 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ///■ ■%X% Bill Preston, Interim Director of Community Development AIM 'VW Planning Division CITY YAKIMA Planning Trevor Martin,Manager 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor,Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning CITY OF YAKIMA HEARING EXAMINER AGENDA Thursday, July 25, 2024 Yakima City Hall Council Chambers— 129 N 2"d Street, Yakima, WA Beginning at 9:00 a.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. INTRODUCTION III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HOGBACK HEALTHCARE PARTNERS LLC/YWCA 03/28/2024 RWV#002-24 PLANNER:ERIC CROWELL ADDRESS:S 10th AVE BTWN W CHESTNUT AVE& W WALNUT ST REQUEST:Proposal to vacate a portion of South 10th Ave between Walnut St. and Chestnut Ave. B. TED PALMATIER 04/29/2024 RWV#003-24 PLANNER:ERIC CROWELL ADDRESS:N 68TH AVE BTWN ENGLEWOOD AVE AND SCENIC DR REQUEST:Proposal to vacate a portion of N 68th Ave between Englewood Ave and Scenic Drive. IV. ADJOURNMENT Yakima The staff recommendation report on the listed project(s)is available online at: ww.buildinevakima.com µj"'w 2015 1994 DOC. INDEX 459 Hearing Examiner Packet AGENDA, STAFF REPORT, SITE PLAN AND Sara Watkins Archie Matthews MAPS...Updated 07/18/2024 City Legal Department ONDS INCLUDE APPLICANT&PROPERTY Sara.watkins(c yakimawa.00v Archie.matthewsCa)vakimawa.gov OWNER(S) Dana Kallevig Trevor Martin Wastewater Division Planning Manager Bill Preston Dana.kallevigQvakimawa.gov trevor.martin(a�vakimawa.gov Community Development/ City Engineer Bill.preston(c vakimawa.gov Lisa Maxey Yakima County Commissioners Yakima County Planning Manager Community Development Commissioners.web(a7co.vakima.wa.us Thomas Carroll Li;a.rnaxey@yakimawa.gov J_homas.Carroll@mkimawa.gov Yakima County Public Services Binder Copy/For the Record/File Lisa Freund Eva Rivera Lisa.FreundCuco.vakima.wa.us Planning Technician Eva.ri ve raa.va kimawa.g ov Wade Kabrich Matthew& Michelle Sevigny 521 N 20tt Ave Ste 3 Ted&Alida Palmatier 7314 Scenic Dr. Yakima, WA 98902 708 N 68th Ave Yakima,WA 98908 wkabrich{c plsaofvakima.com Yakima, WA 98908 Shade Sloop Margaret Grimm Kenneth&Carol Wagar 6909 Englewood Ave 6804 Scenic Dr. 710 N 68th Ave Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 Graham&Kaulin Stavik Grade Snyder 614 N 68th Ave Yakima, WA 98908 DOC. INDEX 460 Hearing Examiner AGENDA ONLY Yakima Valley C.O.G. KIT-KATS Radio Distribution List—07/18/2024 311 N. 4th Street#204 4010 Summitview, Suite 200 Add Interested—Parties of Record Yakima,WA 98901 Yakima,WA 98908 All YPAC randy.beehler@vakimawa.cioV Yakima Assoc. of Realtors KIMA TV mike.brown@vakimawa.gov Gov.Affairs Committee 2801 Terrace Heights Drive bonnie.lozanovakimawa.gov 2707 River Road Yakima,WA 98901 jQhn.fannin@yakimawa.gov Yakima,WA 98902 1165 Acting Police Chief—Shawn Boyle KCYU-FOX 68 Shawn.bovle( vakimawamov David Okowski KNDO TV 1205 West Lincoln Ave. 216 West Yakima Avenue Fire Chief—Aaron Markham Yakima,WA 98902 Yakima,WA 98902 Aaron.markham[a)yakimawa.gov Rosalinda Ibarra Pacific Power Yakima Herald-Republic City Clerk Mike Paulson P.O. Box 9668 rosalinda.ibarra@yakimwa.gov 500 N. Keys Rd. Yakima,WA 98909 Yakima,WA 98901 Dave Zabell Office of Rural FWH Interim City Manager Marty Miller Patrick D. Spurgin Dave.zabeli@vakimawa.gov 1400 Summitview#203 PO Box 1768 callv.pricevakimawa.pov Yakima,WA 98902 Yakima,WA 98907 Radio KDNA Yakima School Dist.#7 Gary Cuillier P.O. Box 800 Superintendent 314 N. 2nd Street Granger,WA 98932 104 North 4thStreet Yakima,WA 98901 Yakima,WA 98902 KAPP TV Business Times Attn: Newsroom Maud Scott Bruce Smith 601 N Edison St 309 Union Street Kennewick,WA 99336-1968 P.O. Box 2052 Yakima,WA 98901 Yakima,WA 98907 Reed C. Pell 31 Chicago Avenue#4 J Farren Jennifer Farren Yakima,WA 98902 611 N 681h Ave 611 N 68th Ave Yakima, WA 98908 Yakima, WA 98908 Maxine Farren 611 N68thAve Yakima, WA 98908 Tom Robinson Phil Mattoon robinsontr@charter.net philbevmatt@charter.net INDEX 461 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF YAKIMA RE: RWV#003-24 TED PALMATIER N 68TH AVE BTWN ENGLEWOOD AVE AND SCENIC DR I, Eva Rivera, as an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, have dispatched through the United States Mails, a Notice of Petition and Public Hearing; a true and correct copy of which is enclosed herewith; that said notice was addressed to all petitioners at the addresses on the petition, and all owners of property abutting the public right-of-way proposed to be vacated as shown on the records of the Yakima County assessor; that said property owners are individually listed on the mailing list retained by the Planning Division, and that said notices were mailed by me on the 2nd day of July,2024. That I mailed said notices in the manner herein set forth and that all of the statements made herein are just and true. gp. Eva Rivera Planning Technician Dock INDEX 462 18131743424 18131743418 18131743421 GRIMM FAMILY HOLDING TRUST BARRY BERNFELD BARRY BER D 6804 SCENIC DR 718 N 68TH AVE 718 N 6 AVE YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 YA ,WA 98908 18131743420 18131743405 18131743407 BRENT C&JUDITH P ROZELLE GRAHAM&KAULIN STAVIK GRACIE JAY RANDALL&SHARLE SLOOP 720 N 68TH AVE SNYDER 6909 ENGLEWOOD YAKIMA, WA 98908 614 N 68TH AVE YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 18131743423 18131743422 18131744401 JOANN S SPIEGELBERG KENNETH E&CAROL WAGAR MATTHEW&MICHELLE SEVIGNY 714 N 68TH AVE 710 N 68TH AVE 7204 SCENIC DR YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 18131744417 18131744412 18131743419 MAXINE I FARREN RICHARD C&BEVERLY J LARSON THEODORE H &ALIDA PALMATIER 611 N 68TH AVE 6711 ENGLEWOOD AVE 708 N 68TH AVE YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 YAKIMA,WA 98908 12 PLSA ENGINEERING&SURVEYING Total Parcels-TED PALMATIER- WADE KABRICH RWV#003-24 521 N 20th AVE STE 3 YAKIMA,WA 98902 +—WOOL-, qe-12LAVIT -t ` l CPA PI 463 In-House Distribution E-mail List Revised 05/30/2024 Name Division E-mail Address Jaime Vera Air Terminal Jaitne.Vera@yakimawa.gov Silvia Corona Clerk's Office Silvia.Corona(iyakimawa.gov Glenn Denman Code Administration Glenn.Denman@yakimawa.gov Julia Rosales Code Administration julia.rosales rx,yakimawa.gov John Zabell Code Administration John.Zabell@yakimawa.gov Pedro Contreras Code Administration Pedro.Contreras@yakimawa.gov Suzanne DeBusschere Code Administration Suzanne.Debusschere@yakimawa.gov Lisa Maxey Community Development Lisa.Maxey@yakimawa.gov Bill Preston Engineering Bill.preston@yakimawa.gov Kirsten McPherson Engineering Kirsten.McPherson[,vakimawa.gov Dan Riddle Engineering Dan.Riddle@yakimawa.gov Aaron Markham Fire Aaron.markham@,yakimawa.gov Jeremy Rodriguez Fire Jeremy.Rodriguez@yakimawa.gov Sara Watkins Legal Sara.Watkins(cyakimawa.gov. - Trevor Martin Planning trevor.martin@yakimawa.gov Eva Rivera Planning Eva.rivera(ayakimawa.gov Matt Murray Police Matthew.murrayAyakimawa.gov Scott Schafer Public Works Scott.Schafer@yakimawa.gov yakimawa.gov Leovardo Cruz Refuse Leovardo.Cruz@yakimawa.gov Randy Layman Refuse Ra_ndy.Layman@yakimawa.gov Gregory Story Transit Gregory.Story rr yakimawa.gov Anabel Chavez Utilities anabel.chavez@yakimawa.gov Dana Kallevig Wastewater Dana.Kallevig@yakimawa.gov Randy Meloy Wastewater Randv.Meloy@yakimawa.gov yakimawa.gov Mike Shane Water/Irrigation Mike.Shane@yakimawa.gov Outside Distribution Name _ Address Notified? (Subdivision notices ONLY) 500 N Keys Rd,Yakima,WA 98901 ❑ Yes No Pacific Power Attn:Estimating Department 111 University Parkway,Suite 200 El Yes No (Projects Adjacent to BNSF Right of Way ONLY) Yakima,WA 98901 (509)453-9166 Central Washington Railroad Tim Marshall,General Manager,tmarshall@cbrr.com ❑ E-mail Kim Yeager,Real Estate Manager,kyeager@ihdllc.com (Shoreline notices ONLY) Department of Ecology crosepa rr ccy�wa_ v ❑ E-mail Additional Parties of Record or Interested Parties Notified Name Address E-mail Type of Notice: .7 *- -ts1r Qllll File Number(s). ►.C2 L v Date of Mailing: OTL Doc. INDEX 464 Rivera, Eva From: Rivera, Eva Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2024 12:36 PM To: Bradburn,Trace; Chavez, Anabel; Contreras, Pedro; Corona, Silvia; Cruz, Leovardo; DeBusschere, Suzanne; Denman, Glenn; Kallevig, Dana; Layman, Randy; Markham, Aaron; Martin, Trevor; Maxey, Lisa; McPherson, Kirsten; Meloy, Randy; Murray, Matthew; Preston, Bill; Rivera, Eva; Rosales, Julia; Schafer, Scott; Shane, Mike; Story, Gregory;Vera, Jaime;Watkins, Sara;Zabel!,John; El Mundo; El Sol de Yakima; Fannin, John; KAPP TV News; KDNA Radio - Francisco Rios; KEPR TV News; KIMA TV News; KIT News; KIT/KATS/DMVW/KFFM - Lance Tormey; KNDO TV News; KNDU TV News; KUNW-TV Univision; KVEW TV News; La Casa Hogar; La Voz; Linos, Irene; Lozano, Bonnie; NWPR - Anna King; RCDR - Maria DJ Rodriguez;Tu Decides -Albert Torres;West Valley School District -Joe Connolly;Yakima Herald - Business;Yakima Herald Republic Newspaper; Yakima School District - Stacey Locke; Yakima School District - Trevor Greene; Yakima Valley Business Times;YPAC - Randy Beehler; Gary Cuillier; Pat Spurgin (pds@spurginlawoffice.com) Cc: 'Wade Kabrich' Subject: NTC OF PETITION & PUBLIC HEARING -TED PALMATIER- RWV#003-24 Attachments: NTC OF PETITION & PUB HEARING_RWV#003-24.pdf Good afternoon, I have attached a Notice of Petition and Public Hearing for the project mentioned above. If you have any inquiries about this proposal, please feel free to contact the assigned planner, Trevor Martin, at trev .or.martin@yalcimawa.gov. Thank you for your time. -: '- `' 1 Eva Rivera 411111) .:'• .....:A Planning Technician Phone:509-575-6261 eva.rivera@yakirnawa.gov This email is a public record of the City of Yakima and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt under the Washington Public Records Act. This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule. Doe, INDEX k r1)' 465 SM1JRDAY JULY 6 2024.5C Public Notices Public Notices CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF PETITION AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 4,2024 TO:Applicant and Adjoining Property Owners FROM: Bill Preston, Interim Community Development Director APPLICANT: PLSA Engineering&Surveying- Kabrich,Wade FILE NUMBER: RWV#003-24 LOCATION:N. 68th Ave.,between Englewood ve.&cnic Dr. ADACENT PARCEL(S): 8 18131743422, 18131743424, 18131744401 DATE OF APPLICATION:April 29,2024 DDT OFP COMPLEToposal to ENESS a June 4,2024 PROJECT portion of N. 68th Ave.,between Englewood Ave. &Scenic Dr. Pursuant to YMC§ 16.06.020(A),the project considerations are determined to be consistent with applicable development regulations,as follows: The type of land use: Right-of-Way Vacation 1.Level of development:Approximately 70,000 square feet 2. Infrastructure and public facilities: Existing utilities shall be retained in an easement 3. Characteristics of development: This petition is being processed under YMC Ch. 14.21 Pursuant to YMC§16,6.020(B),rthe de are pmfouenttroegulations and comprehensive p be consistent,as follows: 1.The type of land use: Right-of-Way Vacation 2.Density of development: N/A 3.Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public utilities: Existing utilities shall be retained in an easement REQ fiQMMENT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Your views on this proposal are welcome.All written comments received by 5:00 p.m.on July 17,2024,will be considered prior to issuing the recommendation.You can mail your comments to: Trevor Martin,AICP,Planning Manager,City of Yakima, Department of Community Development,129 N.2nd St., Yakima,WA 98901 This request requires that the Hearing Examiner hold an open record scheduled for July 25,2024,at1 hearing, 9:00 a.m.in the City Hall Council Chambers,City Hail,129 N.2nd t onYakima,WA. All written comments received by 5:00 p.m. July 7, 2024,will be considered prior to issuing the staff recommendation to the Hearing Examiner,and will be made part of the official record—however,written comments can be received up to the hearing date.Any person desiring to express their views on the matter is invited to attend the hearing to provide testimony. Please reference file numbers(RWV#003-24)and applicant's name(Palmatier)in any correspondence you submit.The City Councile shall decide whether or not to vacate the right-of-way. g Examiner will conduct the required public heariwishing g,and makeea , recommendation to the City Council.Any party g. ' informed of the time,date,and place of the City Council meeting for the proposed vacation should submit a written request to the City of Yakima Planning Division.PiQTiCE.QE agggigiEND Tl Following the public hearing,the Hearing Examiner will issue his recommendation within ten(10) business days.When available,a copy of the recommendation will be mailed to parties of record and entities who were provided this notice.The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division,City Hall—2nd Floor, 129 N.2nd St., Yakima,WA. If you have questions regarding this proposal, please contact Trevor Martin,AICP, Planning k an g�, at (509)575-6042,or email to:trevor. raYa (81482)July 6,2024 INDEX tin._ . . 466 YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC El Sol cl Yakima AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Eva Rivera City Of Yakima Planning 129 N 2nd Street Yakima WA 98901 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTIES OF YAKIMA The undersigned, on oath states that he/she is an authorized representative of Yakima Herald-Republic, Inc., publisher of Yakima Herald-Republic and El Sol de Yakima,of general circulation published daily in Yakima County, State of Washington. Yakima Herald-Republic and El Sol de Yakima have been approved as legal newspapers by orders of the Superior Court of Yakima County. The notice, in the exact form annexed,was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper or papers and distributed to its subscribers during all of the said period. 07/06/2024 Agent _ Debbie Collantes Signature be-bbc.e Subscribed and sworn to before me on / J /d.4 (Notary Signature)Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,residing at Yakima Publication Cost: $229.40 Order No: 81482 HANH SONG NGUYEN BUI Customer No: 23222 Notary Public PO#: State of Washington Commission If 19110316 My Comm. Expires Nov 4, 2027 'Ca. Page 1 467 Publication Cost: $229.40 CITY OF YAKIMA Order No: 81482 NOTICE OF PETITION AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE:July 4,2024 TO:Applicant and Adjoining Property Customer No: 23222 Owners FROM:Bill Preston, Interim Community Development Director APPLICANT: PLSA Engineering&Surveying- PO#: Kabrich,Wade FILE NUMBER: RWV#003-24 LOCATION: N. 68th Ave.,between Englewood Ave.&Scenic Dr.ADJACENT PARCEL(S): 1 81 31 74341 9, 1 81 31 743405, 18131743407, 18131743422, 18131743424, 18131744401 DATE OF APPLICATION:April 29,2024 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: June 4,2024 PROJECT 1Q SCRIPTIQN Proposal to vacate a portion of N. 68th Ave.,between Englewood Ave.&Scenic Dr. DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY Pursuant to YMC§ 16.06.020(A),the project considerations are determined to be consistent with applicable development regulations,as follows: The type of land use: Right-of-Way Vacation 1.Level of development:Approximately 70,000 square feet 2. Infrastructure and public facilities:Existing utilities shall be retained in an easement 3.Characteristics of development: This petition is being processed under YMC Ch. 14.21 Pursuant to YMC§ 16.06.020(B),the development regulations and comprehensive plan considerations are found to be consistent,as follows: 1.The type of land use: Right-of-Way Vacation 2.Density of development: N/A 3.Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public utilities:Existing utilities shall be retained in an easement REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENLAND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Your views on this proposal are welcome.All written comments received by 5:00 p.m.on July 17,2024,will be considered prior to issuing the recommendation.You can mail your comments to: Trevor Martin,AICP,Planning Manager,City of Yakima, Department of Community Development,129 N.2nd St., Yakima,WA 98901 This request requires that the Hearing Examiner hold an open record public hearing,which is scheduled for July 25,2024,at 9:00 a.m.in the City Hall Council Chambers,City Hail,129 N.2nd St,Yakima,WA. All written comments received by 5:00 p.m.on July 17, 2024,will be considered prior to issuing the staff recommendation to the Hearing Examiner,and will be made part of the official record—however,written comments can be received up to the hearing date.Any person desiring to express their views on the matter is invited to attend the hearing to provide testimony.Please reference file numbers(RWV#003-24)and applicant's name(Palmatier)in any correspondence you submit.The City Council shall decide whether or not to vacate the right-of-way.The Hearing Examiner will conduct the required public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council.Any party wishing to be informed of the time,date,and place of the City Council meeting for the proposed vacation should submit a written request to the City of Yakima Planning Division.NOTICE OF RECOMMENDATION Following the public hearing,the Hearing Examiner will issue his recommendation within ten(10) business days.When available,a copy of the recommendation will be mailed to parties of record and entities who were provided this notice.The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division,City Hall—2nd Floor, 129 N.2nd St., Yakima,WA. If you have questions regarding this proposal, please contact Trevor Martin,AICP,Planning Manager,at (509)575-6042,or email to:Irevor.martin@yalijrnayaggy. (81482)July 6,2024 Page 2 Doc. r 468 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Bill Preston, Interim Director I awk. //1■ ■t1\ Planning Division _. _:...I ,%` Trevor Martin,AICP, Planning Manager Ppj CITY O F YAKIMA 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor, Yakima, WA 98901 l a n nin g ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning CITY OF YAKIMA NOTICE OF PETITION AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 2, 2024 TO: Applicant and Adjoining Property Owners FROM: Bill Preston, Interim Community Development Director APPLICANT: PLSA Engineering & Surveying - Kabrich, Wade FILE NUMBER: RWV#003-24 LOCATION: N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. &Scenic Dr. ADJACENT PARCEL(S): 18131743419, 18131743405, 18131743407, 18131743422, 18131743424, 18131744401 DATE OF APPLICATION: April 29, 2024 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: June 4, 2024 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposal to vacate a portion of N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. &Scenic Dr. DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY Pursuant to YMC § 16.06.020(A), the project considerations are determined to be consistent with applicable development regulations, as follows: 1. The type of land use: Right-of-Way Vacation 2. Level of development: Approximately 70,000 square feet 3. Infrastructure and public facilities: Existing utilities shall be retained in an easement 4. Characteristics of development: This petition is being processed under YMC Ch. 14.21 Pursuant to YMC§ 16.06.020(B), the development regulations and comprehensive plan considerations are found to be consistent, as follows: 1. The type of land use: Right-of-Way Vacation 2. Density of development: N/A 3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public utilities: Existing utilities shall be retained in an easement REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Your views on this proposal are welcome. All written comments received by 5:00 p.m. on July 17, 2024, will be considered prior to issuing the recommendation. You can mail your comments to: Trevor Martin,AICP, Planning Manager City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima,WA 98901 This request requires that the Hearing Examiner hold an open record public hearing, which is scheduled for July 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, City Hall, 129 N. 2nd St, Yakima, WA.All written comments received by 5:00 p.m.on July 17,2024,will be considered prior to issuing the staff recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, and will be made part of the official record — however, written comments can be received up to the hearing date. Any person desiring to express their views on the matter is invited to attend the hearing to provide testimony. Please reference file numbers(RWV#003-24)and applicant's name(Palmatier) in any correspondence you submit. The City Council shall decide whether or not to vacate the right-of-way. The Hearing Examiner will conduct the required public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. Any party wishing to Yakin,..i w l.rtaoy DOG• 11Ii 1991 469 be informed of the time,date, and place of the City Council meeting for the proposed vacation should submit a written request to the City of Yakima Planning Division. NOTICE OF RECOMMENDATION Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue his recommendation within ten (10) business days. When available, a copy of the recommendation will be mailed to parties of record and entities who were provided this notice. The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of Yakima Planning Division, City Hall—2nd Floor, 129 N. 2nd St., Yakima, WA. If you have questions regarding this proposal, please contact Trevor Martin, AICP, Planning Manager, at (509) 575-6042, or email to: trevor.martin(c�yakimawa.gov. Enclosed: Petition, Vicinity Map, Record of Survey, and Written Narrative D r INDEX 470 M.■ e+\IL DEI :TMENTO DE DESARROLLO COM 'TITARIO /IN IX! Bill Preston, Director Interino CITY O IMA Division de Planificacion (� n Trevor Martin,AICP, Gerente 129 Norte Calle 2a, 2°Piso,Yakima, WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov • www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning AVISO DE PETITION Y AUDIENCIA PUBLICA El Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario de la Ciudad de Yakima ha recibido una aplicaciOn por parte de un propietario/solicitante y este es un aviso sobre esa solicitud. InformaciOn sobre la ubicacion de la propiedad en cuestiOn y la solicitud es la siguiente: FECHA OTORGADA: 2 de julio, 2024 PARA: Solicitante y Propietarios Adyacentes DE: Bill Preston, Director Interino de Desarrollo Comunitario SOLICITANTE: PLSA Engineering &Surveying - Kabrich, Wade NO. DE ARCHIVO: RWV#003-24 UBICACION: N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. &Scenic Dr. PARCELAS ADYACENTES: 18131743419, 18131743405, 18131743407, 18131743422, 18131743424, 18131744401 FECHA DE APLICACION: 29 de abril, 2024 FECHA DE APLICACION COMPLETA:4 de junio, 2024 DESCRIPCION DEL PROYECTO: Propuesta para desalojar una parte de N. 68th Ave., entre Englewood Ave. &Scenic Dr. DETERMINACION DE LA CONSISTENCIA: Conforme al COdigo Municipal YMC §16.06.020(A), las consideraciones del proyecto se determinan consistentes con las siguientes normas aplicables: 1. El tipo de uso terrenal: Solicitud para desocupar la via publica 2. Nivel de desarrollo: Aproximadamente 70,000 pies cuadrados 3. Infraestructura e instalaciones pablicas: Utilidades existentes seran retenidas en una servidumbre. 4. Caracteristicas del desarrollo: Esta peticion este siendo procesada bajo el codigo YMC 14.21. Conforme al COdigo Municipal YMC §16.06.020(B), los reglamentos de desarrollo y las consideraciones del plan comprehensivo son coherentes, de la siguiente manera: 1. El tipo del uso terrenal: Solicitud para desocupar la via publica 2. Densidad del desarrollo: N/A 3. Disponibilidad y adecuaciOn de infraestructura y servicios publicos: Utilidades existentes seran retenidas en una servidumbre. SOLICITUD DE COMENTARIOS ESCRITOS Y AVISO DE AUDIENCIA PUBLICA: Sus opiniones sobre esta propuesta son bienvenidas. Todos los comentarios recibidos por escrito antes de las 5:00 p.m. el 6 de junio, 2024 seran considerados antes de emitir la recomendaciOn sobre esta solicitud. Por favor de envier sus comentarios sobre esta propuesta a: City of Yakima, Department of Community Development 129 N. 2nd St.,Yakima,WA 98901 Esta propuesta requiere una audiencia publica con registro abierto con el Examinador de Audiencias. Por to tanto, una audiencia publica se Ilevara a cabo el 25 de julio, 2024 comenzando a las 9:00 a.m. en el Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Yakima ubicado en el 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima, WA. Todos los comentarios escritos recibidos antes de las 5:00 p.m. el 17 de julio del 2024, seran considerados antes de emitir la recomendacion al Examinador de Audiencia, y seran parte del archivo oficial — sin embargo, los comentarios seran recibidos hasta el dia de la Audiencia. Se le invite a cualquier persona que desee expresar sus opiniones sobre este caso a asistir a la audiencia publica o a presentar comentarios por escrito. Por favor de hacer referencia al numero de archivo (RWV#003-24)o al nombre del solicitante(Palmatier)en cualquier correspondencia que envie. El Concejo Municipal decidira si desocupar o no la via publica. El Examinador de Audiencias Ilevara a cabo la D C., Yakima S ... . - 2015 1994 411 audiencia publica requerida y hart una recomendacion al Concejo Municipal.Cualquier persona que desee ser informada de la hora, fecha y el lugar de la junta publica del Concejo Municipal para la peticiOn propuesta debera solicitarlo por escrito a la Division de PlanificaciOn de la Ciudad de Yakima. AVISO DE LA RECOMENDACION: Despues de la audiencia publica, el Examinador de Audiencias emitira su recomendacion dentro de diez(10)dias habiles. Cuando la recomendaciOn sea emitida, una copia sera enviada a las personas que mandaron comentarios o que recibieron este aviso. El archivo que contiene la aplicaciOn completa esta disponible para inspecciOn publica en la Oficina de PlanificaciOn de la Ciudad de Yakima en el 129 al Norte la Calle 2da, Yakima, WA. Si tiene cualquier pregunta sobre esta propuesta, puede contactar a la Oficina de Planificacion al (509) 575-6183 o por correo electronico al: ask.planning(a7yakimawa.gov Adjuntes: PeticiOn, Mapa, Record of Survey, Narrativa o'0 472 all I 1 <■wk. 1,111 I"%MN, AI= Ili p I bort,yed AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF WASHINGTON RE: File#: V1A}1]'a op 3 Applicant Name: 1 e( .P4l aLy Project Name: (`p9-Lii' ikee, ffu,r_6.i+'©Y Site Location: (j i„t, t.Ac/ . e - "t As an employee of the City of Yakima Planning Division, I have posted a copy of the Notice fixing time of public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. �, The Hearing Examiner Public Hearing is scheduled for the .`2 .. day of c) 20 --t4 . Notices were posted on the 2� day of IA 20 '14 at the following locations: 2nd Floor of City Hall, County Courthouse and the Central Library. Pe;c1 R (51,11- (Ahki Signed Job Title y/ Zt-] Date DOC. 7±1, 473 ,.�z,YY � : ,`Y��• a BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 7.C. For Meeting of: July 2, 2024 ITEM TITLE: Resolution setting July 25, 2024, as the date for an open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner to vacate a portion of N. 68th Avenue SUBMITTED BY: *Trevor Martin, Planning Manager Bill Preston, Interim Community and Economic Development Director SUMMARY EXPLANATION: On April 29, 2024, Ted Palmatier submitted a petition (Petition 24-09, RWV#003-24) to vacate a portion of N. 68th Ave., between Scenic Dr. and Englewood Ave. This request aims to eliminate an approximately 1,285-foot-long portion of right-of-way that is located between existing residential properties, this vacated street will be held as a private street and will allow for those properties to continue to access Scenic Dr. and Englewood Ave. City Council is being asked to set the date for this public hearing before the Hearing Examiner for July 25, 2024. The Hearing Examiner's Recommendation will be presented to Council for final consideration - date to be scheduled for a future Council meeting upon receipt of the HE Recommendation. ITEM BUDGETED: N/A STRATEGIC PRIORITY: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RWV-003-24 SET DATE.docx DOC INDEX 4741 RESOLUTION NO. R-2024-117 A RESOLUTION fixing time for a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner on July 25, 2024, on a petition (Petition No. 24-09) to vacate a portion of N 68th Ave. right-of-way, between Englewood Ave. and Scenic Dr. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.79.010, a petition (Petition No. 24-09, RWV#003-24) has been filed with the City Clerk, requesting the vacation of a street or alleyway (or portion thereof) within the City of Yakima, a true copy of which petition is attached and incorporated into this resolution (Exhibit "A"); and WHEREAS, such a petition has been signed by the owners of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon the street or alley (or portion thereof) which is requested to be vacated, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA The above-referenced petition for vacation is hereby referred to the Hearing Examiner for public hearing pursuant to section 1 43.080 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code. The Hearing Examiner is directed to make written recommendation to the City Council regarding said petition. The Hearing Examiner's Public Hearing shall be held on July 25, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, which date and time are not more than sixty (60) days nor less than twenty (20) days after the passage of this resolution It is further resolved that the City Clerk, or administrative official, give notice of the Hearing Examiner Public Hearing in the form and manner prescribed by RCW 35.79 020 and Section 14.21.040(C) of the City of Yakima Municipal Code. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 2nd day of July, 2024 ATTEST ,, 'c.KI;:,,' r'ilw Patricia Byers,/ ayor ) Rosalinda Ibarra, City Clerk l';,4773Q7- ;ROC. INDEX *--t-,..a..._ 475 Exhibit A PETITION NO. `�:`� CITY OP YAtcIMA,WASHINGTON PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY To the City Council of the City of Yakima,Washington. Comes now tho undersigned petitioners and, pursuant to ROW Chepte• 35.79, now respectfully show: The undersigned petitioners request that the following described street, alley or porton thereof, located fn the City of Yakima, be vacated pursuant to RCW 35.79 (provide legal description l}u!kw, or attach to petition If lengthy), Each of ha undersigned petitioners Is tho owner of an Interest in real estate abutting on the above-desra'Ibed area. The undersigned potitionors constitute owners of more than two-thirds of said abutting property. Wherefore, petitioners pray that proceedings be heard hereon for the vacation of said area in the manner prescribed by RCW Ch.35.79, NatAtra Q 7 a ) 4(175+ r /9'02, •/ .iope Owner Address V etti gel �J n f _ arc .G �.. 2 - Signature --- _...p�.,_ q i to` ..Date Ownership°!° L fi tt "zitav- 7P Y1 1\1 , 6 Owner Arierese •t of Z4/21" ?4‘;fx- ,S geature Date Ownership% owner Address Signature f)utc Ownership% (►f thar a are rrorg Fon:cirri o:mors titan what is moor tar chaise alraclr a snp;arrilu list of property ownars nbril!v Nis rfAl•of-way to de witted as wo;l a s(hair a.•Idoesa,poraaninpn of fronlsga on the right ofLwey; and signature with ot748 and the total nsvnnrsh* r can:age of rho properly owners r:•arecrparf4u!n Ihra vnr:nllon) iNDEX 7' r �......_.. - 476 PETITION NO.CITY or YAf(IMA.etil_ BTON PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY To tho City Council of the City of Yakima,Washington. Correa now the undersigned petitioners and, pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.79, now respectruity show The unttrarsigno+d potitcriers reriur;at that tie fogoorin doacribed street, alley or portion Itxreot, located in tho City of Yntrima,ho vacated pursuant to RCW 35.79(provide fegiif description below,orntfach to pefltfori If lengthy) Each of the undersigned petitioners to the owner of an interest in teal estate staining on the above-described area. The undersigned petitioners conaEtute owners or more their Iwo-thirds of said abuttt;tg properly. Wherefore, potltlonors pray that proceodirtgs be heard hereon for the vacation of said area In lire manner prescribed by RCW Ch.35.79, 4 Licl•a s Sc, itv-3 14144. t�' [ 4- 18l 11441 1 Owuet Address 2r_k1:2162-Lt W .10VYn ire .11 Date irtsership Owner Address ---- Signature Elate TOwnership% , Owns►- _ Address Signature _-_---- Date Ownership% There ors hairy nrnprrr(y awron ihnn what ra room For plaasu Which a ssrpwoto(taint properly(*nors stutdna ilru dant*Al r fc Ian Vat=31010 nx VAIN As Itrrr6•rrnr uses,parcantuoo of f,o'l go an the rrohlvr wrap.end srrynatnra w:th e/,}a end lho Ind,►ownarafyN'mems 4w of Te!monody 017109117 Wrrtia:'po/10g In this vnanftNr) Revised 10/2023 Page I 6 DOC. INDEX 477 PETITION NO. - 'P�" CITY OF YAKIMA WA HiNGTON PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY To the City Cnunoll of the City of Yakima,Washington Comes now the undersigned petitioners and, pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.79, now respectfully show: t rai unders:q'iee Vr2:Iti:tire s request Mat he following described street, alley or port on ttrnreof, locatod n fhe Gity of Yakima, hn veca'ed pursuant to RCW 35 79{provide legal description below,or attach to petition if lengthy}. Each or the I,rrieis1yried petitioners r5 the nwnOr of an inte-est in real estate abutting art the above-described area The undersigned petitioners constitute owners of more than turn thirds of said abutting property. Wherefore, petttirnors prey tnat prrcuedings be heard hereon For the vacation of said area in The mariner presort ed by RCW Ch.35.79. .i7,p t J I`+ `� ^�yC, k�l r O ctl t 7 rl Address4 ( iLL" " • -I•r d Signature bate Ownership Owner Address Signature Date _. (Ownership°./ I Owner Address — — —v Slntrhrre — Date� - Ownership% ' I rr'hire sqs n;r•red a ri}.:nn rr.inari,Vlryl1 15 yrri fut r:iea't]ASr.,.J, a 5epAreie kV 7r Ye rib civet}ens ib+iU' !as ngM•GI e.a;•e.'An, f:YeereL$''we!,'PS rrr '�' - } ^6'0 t en i14r.:-e)•9rrQr D!:7410fran mr 7re os+right-N-wit and signgrurp rift, dais and if,q!nf;rf Jwn+hrr;hry f'-n`I"!'NaywH:,1 7h,r rrrnn¢r!,>.�,er�r,wrr dAF�3�4r ihiY+ncAlr,. DOC. INDEX r. 478 PFT1TtON NO. r411. CITY or YAKIMA, WASHING 0—Ni PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY To the City Council of tho City of Yak'ma,Washington. Comes now the undersfgred petitioners and, pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.79, now respectfully show Tho underslyr.ed put ilc:o-s , rarpest 1'st the folio rnr; ci;;,r.rIbed street, alley or portion tlicreo`, located in tho C,ty of Yakima, bi vacated pirct.wit t- RCl// 35.79 (provldo Waal dasorlptlen bolow,or attach to patltlon ff longthy). f:aM of tie undersigned pelltionuers Is the owner of an i 1Ic: :st In real estate abutting on the above-described area. The undersigned petitioners cons`itut:: owners of rmoro than two-ttilyds of said abutting property. Wnorefore, petitioners pray that proceedings be ho ird hereon for the vacat'on of said area In the manner prescribed by ROW Ch.35.79. r / �+'�`ti'r�ar e� ram��?I Thai G�e)�i<- ..it.� 01��n�+ Owner !Address '�c a, - tad Sign lit+lt•a .. 1...__ Date 'Ownership /e Owner Addris Signature Date Ownership% Owner __ �__ Address Signature Date Ownership efo^__J Or thari}ill,1,rare,pftwouf owntrts Men who!4 roarrr for prv.rsa Nffech[i SUpe,u gat of ercpeey owners abutting fhe right-Of-way Si be vacated 04 Wed es Thai address,metre-Wage of frontego O, the rrghha14v y, end$ignniore wnr> darn and lira(Wa owr,orxrhlp pon;or,rorr,(1'd,vpr ror y ewrrare paillarpadv In thin vaaerron) Revised 10/2023 PHge 16 DOC. I N D EX 44, 479 PETITION NO. `ILI Cf,,! CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY To the City Council of the City of Yakima,Washington Comes now the undersigned petitioners and, pursuant to RCW Chapter 35 79, now respectfully show I h,: + •der ed aetrtionerrs rr';. :',I that the fotiowing described street, alley or portion thereof. 'ccatt in it.. Cit;of Yak ma, tau vacated pursuant to .RCW 35.79 (provide legal description below or attach to petition If lengthy). Eden of the undersigned petitioners is the owner of an Interest In real estate abutting on the acovo-described a-ea The undersigned petitioners constitute owners of more than two-thirds of said abutting property Wherefore, petitioners pray that proceedings be heard hereon for the vacation of said area In the ma•1ner prescribed by ROW Ch. 35.79. Ci✓'o( ki\vo..6ar Owner Address 7 Signattsrr _ .. __ Date Ownership % • tiV42.414 04)4'4 r Owner ,"; dre. a 2 CG( r.*f{.n r� 'Ina � 7 Signature Date Ownership`v, • Owner Address Signature Date Ownership% nl!f marl?n,eparry Irw,.)'¢!hat,,4I Yr i♦V,x.. rr f e'ea,c n!r`J:)a.I sa:pernrp)119:C1r O wervira r, >lr;"[«3/•p.Aj h)hP v4et4/40 as wall ra.;rh..r Addrals 'ry' dfbi K;U.r' :147.'u ann,lies total•s.1m�7rJ, / Iy Ovate,,'a[YCVatagr),)N NN"' r.aft.T.way dr)d S"y'AghrrB ardh �p3r.�.:frnj�f r� "hA IIr7yEp,rFd riN7Qr:3 p.]rri C'Omr,'nv rr Ih.4 f.^71'Jrli�,l Revised 10/2023 Page 6 DOC. INDEX 480 PETITION CITY or YAKIMA,WASHINGTON PETITION TO VACATE STREET OR ALLEY To the City Council of the City of Yakima,Washington, Comes now the undersigned petitioners and, pursuant to RCW Chapter 35.79, now respectfully show. The undersigned petitioners request that the following described street,alley or portion thereof, located in the City of Yakima, be vacated pursuant to ROW 35.79 (prey/de legal description below,or attach ra petition if lengthy). Each of the undersigned petitioners Is the owner of an Interest in real estate abutting on the above-described area. The undorstgnod petitioners conStitute owners of more than two-thirds of saki abutting property, Wherefore, petitioners pray that proceedings be heard hereon for the vacation of said area In the mariner prescribed by RCW Ch.35.79. r Graham Snyder: Kaulin Stavlk Gracie Snyder-614 N 68th Ave., Yaklma,WA989a8 Owner Address FCtn _-/ 3/6/23 10G% Signature Date Ownership% Owner Address _ Signature Date - �_ - Ownership% Owner Andress -- Signature Date -_.._.._..__ C)wncrship°/®- (A'Aerg are myth pro-petty seven It an VOW is MUM Ids trensa MOO a Scpa!sia ttvrot p.a pnrry 9"'"'s ntneiHnrr the r1ptI•rN-Nay mnata<i as reel,as their address,u+lricereauer rr!4ryrtilrp or+um)atyhl ss twee rw17 stricture with dem cowl the tales nnn+arrlrin Aarcarnaga®rtraa prapary ewers paattV1e,lJ Gr trio$W aallory Kevisetl 10/2023 Page 16 DOC. D EX 481 AWN 111111 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ■ aWk%.AMIE am, Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2'Floor, Yakima, WA 98901 Planning ask.planning@yakimawa.gov www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning June 4, 2024 FILE NUMBER: RWV#003-24 APPLICANT: PLSA Engineering & Surveying c/o Wade Kabrich APPLICANT ADDRESS: 521 N. 20th Ave. #3, Yakima, WA 98902 PROJECT LOCATION: Proposal to vacate a portion of N 68th Ave between Englewood Ave and Scenic Drive. TAX PARCEL NO: 18131743419, 18131743405, 18131743407, 18131743422, 18131743424, 18131744401 DATE OF REQUEST: April 29,2024 SUBJECT: Notice of Complete Application Mr. Kabrich: The application for your Right-of-Way Vacation between a portion of N 68th Ave between Englewood Ave and Scenic Drive was received on April 29, 2024. As of June 3, 2024, your application is considered complete as required by the City of Yakima's Municipal Code (YMC) and plat plan checklist, as referenced in YMC § 14.21.030. The Development Services Team (DST) will hold a meeting on to review your project. Continued processing of your request will include, but is not limited to, the following actions. 1. A set date for the public hearing will be established with the City Council and Hearing Examiner. 2. A Notice of Petition and Public Hearing will be sent to all property owners abutting the right-of-way proposed to be vacated. This notice will include a request for public comments during a comment period as is required by the City of Yakima. 3. A subsequent hearing will be scheduled for final review and consideration by the Yakima City Council. For any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at trevor.martin@yakimawa.gov. Sincerely, Trevor Martin, AICP Planning Manager DOCP INDEX Yakima YFI 2015 1994 482 TED PALMATIER RWV#003-24 EXHIBIT LIST CHAPTER G Comments DOCUMENT AT G-1 Comment from Maxine Farren 03/07/2024 G-2 Comment from Jennifer Farren 07/08/2024 G-3 Comment from Tom Robinson 07/08/2024 G-4 Comment from Maxine Farren 07/17/2024 G-5 Comment from Jennifer Farren 07/17/2024 G-6 Comment from Phil Mattoon 07/16/2024 G-7 Comment from Coleen Anderson 07/16/2024 G-8 Comment from Cyrus Philbrick 07/17/2024 G-9 Comment from Phil Hoge 07/17/2024 G-10 Comment from Tom Robinson 07/17/2024 G-11 Bike Master Plan 07/25/2024 G-12 Sevigny Short Plat 07/25/2024 G-13 Comment from Maxine Farren 08/05/2024 G-14 Fire Department Memo 08/08/2024 G-15 Planning Manager Memo 08/07/2024 G-16 Opinion of the City Attorney, Sara Watkins 09/04/2024 G-17 Letter from Tom Durant—PLSA 09/10/2024 G-18 Response to Interim Decision 09/24/2021 G-19 Tom Durant Response 10/04/2024 G-20 Comment Submitted to City Clerk from Ted Palmatier 11/15/2024 G-21 Comment from Carol Wagar 12/13/2024 483 December 13, 2024 Yakima City Council, Regarding petition to vacate North 68th Avenue between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue As outlined in Ted Palmatier's letter, a majority of the neighbors along 68th Avenue have been pursuing the vacation of the public right of way on our street,which is essentially a driveway not a street. We relied on the advice of the Planning Department in pursuing this course of action at considerable time and cost. The street has deteriorated significantly since we last personally paid to have it paved. There are three large potholes with the pavement crumbling and pieces sticking up and it is broken down all along the entire road. It needs repair right now but the neighbors are understandably reluctant to pay for this as it continues to be used by the public more than the people who live on the road. My home faces 68th Avenue so I have a good idea of the traffic we are seeing. People who live on Scenic Drive west of 68th routinely use our street as a shortcut to go from Scenic Drive to Englewood and head west, bypassing 66th Avenue and the dangerous Englewood/66th Avenue intersection. Similarly, eastbound traffic on Englewood Avenue uses our street as a short cut to Scenic Drive. This excessive traffic has damaged our privately maintained road as well as damaged property and created safety concerns with speeding vehicles. My frustration is two-fold: We are told we cannot restrict public use of a road that we have personally paid to maintain, and yet we cannot get the City to repair the damage. This is obviously unfair. I respectfully request that the Yakima City Council either approve our petition to vacate the public right of way OR schedule road maintenance in the very near future. Carol Wagar 710 N. 68th Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 DQC% INOEX > 484 Ibarra, Rosalinda From: Ibarra, Rosalinda Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 9:56 AM To: Martin, Trevor Cc: Rivera, Eva Subject: FW: Yakima City Council Presentation regarding the petition to vacate the public right of way on N 68th Avenue between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue in Yakima Attachments: Yakima City Council Presentation regarding the petition to vacate the public right of way between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue.docx; BP-70055_20241115_ 134835.pdf; BP-70C55_20241113_131244.pdf Good morning Trevor—I received the e-mail below and attachments with a letter requesting that this information be included in the packet to the City Council.Can you please reach out to Mr. Palmatier and provide him with a status of when this item will be presented to the City Council. Thank you, Rosalinda Ibarra I City Clerk From:Ted Palmatier<thpalmatier@charter.net> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 3:12 PM To: Ibarra, Rosalinda <Rosalinda.lbarra@yakimawa.gov> Cc: 'Tom Durant' <tdurant@plsaofyakima.com> Subject:Yakima City Council Presentation regarding the petition to vacate the public right of way on N 68th Avenue between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue in Yakima Dear Rosalinda Ibarra (Yakima City Clerk): We are waiting for an announcement from the Yakima City Council stating that we are on the agenda to present our petition to vacate the public right of way for North 68th Avenue between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive in Yakima.Attached please find a letter to you plus related attachments all of which we would like you to forward to Yakima City Council members to have available in their information packets for the meeting date where we are approved to present this petition for a Yakima City Council decision.We are unable to come on December 17 but are available otherwise to come to one of the regularly scheduled Council meetings.Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Ted Palmatier 708 N 68th Avenue Yakima,WA 98908 D INDEX 1 # 61 4� 485 1 11/15/24 To: Yakima City Clerk rasalinda.ibarra@yakimawa.gov Yakima City Council Presentation regarding the petition to vacate the public right of way on N 68th Avenue between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue: ■ Historical background: in the fall of 2023 a group of neighbors living on this section of N 68th Avenue plus those neighbors whose sole property access is off N 68th Avenue met together concerned about road safety and maintenance issues. They then presented those concerns to the City of Yakima Planning Department and met with Joseph Calhoun (Planning Department Director at the time plus Bill Preston, Yakima City Engineer. Mr. Preston suggested we act to petition the City to vacate the public right of way. Mr. Calhoun agreed with both stating the City of Yakima had no short-term or long-term plan to provide maintenance for the right of way and no plans to ever develop it further into a street meeting City specification. Based on this recommendation our neighbor group hired PLSA to represent us and to help prepare the petition to vacate the public right of way, spending over $7000 including the $1864.04 hearing examiner/petition application fee. We met all the criteria to submit the petition to vacate the public right of way with 3/4 of the abutting property owners signing the petition. The petition was submitted to the City Planning Department and a hearing was held on July 25, 2024, with Hearing examiner Cullier presiding and Trevor Martin (the new Director of the planning Department). Despite prior assurances given to us, the newer members of the planning Department recommended denial of the petition since they thought it was important to have the City preserve control over the right of way in case there was future development of unoccupied land along the right of way. They cited Washington State law, regarding future developments, street and area connectivity as well as concerns registered by advocates for bicyclists D C. INDEX � �_^ 486 2 and walkers who wanted to use the road for their recreational purposes. We pointed out to them in numerous ways that the right of way already included an easement to allow utilities as well as access for any property owner with sole access to the property from the right of way. That would include any new homes on the right of way. This was already included in the petition to vacate the right of way and did not conflict with any future development possibilities. This did not sway the Planning Department, which clung to irrelevant regulations to deny rather than approve our petition. We also agreed that our only safety and maintenance concerns were based on non-resident motor vehicle use of the road as a shortcut with resultant high rates of speed at times threatening safety of those who live on the road as well as any recreational users of the road. Since we did not have any objection to bicyclists and walkers use of the road, those advocacy groups seem to withdraw serious objections to the proposal or if they still maintain their objections, these are now without merit since we will make provisions for these groups to use the right of way. The Planning Department, however, continued to recommend denial of the petition. The hearing examiner attempted to find some common ground and suggested a revocable license to give us control of the right of way. This was to be addressed at a continuation hearing which took place August 8, 2024, resulting in the planning Department's continued recommendation for denial of both the original petition and the revocable license idea. They had no concrete offer to help the neighbors with road safety or maintenance implying there was not and may never be budgeted money to accomplish either. The hearing examiner gave himself 10 business days to come up with a recommendation to the City Council for a potential resolution. An additional objection to our petition came from the Yakima City Fire Chief and was presented by letter available at the continuation hearing. He was concerned about response time if we ever installed a gate on the right of way. There was a similar concern voiced in multiple letters from one opposing neighbor on that section of public right of way. • Relevant facts: DOC. INDEX 487 3 1. The City of Yakima recently approved a short plat subdivision on the Northeastern 1/2 of the property bordering the public right of way on North 68th Avenue without requiring any road improvements by the developer or the City to do this short plat. Obviously that decision is inconsistent with the Planning Department's reasoning for the suggested denial of our petition. Our petition is also supported by the developer in question. We ask if the developer's short plat proposal can be approved without contest, with much more impact than our request, why the different standard for decisions? Why were we initially encouraged to petition to vacate the public right of way, led us to spend the $7000 plus in money complying with that recommendation only to be denied after the fact? We were apparently given poor or inaccurate advice by the City Planning Department. The denial of our petition seems without merit and very much one-sided for no valid reason. 2. The Fire Department Chief's concern about response time issues with a potential gate on the road is not fair minded and consistent with the obvious existence of several gated communities in the City and surrounding areas. Why is the gate OK for those others but not for us. This is an inconsistent application of concerns that don't really amount to any significant delays. All gated communities have emergency access capability provided, and I am certain the Fire Chief is aware of that fact. In fact, a gate placed on the north part of the right of way would not delay emergency access anyway since emergency access from fire and ambulance services routinely approach from the south off Englewood Avenue and never from the North off Scenic Drive since it would be the long way around to reach the properties in question. 3. We understand this public right of way was recorded in 1907 principally as an orchard access road and there has never been any effort by the Yakima County or the City of Yakima following their annexation of this area to provide maintenance or safety improvements for this right of way in the 117 years since the onset DOC. UIDEX 488 # 4 of the right of way. There is currently no plan to improve the right of way, and no budget money has been made available for this. The 117-year history of doing nothing is ample evidence that most likely nothing will be done by the city in the next 117 years either. 4. In addition to the above, the neighbors living on the road initially privately arranged for and personally paid for grading, gravel and dust abatement application when it was a gravel road followed by paving the road as a single lane driveway style right of way about 20 years ago. The non-resident traffic causes the road to deteriorate at a higher-than-expected rate. This costs us right of way property owners money out of our pockets to maintain the right of way. We plow snow from the right of way in the winter at our expense. None of the nonresident shortcut users of the right of way help in any of this and they present a hazard to safe use of the road by the actual residents along the road who do take responsibility to maintain it. 5. I have personally lived on the road for 46 years, moving there in 1978. During that time interval the County and City have done nothing to improve the road. The road is a single lane driveway style road. When a northbound car meets a southbound car, one must pull off the road to let the other pass. There is no safe or adequate place to allow that maneuver and there is frequent unreimbursed landscape damage plus sprinkler head breakage as a result. This is the nuisance factor. 6. One neighbor has concerns about a possible gate on the road delaying emergency vehicle response time since she is disabled. As already addressed, ambulances and fire rescue vehicles routinely come to rescue residents along the road by accessing N 68th Avenue off Englewood Avenue rather than driving up to Scenic Drive and coming south. Any gate would be installed on the north end of the road. Therefore, this is a moot issue and not a valid reason to deny our petition to vacate the right of way. 7. Access will be provided for walkers and bicyclists wishing to use the road for recreational purposes. If a gate is installed on the north end of the road, there would be an opening for both to use. IMP; 5 8. The reasoning given by the City Planning Department for denying our petition is inconsistent, irrelevant, unfair and totally fails to acknowledge or address our concerns regarding safety and maintenance realities for this right of way. The denial flies in the face of their initial advice that we apply for the vacation of the right of way at great personal expense in the first place. There is no proximate harm to the City from granting our request to vacate the right of way. In fact, the City would gain from granting our request to vacate the public right of way. The city would avoid the future risk of having to spend money maintaining the road or providing road safety control. The City would have less liability for the road than their current exposure. Attached to this letter as an exhibit is a document entitled "City of Yakima Findings of Fact, Conclusions & Decision for Request for Short Subdivision File Number: PSP#006-23"(dated August 14, 2023). It is included because it contains a finding made by City staff that "There are no requirements to build out the roadway to meet City standards. Further, the City has no current or future plans proposing the full buildout of N 68th Avenue in order to connect Scenic Dr. to Englewood Ave"(p. 9, first paragraph). This is consistent with what we were being told when we were encouraged to petition for the right-of-way vacation. It should also be noted that this finding in the staff decision is found under the heading"Public Comments"and was responding to comments sent in by neighbors including the petitioners for this right-of-way vacation. See the last paragraph on p. 6. Also attached are copies of emails exchanged between myself and Joseph Calhoun in late 2023 regarding the requirements for the right-of-way vacation petition. There is no indication in any of them that City staff would not support the approach that we had been advised to take. We are confused as to why the City Planners would suggest that we petition for vacation of the public right of way and then decide against approving our petition after a year of work and over $7000 expense to get to this point. It is indeed frustrating. INDEX 490 6 _I_n_ Conclusion: We respectfully request that the Yakima City Council override the objections of the Yakima City Planning Department and hearing examiner. Please approve our petition to vacate the public right of way on N68th Avenue between Scenic Drive and Englewood Avenue. If you choose not to approve this petition, then we request you instruct the City of Yakima staff to take over the maintenance and safety needs for the road at City expense immediately improving the road to City specifications and providing necessary traffic calming devices, speed limit signs, etc. Thank you. Ted Palmatier 708 N 68th Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 sC. INDEX 491 y ,�,,,, ��,�,, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A71 * t� Joan Davenport;AICP,Director CITYr M or Kl YA � Planning Division P (� l Joseph Calhoun,Manager 129 North Second Street,2°'Floor,Yakima,WA 98901 ask.planning@yakimawa.gov yakimawa.gov•www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning CITY OF YAKIMA FINDINGS of FACT, CONCLUSIONS, & DECISION for REQUEST FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION File Number: PSP#006-23 TO: Applicant, Adjoining Property Owners & Parties of Record APPLICANT: HLA Engineering, do Mike Heit APPLICANT ADDRESS: 2803 River Rd, Yakima, WA 98902 PROPERTY OWNER: Matthew and Michelle Sevigny PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS: 7204 Scenic Dr.,Yakima, WA 98908 PROJECT LOCATION: 716 N 66th Ave TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 1 81 31 7-44401 and 44402 DATE OF REQUEST: June 15, 2023 DATE OF DECISION: August 14, 2023 STAFF CONTACT: Joseph Calhoun, Planning Manager I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Proposed 8-lot Preliminary Short Plat in the SR zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved, subject to conditions. III. FACTS: A. Processing 1. The application for a Preliminary Short Plat was received on June 15, 2023. 2. The application was deemed complete for processing on June 23, 2023. 3. This application is being processed under the provisions of Ch. 14.15 (Short Subdivision). 4. Public Notice: Pursuant to YMC § 14.15.040—Public Notice of Short Plat Application and YMC § 16,05.010—Notice of Application: a. A Notice of Application was sent to the applicant and adjoining property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on June 27, 2023, and the comment period ended on July 17, 2023 Yaklm■ 2015 1E 4 L % DEX ' 492 B. Current Zoning and Land Use: 1. The subject properties are approximately 8.44 acres, and are zoned Suburban Residential (SR). This action includes preliminary short plat to subdivide two parcels into 8 lots ranging from 0.66 to 3.28 acres. 2. The surrounding properties contain uses and zoning as follows: �_ 4 Direction Zoning Land Use North SR Residential (single-family) South SR Residential (single-family) East R-1 Residential (single-family) West SR Residential (single-family) C. Yakima Comprehensive Plan 2040 Future Land Use Map: 1. Low Density Residential: Purpose--This designation provides for low density residential development. 2. The following goals and policies apply to this proposal: • Goal 2.3: Residential uses. Preserve and enhance the quality, character, and function of Yakima's residential neighborhoods. D. Applicable Law: 1. Short Subdivision Defined: Pursuant to YMC§ 14.10.020, "Short Subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into nine or fewer lots for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership in the present of future except as provided in YMC §§ 14.05.160 and 14.05.170. 2. State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA): Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (6)(D), short plats are categorically exempt from the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. 3. Easement Location and Width: Pursuant to YMC§ 12.02.020, eight-foot-wide utility easements shall be dedicated along the front of each lot in subdivisions and short subdivisions. Easements for new and/or future utility lines shall be a minimum of eight feet in width, or twice the buried depth of the utility,whichever is greater. 4. Sidewalk Requirement: Pursuant to YMC § 15.05.020 (J), sidewalks on one side of the street are required with new construction (except single-family structures).A sidewalk is required if one exists within two hundred feet of the development on the same side of the street. Replacement of existing sidewalk is required only if existing sidewalk presents a safety hazard, except that for applications under the jurisdiction of the city of Yakima, the provisions of Title 12 of the Yakima Municipal Code shall prevail over the provisions of this section to the extent of any conflict between such provisions. Sevigny PSP#006-23 2 493 5. Sewer Service Required: Pursuant to YMC § 12.03.010, all new lots and development shall be served by a sanitary sewer line located adjacent to the lot or development site. 6. Service Required: Pursuant to YMC§ 12.04.010, all new lots and development shall be served by a public water supply line maintained by the city of Yakima, Nob Hill Water Company, or other water purveyor, and located adjacent to the lot or development site. The water line shall be capable of providing sufficient flow and pressure to satisfy the fire flow and domestic service requirements of the proposed lots and development as approved by the city engineer in cooperation with the code administration manager and water irrigation division manager. 7. Water Line Extension Required: Pursuant to YMC § 12.04.020, water lines shall be extended to the point where the adjoining property owner's responsibility for further extension begins. This typically requires extension across the street or easement frontage of the developing property. In some cases it will require dedication of an easement and a line extension across the property or extension along two or more sides of the developing property. Extensions will be consistent with and implement the city's adopted water comprehensive plan. 8. Design,fandards Adjustment of Standards: Pursuant to YMC § 12.06.030, final design of street improvement standards is subject to approval by the city engineer. The engineer, at his/her sole discretion, may adjust these standards to facilitate construction of new streets and improvements of existing streets. 9. Use of Public Sewers Required: Pursuant to YMC § 7,65.030 (E), the owners of all houses, buildings or properties used for human occupancy, employment, recreation or other purposes, and abutting on any street, alley or right-of-way in which there is now located or may in the future be located a public sewer of the city, are required at the owners'expense to install suitable toilet facilities therein and to connect such facilities directly with the proper public sewer in accordance with the provisions of this chapter within ninety days after date of official notice to do so; provided, that said public sewer is within two hundred feet of the property line. 10.Creation of New Lots—Subdivision Requirements: Pursuant to YMC § 15.05.030, Table 5-2, in a residential zoning district, the required minimum lot size to be served by public or community water system and the regional or an approved community sewer system is 6,000 square feet. 11.Allowance of Bond: Pursuant to YMC 14.05.200(B), in cases of subdivision, the bond or other method of securing actual construction of required improvements shall be subject to approval by the city engineer and city attorney prior to approval of the final plat by the city council. In cases of short subdivisions, the bond or other method of securing actual construction of required improvements shall be subject to approval by the city engineer and city attorney prior to approval of the final short plat by the administrator. In no case shall the amount of the bond or other method of securing actual construction of required improvements be less than one hundred ten percent Sevigny PSP#006-23 �� 3 494 of the estimated actual cost of the improvements based upon the approved civil engineering design of the required improvements. 12, Preliminary Application for Short Subdivision--Requirements: Pursuant to YMC § 14.15.010(A), an application for a short subdivision may be made by an owner or owners of land, or by an authorized agent, or by a duly authorized representative of any governmental agency if the short subdivision is sought for a governmental purpose and such application shall be filed with the planning division. 13. Public Notice of Short Plpt Application: Pursuant to YMC§ 14.15.040, within ten calendar days after the short subdivision application is determined to be complete, notice of the application shall be sent by first class mail to all owners, as shown on the records of the Yakima County assessor, of land located within three hundred feet of either(1)the land proposed to be subdivided, or(2) any land adjacent to the land proposed to be subdivided which is also owned by an owner of the land proposed to be subdivided. The notice of application will follow the notice requirements of Yakima Municipal Code Chapter 16.05 and may be either a postcard format or letter size paper. 14. Namin i and Numbering of Short Subdivisions, Subdivisions, Streets, Lots, and Blocks: Pursuant to RCW 58.17.280 and YMC§ 14.15.090, any city, town or county shall, by ordinance, regulate the procedure whereby short subdivisions, subdivisions, streets, lots and blocks are named and numbered. A lot numbering system and a house address system, however, shall be provided by the municipality for short subdivisions and subdivisions and must be clearly shown on the short plat or final plat at the time of approval, IV. FINDINGS: A. Title 15—Urban Area Zoning Ordinance Development Standards 1. All lots within the subject plat are consistent with the subdivision standards contained in YMC § 15.05.030,Table 5-2 for the SR zoning districts. 2. In accordance with YMC § 15.05.020(H), all lots have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage upon a public street or are served by an access easement at least 20 feet in width. B. Title 15—Subdivisions 1. In accordance with YMC§ 14.15.020—Criteria for approval,the administrator shall approve the short subdivision if, and only after making written findings and conclusions that: a. The application complies with the general requirements for short subdivision approval as specified by this chapter. i. The proposal complies with the general requirements for short subdivision approval. b. The proposed short subdivision appropriately provides for the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys and other public ways, transit stops, potable water Sevigny PSP#006-23 4 INDEX 495 supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school.The administrator may determine that other considerations area appropriate to evaluate as criteria for approval. i. The proposal, as conditioned and outlined throughout this report, makes appropriate provisions for the above-listed requirements. c. The short subdivision and any associated dedication will serve the public interest. i. The proposed short subdivision will serve the public interest by implementing relevant comprehensive plan goals and policies and adhering to relevant subdivision and zoning ordinance design standards. 2. In accordance with YMC§ 14.15.050,the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (YMC Title 14) have been satisfied and the proposed short plat is consistent with the standards of the city of Yakima zoning ordinance and urban area comprehensive plan. C. Development Services Team Review:A Development Services Team (DST) Review was held on January 24, 2023 for technical review of the plat, and the following comments were received: 1. Code Administration a. Preliminary addressing—All addresses shall be clearly shown on the face of the Final Plat (RCW 58.17.280). Additionally, a note shall be shown on the face of the Final Plat stating: "The addresses shown on this plat are accurate as of the date of recording, but may be subject to change. The City of Yakima Code Administration Division is responsible for the confirmation or reassignment of addresses at the time of building permit issuance." The } following addresses shall be utilized for the created lots: i. Lot 1: 6612 Scenic Dr Lot 2: 6610 Scenic Dr iii. Lot 3: 6602 Scenic Dr iv. Lot 4: 6600 Scenic Dr v. Lot 5: 704 N 66th Ave vi. Lot 6: 702 N 66th Ave vii. Lot 7: 700 N 66th Ave viii. Lot 8: 6608 Scenic Dr 2. Engineering a. This project proposes a preliminary short plat to create eight new lots at 716 N 66th Ave.The property currently has a single-family residence. Right of way at this property is about 65' on N. 661h Ave which exceeds the City requirement of 60'for Collector Arterial roadways. Right of way at this property is about 85'on Scenic Dr. which exceeds the City requirement of 50' for Residential roadways. Right of way at this property is about 42' on N. 68'" Ave. which Is less than the City requirement of 50'for Residential roadways. The proposed development will cause increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic without adequate safety precautions for pedestrians. The change of use has the potential for more frequent trips in and out of the property. Sevigny PSP#006-23 Lj)pp� . 5 496 Current frontage infrastructure is not adequate enough to handle the proposed change in use to create eight new lots. In order to alleviate the resulting impacts from the change in use proposal, the City is requiring the following improvements: i. YMC 12.06.020— Right of Way—N. 68th Ave is designated as Residential requiring a total 50'of right of way (25' each side of centerline). Applicant shall determine existing width of right of way along their frontage and dedicate any right of way necessary. ii. YMC 12.02--Easements shall be established per this chapter. iii. YMC 8.72—An excavation and street break permit shall be obtained for all work within the public right of way. All improvements shall be completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Stormwater a. For the short plat itself I have no comments. Before any grading begins, the applicant will need to meet the requirements for a large project stormwater permit. 4. Nob Hill Water Association a. Nob Hill Water will need to see the final, engineer-approved site plans so the design of the domestic water can begin. 5. Wastewater a. Sanitary Sewer will need to be extended to serve the site per YMC Title 7 and Title 12 and City of Yakima Engineering and Wastewater requirements. D. Public Comments: Five comments were received during the 20-day public comment period—commenters include: Carol Wager, Richard and Beverly Larson, Margaret Grimm, Barry Bernfeld, and Ted Palmatier. All comment letters discussed the status of N 68th Ave. and questioned whether it is a public or private road. The preliminary short plat shows N 68th Ave. as a public road, which is accurate. There are three parcels along the west side of N 68th Ave that are adjacent to this proposal —parcels 181317-43419(708 N 68th Ave), 181317-43422(710 N 68th Ave), and 181317-43424 (6804 Scenic Dr). Parcel 181317-43419 has a legal description showing "SP 89-150 Lot 4..." with some exceptions. SP 89-150 shows 30-ft of County Road Right-of-Way with a note"not county maintained". SP 89-150 modified SP 89-85 by removing an easement. SP 89-85 shows that N 68th Ave had 20-ft of County Right-of-Way and the short plat dedicated an additional 10-ft. U L INDEX Sevigny PSP#006-23 6 497 Short Plat 89-150: I An.;ybr4` S'INIYY ',F 41, - Cn 114 4 yp0 •nil 4.kY-ArceS'S. NTtt_trs' Lilo rata.4Art ,J ``'� eq'r...t*Ur Nftan.1 JAFK(a x:9'r't n ,NL. A.OiI S 4 'TY q r 4!%D J'0.p�4 AT�OtI a^iLMrLIY II - w + x r LOT I LOT 2 $� aye u x VI y ral 1 p41 ,p'=d Y n -OY iil if 30 7 I ; LOT 4 1s e II 1x al. ., I- S s .JA' •e ►^,� 10I. N d ..,,r4„ -,S 2 ,s a �,�• x'rN1p' "� a 1} fl g' . r La h o« LOT 3 r � Fo �ab a r S-. d 1 idr CI, YO z ..-'e 2 9 I On r.n 44.an _ 444E 9ti\it _w(L_ r 4 04' At- ! f Or'" ' 4 / Short Plat 89-85: 11r......h .. a4l.Prn, ,.r...r•r A11G p .q,4A!-04 G.5Nf A-ll.s 2-•M-san.en,zn9°, &%•t ,.J4 L'u' PAH65{'✓T a L. OJT 4' S,•V/ ?^ F w N 69' .114 A9 Y A d--PA , vary--...f,-r.".�. '—Ida sT eiT uo 4 sna. `F9 �n 1 '3 s - N y ._ 4. !N.1. Imo._, ' - ..... _T__ .- I .� 9��i���, s lnnI R .4 '� �' 1° 1 1; p1w a ( a / •a,7: I r TrI I AI t!2 LOT I •.. : 1 Ir' y a!1I,.. R 1.00 ACRES " 'I 1,. ' .y IN it+•�' ; hi IL"1 ti7 Q6 4 9 -I b at IJ� I nb 30'• -F- a ?„„ yy I e H �. _ , I IiI I I yi F y -AO MIe ti l 1 i ,i! 24:nr are 9t e j g `-; ki s L 0 T 2 Px �; � ! m X LOT 4 • 8" 1 r f, 100 ACRES,' 1.9T ACRrs Y n J 7. : sFa .1 3J t LOT 3 v i„,s ., t i_ r .T 0 71 ACRES v sm"'�20° .'- 01� t a r dpF�, ' O 7 .f y f �:.1. ne n4e0 !6i r ✓ eel ' - .7 n4• �, r Pay r< r' - aR.4 a, 1 j qG O�'r�QNn- o• rv�IJTY l n.1w HFReu, pElJI[.A'1"EO 1 Parcels 181317-43422 and 181317-43424 have legal descriptions of"SP 90-132 Lot 1, and Lot 3", respectively. SP 90-132 shows 30-ft of County Right-of-Way and also contains a note stating "Any right-of-way dedicated to the public by this short plat Sevigny PSP#006-23 7 INDEX __ 498 shall not be opened as a county road until such time as it is improved to county road standards and accepted as part of the county road system." SP 90-132: .-.__,.., $ peVIE S_ 89'5604'•E. 2625. '2 I o 0 1312.86' r'r tereirec rr 1 2190.00' 1Y) r IP,Mao 25O.QQ' o..,t '"d? �_ w ROM t N/�' $ , 3Q'i b ,wr'1A�lIr A11�N= "I arAtn ow p Vt..). 4e1051 sa fT. N ., 4741 al �y t �a 6$• 100.00' i ��+4 , ti 3A y. �r�, 3ill lir o i N3.r2' the' lh i" t p P t '. 0 ,� I lid "• 0 Cy 0 q 20GTJ0/as fr t 4 /7 f7,�MSW sa err44 is I . -..tz_bo+m`- „ s o 04 MkAalNc ,� aw Ae a+tea ti Wr. 30'4 44 1 f?04' 1,30.011' _ POUND EXrsTwa N 89.5774" W. 280.00' DRIVEWAY r I , Pi)flaillya awe in afNilO of TM EIa1r T. In .____...\______ ... .. _ .. ... Afi Jr* !1l 89'58 27• W. 1310.6r i Q i r6 - y)3oa,35' _ ' _ 1308.35' r7 16 20 9, 89.5970'• W. 2616,70' 2 1 NOTiceS Access to Lets 1 and 2 is restricted to the accents easement along the South side of Lot 1 unless otherwise approved by the Yakima County Public Works. "Yakima County has no responsibility to build, improve maintain or otherwise service any private road for this short plat. Any right—sf—tray dedicated to the public by this short plat shall not be opened as a county read until such time as it is improved to county road standards and accepted to part of the county road system." 290 4'27 Sevigny ,;, PSP>#006-23 & i°�" 8 1 . P 1 499 This area was annexed to the City of Yakima on July 10, 2005 via Ordinance 2005- 028. Upon annexation, existing County Rights-of-Way within the annexation area become part of the City Right-of-Way system. City Streets has not improved or maintained the existing 30-foot Right-of-Way for N 68th Ave.The Engineering Division is only requiring sufficient Right-of-Way to be dedicated so that there will be 25-feet to the centerline of Right-of-Way, adjacent to the proposed short subdivision. There are no requirements to build out the roadway to meet city standards. Further, the city has no current or future plans proposing the full buildout of N 68th Ave in order to connect Scenic Dr. to Englewood Ave. V. CONCUSSIONS; A. The proposed short plat, as conditioned, complies with the general requirements for short subdivision approval as specified by YMC Ch. 14.15 and 15.05. B. The proposed short plat complies with the goals and objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the intent and purpose of the SR zoning district, the provisions of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Title 12 Development Standards and Chapter 12.08 the Traffic Concurrency Ordinance. C. The proposed short plat complies with the provisions of RCW 58.17.110 and YMC 14.15.050, providing appropriately for:the public health, safety, and general welfare, open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for citizens of the neighborhood. D. The proposed short plat serves the public use and interest. E. The proposed short plat is consistent with the standards of the city of Yakima zoning ordinance and urban area comprehensive plan. VI. DECISION: The City of Yakima Subdivision Administrator hereby approves this Preliminary Short Plat request,file number PSP#006-23 based upon the above findings and conclusions and subject to the conditions of approval as follows: A. An eight-foot-wide utility easement shall be dedicated along the front of each lot. B. 68`h Ave is designated as Residential requiring a total 50' of right of way (25' each side of centerline). Applicant shall determine existing width of right of way along their frontage and dedicate any right of way necessary. C. Sanitary Sewer will need to be extended to serve the site per YMC Title 7 and Title 12 and City of Yakima Engineering and Wastewater requirements. D. Engineered design for the domestic water system shall be submitted to Nob Hill Water for review. E. The applicant is authorized to have the short plat prepared by a registered land surveyor in accordance with the provisions of YMC Ch. 14.15(Short Subdivision— Sevigny PSP#006-23 9 INDEX ,X at) 500 Procedure). The final short plat must be substantially the same, with regard to lot sizes and layout, as the preliminary plat. F. A current Short Plat Certificate, title report, or title policy covering the subject property must accompany the final short plat in accordance with YMC § 14.15.090 (J). G. All other requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinance, although not specifically set forth herein, must be complied with in their entirety, H. All addresses shall be clearly shown on the face of the Final Plat(RCW 58,17.280). Additionally, a note shall be shown on the face of the Final Plat stating: "The addresses shown on this plat are accurate as of the date of recording, but may be subject to change. The City of Yakima Code Administration Division is responsible for the confirmation or reassignment of addresses at the time of building permit issuance."The following addresses shall be utilized for the created lots: Lot 1: 6612 Scenic Dr Lot 2: 6610 Scenic Dr Lot 3: 6602 Scenic Dr Lot 4: 6600 Scenic Dr Lot 5: 704 N 66th Ave Lot 6: 702 N 66th Ave Lot 7: 700 N 66th Ave Lot 8: 6608 Scenic Dr I. This plat shall be subject to the following notes, which must be placed on the face of the plat: a. The addresses shown on this plat are accurate as of the date of recording, but may be subject to change. The City of Yakima Building Codes Division is responsible for the confirmation or reassignment of addresses at the time of building permit issuance. b. The owners shown hereon, their grantees and assignees in interest hereby covenant and agree to retain all surface water generated within the plat on-site. J. Irrigation approval, if needed, shall be shown on the face of the final plat. K. All other requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinance, although not specifically set forth herein, shall be complied with in their entirety. L. Upon preliminary plat approval, the applicant has five years to submit the final plat. Thereafter, 30 days prior to the expiration of said approval the applicant must submit to the City Council a written request asking to extend the approval period for a maximum period of one year. INDEX #-4-2111- Sevigny PSP#006.23 10 501 Entered this 14th day of August, 2023, pursuant fo the authority granted under YMC Ch. 14.15. The decision constitutes the preliminary subdivision approval and is hereby granted. The preliminary short plat decision is valid for five years unless appealed under YMC Ch. 16.08. The preliminary short plat decision may be extended one time up to one additional year prior to the expiration date, as set forth in YMC§§ 14.15.070 and 15.12.060. Jos Calhoun, Planning Manager for Jo n Davenport, AICP, Community Development Director APPEAL Pursuant to YMC § 16.08.018, any person aggrieved by this decision may request a review of this decision by the Hearing Examiner. Such requests must be submitted in writing within fourteen days from the mailing date of this decision, to the City of Yakima, Community Development Department, 129 North Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901, and must be accompanied by the appropriate application fee. Pursuant to RCW 36.706.130, property owners affected by this decision may request a change of valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Sevigny ,� PSP#006-23 i', :a..+C• 11 INDEX 502 RE: Vacation of right of way on N68th Ave between Scenic Drive and Englewood Ted Palmatier <thpalmatier@charter.net> Sun 10/15/2023 4:17 PM To:'Calhoun,Joseph' <Joseph.Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GOV>;'Preston,Bill' <Bill.Preston@yakimawa.gov> Cc:Rick Wehr <rwehr@plsaofyakima.com>;'Barry Bernfeld' <barrybernfeld@gmail.com>;carolwagar@charter.net <carolwagar@charter.net>;'Matthew Sevigny' <matthew7e@hotmail.com>;'Judy Rozelle' <rozellej40@gmail.com>; margiegrimml@gmail.com <margiegrimm1@gmail.com>;G1@bravo-echo.com <G1 @ bravo-echo.com>; joann.s.spiegelburg@gmail.com <joann.s.spiegelburg@gmail.com>;jenniferfarrenl@gmail.com <jenniferfarrenl@gmail.com> Joseph, Thank you for the reply. I will ask Rick to proceed with the work. Ted Palmatier From:Calhoun,Joseph<Joseph.Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GOV> Sent:Tuesday,October 10,2023 11:24 AM To:'Ted Palmatier'<thpalmatier@charter.net>; Preston,Bill<Bill.Preston@yakimawa.gov> Cc: rwehr@plsaofyakima.com;'Barry Bernfeld'<barrybernfeld@gmail.com>;carolwagar@charter.net; 'Matthew Sevigny'<matthew7e@hotmail.com>; 'Judy Rozelle'<rozellej40@gmail.com>; marglegrimml@gmail.com; G1@bravo-echo.com;joann.s.spiegelburg@gmail.com;jenniferfarrenl@gmail.com Subject:RE:Vacation of right of way on N68th Ave between Scenic Drive and Englewood Ted, One of the requirements of the petition process is a legal description of the property to be vacated.I will defer to Rick as to how that is drawn up. It is not the city's role to state whether a separate survey is required to obtain that legal description.The code simply requires: B. Every petition shall be accompanied by the following: 1. A title report for all properties adjacent to the proposed vacated right-of-way; 2. A vicinity map showing the general area of the proposed vacation; 3. A legal description of the property to be vacated; 4. A copy of the record of survey, if available, for the subject right-of-way proposed for vacation, and abutting properties, streets and alleys within one hundred feet on all sides of the proposed vacation; 5. Written evidence of any and all utility easements, or reservations,whether public or private, pertaining to the public right-of-way proposed for vacation, and, if the subject right-of-way encompasses any private utilities, a letter from all utility companies within the right-of-way consenting to the vacation shall be required and submitted to the city of Yakima; and 6. A written narrative describing the reasons for the proposed vacation,the physical limits of the proposed vacation and the public benefit of the proposed vacation. Thanks, Joseph Calhoun ' !�'a.r' Planning Manager INDEX 503 City of Yakima 509-575-6042 j ph.caii guri }yakimawa,gov From:Ted Palmatier<thpalniatierpcharter.nel<> Sent: Monday,October 09,2023 10:08 AM To:Calhoun,Joseph<Joseph.Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GOV>; Preston, Bill<Bill.Preston@yakimawa.gov> Cc:rwehr@pisaafyakima.com; 'Barry Bernfeld'<barrybernfelciPgmail.com>;carolwagar@charter.net; 'Matthew Sevigny'<matthew7e@hotmail.corn>; 'Judy Rozelle'<rozellej40Rgmail.cam>; n giegrimm1Rgmall.com• GJ bravo-echo.com;joann.s.spj gglburg@gmail.com;jenniferfarren1@gmail.corn Subject: RE: Vacation of right of way on N68th Ave between Scenic Drive and Englewood Mr Calhoun, Thank you for sending me the updated application to vacate the right of way. I notice that there are still a few items that appear probably unnecessary for this specific petition to vacate if I understand our previous discussions properly and if Rick Wehr at PLSA understood your statements when you discussed the process with him. Mr. Wehr's impression was that since the properties adjacent to the proposed right of way vacation were already surveyed previously with legal property descriptions and parcel numbers,there would be no need to do a separate survey of the right of way area to be vacated considering the fact that the adjacent properties would then expand to the center point of the right of way on the respective sides of the existing right of way.A separate survey of the existing right of way appears to be an unnecessary and large expense accomplishing nothing that would be needed for the petition to vacate. Rick's understanding was that a simple vicinity map could be drawn using the existing bordering property lines that are already surveyed and recorded for the 8 adjacent properties on the right of way.This would in essence represent a survey of the existing right of way by default.Also,you have indicated previously that the city has made no improvements to the existing right of way leading to the lack of any need for an appraisal thereof and a price of$0 for the right of way would be appropriate.You have previously agreed that there would be no need for an engineering plan or for a traffic analysis. Assuming you agree,our plan will be to hire Rick Wehr of PLSA to do the vicinity map as discussed above, hire Fidelity Title Company to do a title report for the adjacent properties and file the petition to vacate the right of way accompanied by the hearing fee as previously discussed.We will ask Nob Hill Water Company, Rocky Mountain/Pacific Power Company,Cascade Natural Gas Company,Yakima Tieton Irrigation Company,and Spectrum Communications to clarify their easement needs which are already included in the existing right of way and would be granted in the proposed private road.The 3 property owners not adjacent to the existing public right of way property but using the right of way to access their properties off that right of way would be granted right of way and be included as approved users of the private road that will be created. Please let me know if this will work OK.Thank you. Ted Palmatier 708 N 68th Ave. Yakima,WA 98908 509-952-9780 From: Calhoun,Joseph<Joseph.Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GOV> Sent: Monday,October 9,2023 8:15 AM To: 'Ted Palmatier'<thpalmatier@charter.net>; Preston, Bill <Bill.Prestorna?yakimawa,gu> • Cc: rwehr@pisaofyakima.cm;'Barry Bernfeld'<barrybernfeldRgmail.com>;carolwag -r@charter.net:; 'Matthew • Sevigny'<maI hew7eCkhotmaii.com>; 'Judy Rozelle'<rozellej40Pgmail.com>;margiggrimm1Pgmail com: GIP bravo-echo.com;joann.s.spiegelburg@gmail.com;jenniferfarrenl@gmail.com Subject: RE:Vacation of right of way on N68th Ave between Scenic Drive and Englewood • Good morning, ��'�"" 504 Updated application is now available online-h1t pww.yakimawm,goviservices/planning/fileSl Q23L.1.4�ig t-o - My-Vacat i o n-A,pp l icatiori l 0-202 3,pdf Joseph Calhoun Planning Manager City of Yakima 509-575-6042 jgph.calhgunCyakimawa.ggy From:Ted Palmatier<thpalmatier@charternet> Sent:Sunday,October 08,2023 7:06 PM To:Calhoun,Joseph<Joseph.Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GOV>; Preston, Bill<Bill.Preston[@yakimawa,ggy> Cc:rwehrt Isao yakima.com;'Barry Bernfeld'<barrybernfeldl grnail.com>;carolwagar@charter.net; 'Matthew Sevigny'<matthew7e0hotmail.com>; 'Judy Rozelle'<rozellej 0 a.gmail.com>;mnrgiegrimm1( gmail.cam,; G1 bravo-echo.com;joann.s.spiegelburg@g at co ;jennlferfarren1( grn il.com Subject: RE:Vacation of right of way on N68th Ave between Scenic Drive and Englewood Joseph Calhoun and Bill Preston, Thanks for the reply. I will wait for your update before proceeding further. Hopefully,that will be available soon. Ted Palmatier From:Calhoun,Joseph<Joseph.CalhounPY►AKIMAWA.GOV> Sent: Monday,October 2,2023 11:08 AM To:'Ted Palmatier'<thpalmat er aClcharter.net>; Preston, Bill<Bill.Preston( yakimawa,gov> Cc:rwehrlyakima.corrt Subject: RE: Vacation of right of way on N68th Ave between Scenic Drive and Englewood Ted, We are working on an update to the application to remove the site plan requirement as it is not necessary per code. I'll send that to you when it is ready. Thanks, Joseph Calhoun Planning Manager City of Yakima 509-575-6042 joseph,caIhou @yakirnawa_ggy From:Ted Palmatier< palmatier@charter ner~> Sent: Monday,September 25,2023 2:40 PM To:Calhoun,Joseph<Joseph.Calhoun@YAKIMAWA.GOV>; Preston, Bill<Bill.PrestonPyakimawa,gov> Cc:rwehr@ I ao yakima.com D • Subject:Vacation of right of way on N68th Ave between Scenic Drive and Englewood NEJ Hi Joseph and Bill, Thank you for your time in answering questions that arise as we pursue preparing the application for vacation. I • spoke with Rick Wehr at PLSA of Yakima and he tells me he talked with Joseph and understood a formal instrumented right of way land survey was not required for the petition to go to the examiner. He indicated that 505 since each adjacent parcel was already recorded with a previous survey having been done,that a simple vicinity map showing the general area to be vacated was sufficient for purposes of the petition to vacate.A title report for all the properties adjacent to the proposed right of way vacation area could be obtained from a title company as well as an associated legal description of the same property parcels.This seems consistent with the page 2 of the Street or Alley vacations application under"Petition" but the list of required attachments on page 4 of the application seems to state different or additional requirements.You have already told me that an appraisal for the vacated property,an engineering plan and a traffic analysis would not be needed.The site plan sounds like a vicinity map minus many of the not applicable site plan checklist items noted on page 5 of the application.We need your help to define which of these items on the site plan check list are applicable for the purposes of this petition.I would think that items 1 to 5 on this check list on page 5 would be included in a site plan as described by Rick Wehr but that the rest of the 21 items do not appear to apply in our situation. Do I have that right?Are Rick Wehr's assumptions, correct?Thanks again for your time. Ted Palmatier 708 N 68th Ave. Yakima,WA 98908 506 ENGINEERING & SURVEYING SCOTT D.GARLAND,P.E. RICHARD L.WEHR,PLS JOSEPH W.BAKER,PLS MIKE PHELPS,LSIT October 4, 2024 To: Gary Cuillier, Yakima Hearing Examiner From: Thomas R. Durant, PLSA Engineering & Surveying Re: Palmatier Right-of-Way Vacation, File RWV#003-24 City of Yakima Response to Request for Additional Information I reviewed the City Attorney opinion requested by the Interim Decision to Reopen the Record and offer the following comments in response: For the most part, I agree with the City Attorney's findings and interpretation of the Municipal Code provisions that were analyzed, specifically: Any future subdivisions would be subject to YMC 14.25.040(B), (p. 5). [A]ny property that seeks further subdivision is subject to YMC 14.25.040(B)..."subdivision"is defined as the division of land into 10 or more lots....Therefore, the approval of vacating the right-of-way will preclude properties that do not abut a public street...from subdividing into 10 or more lots, (p.5) Where I don't agree is the implication that this right-of-way vacation would restrict growth and development in a significant way. The City Attorney's response also includes a statement that not having access to North 68th Avenue may require designs that reduce the number of lots that can be created, such as if a hammerhead or cul-de-sac is required rather than a street that intersects with North 68th Avenue (p. 5). While this is true, developers always face limiting constraints that could include such things as the possible number of lots or housing units due to hammerheads and cul-de-sacs as well as a myriad of other things. The short subdivision of the Sevigny property is an example of where there may have been a limitation of the number of housing units because it is improved with a hammerhead or cul-de- sac. Yet, the City approved it without requiring intersection to abutting North 68th Avenue. The City Attorney opinion did not confirm Trevor Martin's testimony and Memorandum that if this right-of-way is vacated, then YMC 14.25.040(B) would make [any] of the homes non- conforming or would prevent any other property in the future from using the access easement[s] substituted for the vacant right-of-way. (Hearing Examiner Interim Decision, p. 3, Sec.. INDEX 521 North 20th Avenue, Suite 3 • Yakima, Washington 98902 • (509) 575-6990 • info@plsaofyakima corn 507 A(9)(a)). The only effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses would be on future subdivisions (10 lots or more)that do not have frontage on a public road, duplexes that are not the replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use and other permitted non-agricultural land uses that are not detached single family dwellings. I have the following comments on reviewing Trevor Martin's statements: Mr. Martin's statement that vacating the public right-of-way would prevent the existing lots from further subdivision or that they would not be allowed to [be] subdivide[d] and use 68th as their primary access are inaccurate. Subdivision, use of N. 68t''Avenue or both would be allowed under the following circumstances: a. The lots being subdivided have frontage on and direct access to the perimeter streets: Scenic Drive, Englewood Avenue or N. 66th Avenue. This could include where more than one lot is involved in a proposed subdivision, such as lots that do not now have frontage on any improved City street where the subdivision is developed with dedicated City streets extending to the interior properties. b. Subdivision or the development of existing lots where a private road is extended to serve no more than one lot per YMC 14.25.040(B). c. Development, including subdivisions, with private roads approved as a Planned Development, mobile or manufactured home park, condominium or binding site plan in accordance with YMC 15.09.100. The Sevigny Short Plat(City File PSP#006-23) demonstrates that it is possible to develop property fronting N. 68th Avenue without access to the N. 68th Avenue right-of-way. The proposed development is to be improved with presumably a City street'. None of the proposed lots have access to N. 68th Avenue and its improvement was not required for the short subdivision. There should be no reason that a similar development could not take place on any of the other vacant or partially vacant lots that have frontage on or are otherwise served by N. 68th Avenue. These lots could include 181317-43405, 43406, 43407, 43418, 43419 and 44412. All or some of them could be developed individually, combined or reconfigured using boundary line adjustments, subdivided and developed with public or private streets connecting existing nearby City streets as provided for by the Municipal Code. The August 14,2023 staff report does not state whether or not the access street serving the development is to be a public or private street. This is an important point since as a short subdivision,the development is not subject to YMC 14.25.040(B). 508 Mr. Martin did not really answer the question about maintenance of the existing private street, or it was his intent for the answer to be inferred. He refers to the street being developed. Development is not the same as maintenance. The inference being what I have always understood,that the City will not maintain a street until it has been constructed to City standards and accepted into the street system. If that is the case, then the street could not be added to any maintenance and improvement schedule until after it has been built to City standards and accepted. No documentation was provided of how this would be accomplished. If necessary to improve the street before it can be put on a maintenance schedule, it would seem that it would first have to be put on a 6-year Transportation Improvement Program. The response to the question regarding the likelihood of N. 68th Avenue ever being improved to City standards seems to suggest that the City may be willing to improve the street. However, this response is stated in hypotheticals. It seems to describe what the City would do, if it were to improve the road, rather than what the City intends to do. Our experience that the City relies on developers to bring existing streets up to standards would indicate that such improvements should not be expected anytime soon. An"unintended consequence" of the Sevigny short subdivision is that one half of the length of the right-of-way remains unimproved and if it was not the City's intent to require that developer to make the improvement, it certainly would not be required for any development of the vacant or partially vacant properties that front on the southern half of the right-of-way. Mr. Martin's response about whether the Fire Chief still considers the use of gates in private communities does indicate that gates can still be considered, the answer to the question being asked. However, referring to this as the "denial" of a"specific request" is not accurate. Staff requested and received an opinion from the Fire Chief. While it may very well be his intent to not allow a gate in this situation, it is not a"denial". In fact, the Fire Chief's letter characterizes his statement as a"recommendation" indicating that the decision may not be under his authority to make. If what he meant was that the right-of-way vacation should not be approved, it misses the point that gating the road after the right-of-way is vacated would not"block off a public street", the stated intent of making the recommendation because with approval of the vacation it would not be a public street or a public right-of-way. Likewise, we did not make a"specific request" with respect to the right-of-way vacation. The application stated what the petitioners intend to do, if the vacation is approved, subject to the agreement of other property owners and any other required approvals. While my understanding is that the City will typically not allow a public street to be gated,private streets can have gates as allowed by the International Fire Code. Concerns raised about reduction of response time 509 seems to overlook the installation of a"Knox Box" and more sophisticated automated systems that open the gate on approach of an emergency vehicle. If the vacation were approved and it were determined that the gate cannot be approved under applicable laws and requirements, the petitioners would simply have to consider other means of addressing their concerns, basically that they are trying to control safety and other adverse effects on a road, the maintenance of which they continue to be responsible for and notwithstanding the input received from the City, there is no certainty that they will not have to continue to have this responsibility indefinitely. Copy by email: Ted Palmatier Eva Rivera, City of Yakima Jeff Peters, PLSA Engineering & Surveying D C. INDEX 510 of I ij1�`�4,, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ;' � Bill Preston, P.E.,Director it,.. Trevor Martin,AICP,Manager LJ ',y' Planning Division �,�`f. i 129 North Second Street,2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 ,:`"k"��set}.� '4i Phone (509) 575-6183 • Fax (509) 575-6105 • Email:ask.planning@yakimawa.gov CITY OF YAKIMA RESPONSE TO INTERIM DECISION for PETITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION Application File: RWV#003-24 PETITIONER: Ted Palmatier PROJECT LOCATION: N. 68th Ave., between Englewood Ave. & Scenic Dr. ADJACENT PARCEL(S): 18131743419, 18131743405, 18131743407, 18131743422, 18131743424, 18131744401 DATE OF REQUEST: April 29, 2024 DATE OF HEARING: July 25, 2024 STAFF CONTACT: Trevor Martin, AICP, Planning Manager I. RESPONSE TO INTERIM DECISION: A. Information that is as specific as possible from Mr. Durant and either Mr. Martin or City Attorney Sara Watkins regarding the applicability of the wording of YMC§14.25.040(B) 1 to a street right-of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way and, if applicable, the effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access. Staff Response: YMC § 14.25.040.B — All lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement. Access easements cannot serve more than one lot. Minimum street frontage and/or access easement width shall be at least twenty feet. Lots intended for residential use should not access a principal or minor arterial. Currently 68th Ave. is designated as a public right-of-way, which currently provides access for the surrounding residents. Technically, the adjacent residential lots have access to a public right-of-way, meeting the criteria within YMC Chapter 14. Removing the public right-of-way would make the existing lots non-conforming and prevent them from further subdivision because the lots would not have access to an adjacent public right-of-way. This action has a direct contradiction to the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Goal 5.1. Encourage Diverse and Affordable Housing Choices. Goal 5.2. Preserve and Improve Existing Residential Neighborhoods. Policy 5.4.7. Promote complete streets and trails to interconnect Yakima's neighborhoods and promote walkability. DOC. INDEX 1 "' 511 The City has an obligation to ensure that land can continue to be used to its highest potential. Finally, removing developable residential land from future development actively contradicts the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires cities to account for the amount of residential developable space within the existing City limits, and design a plan that best addresses the development of existing City limits (RCW 36.70A.140.2). Ultimately, removing this portion of right-of-way would mean that no existing lots along 68th Ave. would be allowed to subdivide and use 68th as their primary access in the future. B. Information from Mr. Martin provided to him by engineering that is as specific as possible regarding the expected timing and result of including this street in a future maintenance schedule if the requested right-of-way vacation is denied and whether the expected type of maintenance would likely include any improvements to the street, and if so, whether the expected type of improvements would make it safer for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians to use. Staff Response: The right-of-way would be added to the City's street maintenance and improvement schedule. There is not an exact date on when this street would be developed at this time. Plans for the development of the street would be included in future updates to the City's Engineering documents. C. Information from Mr. Martin provided to him by engineering that is as specific as possible regarding the prospects or likelihood of this street right-of-way ever being improved to City street standards. Staff Response: Portions of the right-of-way meet the City standards for a residential street, specifically, the approximately 350 feet of the southern portion of right-of-way. Other parts of the right of way would need additional right-of-way dedication in order to meet the standards of a residential City street. Right-of-way is usually requested during development applications of parcels adjacent to the subject right-of-way. This would more than likely be the strategy for acquiring the necessary right-of-way for the complete residential street development of 68th Ave. At this time, the City would likely look at paving the 32 foot wide section of residential street prior to the installation of frontage improvements such as curb, gutter, and sidewalk. D. Additional information from Mr. Martin provided to him by Fire Chief Markham as to whether Chief Markham considers Knox box gates or other types of emergency gates that have been approved for residential development in the past in order to discourage the use of unimproved public street right-of-way to be of a type which significantly increases response times and should no longer be allowed even to make a street safer (See e.g., A DLT Investment Group LLC, PD#002-21, CL2#019-21, PLP#002-21, SEPA#010-21 dated October 7, 2021). Staff Response: The intent of the denial for this specific request is because it was to block off a public street. Although access gates into private secured neighborhoods Palmatier D0 Response to Interim Decision INDEX , ,�� 2 C=i_.L _ 512 can still be reviewed and approved as necessary. The occupants of these neighborhoods choose security over a delay in emergency response agencies. The blocking of a street will have an effect of reducing responses to residential properties that are not adjacent to the closed road but may be along the best travel path to get to the incident address. In addition, PD#002-21 is a Planned Development, and was designed as a private development from the start, which included private streets. There are currently specific conditions addressing access to 92nd Ave. and if those conditions are to change in the future, the applicant will be required to go through another Class 3 Review to analyze the impact on 92nd Ave. Additionally access to 92nd Ave. was removed from the DLT development because the applicant did not agree to the installation of frontage improvements along the 92nd right-of-way. In addition, access to the residential properties in the DLT development is coming from the North in both scenarios. The total distance an emergency vehicle would have to travel in this instance is approximately 1,400 feet. In the case of the properties along 69th Ave., which was not initially constructed as a private development, the furthest distance would be approximately 3,800 feet. Palmatier D ' Response to Interim Decision INDEX 3 513 PLBA ENGINEERING & SURVEYING SCOTT D.GARLAND,P.E. RICHARD L.WEHR,PLS JOSEPH W.BAKER,PLS MIKE PHELPS,LSIT September 10, 2024 Gary Cuillier, Yakima Hearing Examiner c/o City of Yakima Department of Community and Economic Development 129 N. 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Palmatier Right-of-Way Vacation, File RWV#003-24 Additional Information Dear Mr. Cuillier: This responds to the request for additional information made by the Hearing Examiner's Interim Decision to Reopen the Record issued on August 22, 2024. We were asked to respond to one of the four questions posed by the Interim Decision: The applicability of the wording of YMC 14.25.040(B)to a street right-of-way vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right- of-way and, if applicable, the effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access. We are responding to this request in two parts: Applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to the right- of-way vacation and the effect that granting the right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses. All emphasis (bold-faced italics) in the following code citations has been added and emphasis in the conclusions is intended to be corresponding. YMC 14.12.020 definitions are not in the same order as they are in the Municipal Code. Their order corresponds to the analysis being presented. ND 521 North 20th Avenue, Suite 3 • Yakima, Washington 98902 • (509) 575-6990 • info@plsaofyakima.com 514 A. Applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B) to the right-of-way vacation. 14.25.040 Lot design Each lot within a subdivision shall comply with the following design standards and requirements: B. All lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement Access easements cannot serve more than one lot. Minimum street frontage and/or access easement width shall be at least twenty feet. Lots intended for residential use should not access a principal or minor arterial. 14.10.020 Definitions. "Street"means a public or private road. "Road, private" means a road not designed, built, or maintained by the city, the Washington State Department of Transportation, or any political subdivision of the state. "Road, public" means the physical improvement of the public right-of-way, including, but not limited to, surfacing, curbs, gutters and drainage facilities, which is maintained and kept open by the city of Yakima or Yakima Countyfor public vehicular and pedestrian use. 'Right-of-way,pub//c"means land deeded or dedicated to or purchased by the city of Yakima or Yakima County for existing or future public pedestrian or vehicular access. "Easement"is a dedication by a property owner to specific persons or to the public to enter onto, cross, or otherwise to use land for a specific purpose or purposes. "Subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into ten or more lots for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership in the present or future except as expressly exempted by this title. Conclusions: 1. While N. 68th Avenue does meet the YMC definition of"street" as a `private road", it is not a"public street" as that term is used by YMC 14.25.040(B)because it is not maintained by the city of Yakima or Yakima County. DOCr INDEX 515 2. The lots accessed from N. 68th Avenue conform to YMC 14.25.040(B) to the extent that they either have frontage on and access to or they are accessed by an easement to Scenic Drive,N. 66th Avenue or Englewood Avenue, all of which meet the definition of"public road" and are public streets under YMC 14.25.040(B). 3. To the extent that the lots accessed from N. 68th Avenue are nonconforming to YMC 14.25.040 (B) because they are served by easements that serve more than one lot, such nonconformity would not be increased by the right-of-way vacation because the number of lots that are accessed from the public streets: Scenic Drive,N. 66th Avenue and Englewood Avenue, does not change. It appears that YMC 14.25.040 may not be applicable to this property at all because it applies to subdivisions at the time they are considered by the City and not subdivisions or short subdivisions approved and recorded in the past. All of the lots served by N. 68th Avenue were part of a subdivision that was recorded in 1907, although all of those lots have since been reconfigured and further subdivided; none of them exist today in the exact configuration from 1907. Seven of the present lots were created by short subdivision in the 1980s and 1990s. That YMC 14.25.040 may not be applicable is based on the following: 1. YMC 14.25.040 states that"Each lot within a subdivision shall comply with the following design standards and requirements:" 2. "Subdivision" is defined as the division or redivision into 10 or more lots. It apparently does not include short subdivisions. 3. The definition of"Subdivision" is the division or redivision of land for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership in the present or future. It apparently does not include such division or redivision that has occurred in the past. B. Effect that granting the right-of-way vacation would have on existing and future land uses. 15.05.020 Site design requirements and standards. B. Development on Nonconforming Lots. Development on nonconforming lots is governed by this section and YMC 15.19.040. Except as limited by this title, any permitted use may be DOC. INDEX 516 allowed on any lot legally created prior to the adoption of this title. Such development and structures are subject to the following additional provisions: 1. Detached single-family dwellings erected on nonconforming lots must meet the following criteria: a. The setback dimensions of the structure conform to the regulations of this title; b. The lot has at least twenty feet of frontage on, or a minimum twenty-foot-wide access easement to, a public or private road; c. All other site design and development criteria other than the lot size requirements of Table 5-2 are met. 4. Zero lot line, common wall, duplex or multifamily development is not allowed on such lots in the SR and R-1 zones unless such development is the replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use, as defined in YMC Chapter 15.19. H. Access Required.All new development shall have a minimum of twenty feet of lot frontage upon a public road or be served by an access easement at least twenty feet in width. The purpose of this standard is to provide for vehicular access to all new development; provided, the construction of single-family and two-family dwellings on existing legally established lots is exempt from the requirements of this section. Conclusions: 1. Existing non-agricultural land use of the property accessed by the right-of-way proposed for vacation is detached single family residential. 2. Detached single family residences would be allowed on any of these parcels in accordance with YMC 15.05.020 even if YMC 14.25.040(B) were determined to be applicable to this case subject to setbacks and other site design and development criteria except for lot size requirements of Table 5-2. New detached single-family residential development would be exempt from the minimum 20-foot frontage and access easement requirements of YMC 15.05.020(H). 3. Two-family dwellings would also be allowed on any of these parcels in accordance with YMC 15.05.020 even if YMC 14.25.040(B)were determined to be applicable to this case DOC INDEX 517 subject to setbacks and other site design and development criteria except for lot size requirements of Table 5-2. New two-family residential development would be exempt from the minimum 20-foot frontage and access easement requirements of YMC 15.05.020(H). Duplexes would be limited to the replacement or reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged existing use (detached single-family residence in this case). 4. Multiple family residential, subdivision and other land uses permitted in the Suburban Residential zone would generally not be permitted on these lots. However, this is an existing non-conformity regardless of the applicability of YMC 14.25.040(B)to this case. It would also not apply to development on those properties that have frontage and direct access to or that can gain direct access to Englewood Avenue,N. 66th Avenue or Scenic Drive or from an easement serving only one lot from those public streets or approved as a Planned Development, mobile or manufactured home park, condominium or binding site plan in accordance with YMC 15.09.100. Also, subdivision and the development of these land uses would be allowed when right-of-way is dedicated and developed as a public street. Please contact me by email with any questions. Sincerely, Thomas R. Durant PLSA Engineering & Surveying Copy: Ted Palmatier INDEX 518 1 2 3 4 5 6 , 7 CITY OF YAKIMA 8 HEARING EXAMINER 9 10 NO. RWV #003-24 11 In re: 12 OPINION OF CITY ATTORNEY 13 The Matter of an Application and Petition ON THE APPLICABILITY OF YMC for the Vacation of Street Right-of-Way 14.25.040(B) TO A STREET RIGHT- 14 Submitted by: OF-WAY VACATION THAT 15 REQUIRES ONE OR MORE 16 Ted Palmatier PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS AS A SUBSTITUTION 17 For Vacation of the North 68th Avenue 18 Right-of-Way Between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive. 19 20 21 I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 22 23 1. What is the applicability of the wording of YMC 14.25.040(B)to a street right-of-way 24 vacation that requires one or more private access easements to be substituted for the 25 public right-of-way? 26 2. If applicable,what is the effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would 27 28 have on existing and future land uses that would need the road for access? 29 30 31 32 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT OPINION - 1 CIVIL DIVISION 200 South Third Street 2nd Fl'Yakima WA 98901 33 P:509.575.6030 I F:509.575.6160 DOC. INDEX --�(5" " 519 1 2. BACKGROUND 2 Applicant submitted a request to vacate the portion of North 68th Avenue from 3 4 Englewood Avenue to Scenic Drive. There are 8 parcels that abut North 68th Avenue, and, 5 based on aerial mapping, an additional 3 parcels currently use North 68th Avenue for access, 6 or would need to use North 68th Avenue for access if developed. Some of the properties adjacent to North 68th are not yet developed, while others are large enough to be subdivided if 8 a property owner wished. These properties all appear to be part of the 1907 Plat of Orchard 9 10 Highlands Orchard Tracts, which divided a large portion of the area into tracts. Over time the 11 tracts have been further subdivided. After the public hearing and review of the City staff report 12 recommending denial of the application, the Hearing Examiner left the record open for 13 additional information, including the City Attorney's opinion on the applicability of the 14 15 wording in YMC 14.25.040(B) to a street right-of-way vacation that requires one or more 16 private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of-way, and, if applicable, what 17 is the effect that granting the requested right-of-way vacation would have on existing and 18 future land uses that would need the road for access. 19 20 3. ANALYSIS 21 A. YMC 14.25.040(B) is applicable to street right-of-way vacations that requires 22 one or more private access easements to be substituted for the public right-of- 23 way if the administrative official determines that it is applicable. 24 The administrative official can evaluate any ordinance requirements, or other 25 26 information that the administrative official determines is appropriate to review and evaluate 27 when determining their position in the staff report. YMC 14.21.040 states: 28 The administrative official shall prepare a report concerning the proposed vacation for 29 the hearing in front of the hearing examiner. The staff report shall evaluate the 30 advisability of the proposed vacation based on a development services team (DST) 31 32 OPINION - 2 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION 200 South Third Street 2nd Fl'Yakima WA 98901 33 P:509.575.6030 I F:509.575.6160 OC. WIDEX 520 1 meeting and/or submitted application materials. The report shall address the criteria to be considered in determining whether to vacate the public right-of-way, and such other 2 information as deemed appropriate by the administrative official. 3 4 YMC 14.21.040(B). 5 The administrative official is tasked with evaluating the application in light of the 6 criteria and formulating a staff report and recommendation. Id. Therefore, the administrative 7 8 official has the opportunity to evaluate any information relevant to the following criteria: 9 1. The public benefit, reason for, and limitations of the proposed right-of-way 10 vacation; 11 2. Whether the vacation would deny sole access to a public street or alley for any 12 property; 13 14 3. Whether the proposal is consistent with existing plans of the city, such as the six- 15 year transportation improvement plan,the urban area comprehensive plan, or other 16 official city plans and policies; 17 4. Whether the vacation is appropriate with existing and anticipated zoning and land 18 19 use; and 20 5. Whether there are any public or franchised utilities in the right-of-way to be vacated 21 and, if so, whether they will be relocated, or whether an easement will need to be 22 reserved. 23 24 YMC 14.21.050(A). 25 Specific to the Examiner's question, YMC 14.25.040(B) is relevant to criteria 3 and 4. 26 Criteria 3 evaluates consistency with existing official plans and policies. The City has a 27 Pedestrian Master Plan,which has a goal of creating a safe,complete and connected pedestrian 28 29 30 31 32 OPINION - 3 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT CIVIL DIVISION 200 South Third Street 2nd Fl'Yakima WA 98901 33 P:509.575.6030 I F:509.575.6160 DOC. INDEX 521 1 network that supports travel for people of all ages and abilities) There is a City of Yakima 2 Bicycle Master Plan, Bike Yakima, which has a goal of improving bicycle transportation 3 4 throughout the city of Yakima and to guide planning, development, and management of 5 existing and future bicycle connections within the City.2 The Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, 6 We are Yakima, has a number of sections that guide transportation, housing and development 7 of the City.3 The City adopted a Housing Action Plan to promote affordable housing options 8 for all community members across the city's neighborhoods, including encouraging diverse 9 10 housing development within existing neighborhoods.4 11 All of these plans and policies are to be evaluated under YMC 14.21.050(A)(3). In so 12 doing, the restrictions associated with the creation of a private easement for access for an area 13 should be analyzed. Those restrictions include any possible future impacts on the goals and 14 15 policies of the plans caused by removing a street from the public streets of the City. 16 Criteria 4 evaluates whether the vacation is appropriate with existing and anticipated 17 zoning and land use. The existing and anticipated land uses in the area are single family 18 residential. However, with upcoming mandated changes to the law regarding the types of 19 20 housing which will be allowed in single family zones, the City's desire to increase affordable 21 housing and the goals of the City's Housing Action Plan, and transportation needs, it is 22 appropriate for the administrative official to evaluate the effects of YMC 14.25.040(B) on an 23 application to vacate a right-of-way. 24 Here, the administrative official determined it was appropriate to evaluate YMC 25 26 14.25.040(B), and the affect it would have on future development in the area. The language is 27 28 lhttps://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/files/2021/09/Yakima-Pedestrian-Master-Plan-Design-Guide_-Public- Draft_20210915-2.pdf 29 2https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/files/2018/03/Bicycle-Master-Plan_Fina1_11.29.2017reduced.pdf 3 https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/files/2018/07/Yakima-Comprehensive-Plan-2017_0612-FINAL.pdf 30 4 https://www.yakimawa.gov/services/planning/files/2021/08/Yakima-Housing-Action-Plan-FINAL-Plan_June-2021.pdf 31 32 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT OPINION - 4 CIVIL DIVISION 200 South Third Street 2nd FI'Yakima WA 98901 33 I':509.575.6030 I F:509.575.6160 INDEX 522 1 applicable when looking at the long-term plans and policies of the City and anticipating the 2 land uses of the properties abutting the road. Any future subdivisions would be subject to 3 YMC 14.25.040(B), and the restrictions found therein could have an impact on the City's 4 5 ability to carry out its housing, growth, bicycle, pedestrian, and transportation plans. 6 B. If approved,the right-of-way vacation could limit growth and development of 7 the area due to the restrictions of YMC 14.25.040(B). 8 If approved, any property that seeks further subdivision is subject to YMC 9 10 I 14.25.040(B) which states that "all lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and 11 frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement. Access easements 12 cannot serve more than one lot." "Subdivision"is defined as the division or redivision of land 13 into 10 or more lots. YMC 14.10.020. Therefore, the approval of vacating the right-of-way 14 15 will preclude properties that do not abut a public street other than North 68thAvenue from 16 subdividing into 10 or more lots. Although some of the larger lots abut Scenic,North 661h, or 17 Englewood, there are large lots that are only accessible by North 68th Avenue. Not having 18 access to North 68th Avenue also may require designs that reduce the number of lots that can 19 20 be created, such as if a hammerhead or cul-de-sac is required rather than a street at intersects 21 with North 68th Avenue. 22 A restriction in subdivision ability could limit the possible growth and development in 23 the area. Although the current owners may not be interested in subdividing their properties, 24 future property owners may want to create subdivisions. The administrative official is required 25 26 to look at all of the possible outcomes of the vacation when making their determination, 27 including speculative future growth opportunities, and how vacating a right-of-way could limit 28 growth in the future—especially in light of the long-range plans of the City. 29 30 31 32 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT OPINION - 5 CIVIL 200 South Third Street 2nd FI'Yakima WA 98901 33 P:509.575.6030 I F:509.575.6160 D . INDEX ``� 523 1 4. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the language of the Yakima Municipal Code, the administrative official has 3 4 the authority to evaluate any information deemed appropriate when evaluating an application 5 for a right-of-way vacation. As such, YMC 14.25.040(B) can be applicable to a right-of-way 6 I use vacation in some circumstances. Since the section is applicable, it should be considered 7 when evaluating whether the right-of-way vacation petition should be recommended to City 8 Council. 9 10 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 4th day of September, 2024. 11 CITY OF YAKIMA LEGAL DEPARTMENT 12 13 14 By: 15 SARA WATKINS, WSBA No. 33656 16 City Attorney Attorneys for City of Yakima 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 CITY OF YAKIMA DIVISION DEPARTMENT OPINION - 6 CIVIL 200 South Third Street 2nd Fl'Yakima WA 98901 33 P:509.575.6030 I F:509.575.6160 DO . INDEX 524 A,OF..k>. ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 441111911k ,', Bill Preston, P.E.,Director fr.; Trevor Martin,AICP,Manager � =1 Planning Division + *fj, '•:��•. *r� 129 North Second Street,2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 ''�,cNPoRATED '°�a Phone (509) 575-6183 • Fax (509) 575-6105 • Email: ask.planning@yakimawa.gov Memorandum To: Hearing Examiner From: Planning Division Date: August 7, 2024 RE: Additional Information for Right-of-Way Vacation The City of Yakima Planning Division is responding to several of the items mentioned in the July 25, 2024, initial hearing for the proposed Right-of-Way vacation for a segment of N. 68th Ave., in between Englewood Ave. and Scenic Dr. Regarding the gate and Revocable License Agreement,the City may enter into a revocable license agreement if there is a shared benefit between the grantor and grantee.The City would be required to charge the property owner for the license agreement,finding that the agreement is not going to hamper any City or Utility operations. If a license is entered into, it would be on the City's terms, if no such agreement can be found,then an agreement will not be entered into. At this time,the agreement would be for a traffic limiting gate at the northern end of 68'Ave.,which is not favorable for the City.The proposed gate would limit through traffic for emergency services in between Englewood and Scenic, and limit the use of a public right-of-way.The City of Yakima Fire Chief has provided a letter against the proposed vacation, included in the file. Next,the concept of vacating a section of right-of-way and forming an access easement outside of a platting process-the Planning Division highly discourages this action due to the potential creation of new lots and the creation of a nonconforming use. Per YMC§ 14.25.040.E Lot Design—"All lots within a subdivision shall have direct access to and frontage upon a dedicated public street or be accessed by an easement. Access easements cannot serve more than one lot. Minimum street frontage and/or access easement width shall be at least twenty feet. Lots intended for residential use should not access a principal or minor arterial." Additionally,the creation of a nonconforming situation is contrary to the City's Municipal Code under YMC§ 15.19.080.1-2: "The following procedures shall be followed to change a nonconforming use to a different nonconforming use; expand a nonconforming use throughout a structure; and/or expand a nonconforming structure or use throughout a lot or onto an adjoining lot.These procedures shall be used to expand a nonconforming structure throughout a lot; provided, a structure that is nonconforming only by reason of excessive building height or substandard setbacks, or is a nonconforming single-family dwelling, may be altered or expanded under the modification provisions of YMC 15.17.020 when the alteration or expansion: 1. Does not increase the degree of nonconformity of the structure; 2. Complies with development standards of the district in which it is located;" Yakima OOC. Allastatlry 2015 1994 525 Seven of the eight homes will be considered nonconforming, and no new parcels or driveways will be permitted to have access to 68th Ave in the future, including parcel# 18131744401, which is the vacant orchard at the intersection of Scenic and 68th Ave.This further reinforces the argument that future housing and subdivision within this area will be substantially limited, negatively affecting the City's vacant land use inventory as it relates to the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.115). The proposed Vacation also contradicts Chapter 8.96—Complete Streets Policy, of the Municipal Code. Per YMC§8.96.010 Purpose—"The purpose of the complete streets policy is to ensure all users are planned for in the construction of all city transportation improvement projects as outlined in the comprehensive plan and detailed in the soon to be adopted bike master plan and Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)transition plan. By enacting the ordinance codified in this chapter the city of Yakima encourages healthy, active living, reduction of traffic congestion and fossil fuel use, inclusion and maintenance of trees and appropriate landscaping, and improvement in the safety and quality of life of residents in the city of Yakima by providing safe, convenient and comfortable routes for walking, bicycling and public transportation.The complete streets policy will improve street connectivity for all modes." Establishing a gate over a portion of the City right-of-way removes connectivity opportunity for vehicles and first responders to adjacent residential properties. Finally, it is important to mention the importance of public right-of-way and the purpose of the street system.As mentioned in the Compete Streets Policy, streets are intended to provide conveyance for a variety of people from all different walks of life, regardless of whether or not they live in a certain neighborhood,the type of vehicle they drive, or their socioeconomic status. Maintaining and improving connectivity within the City helps reduce trip times, reduces air and noise pollution, increases exercise opportunities, makes it easier for people to access services, and helps first responders by providing open routes to a call. It was mentioned in the public hearing that people who did not live in the area were observed using the right-of-way, which is the purpose of the public right-of-way, it is intended for the public to use.The City of Yakima has provisions for a Master Planned Development and the creation of a private street system in a private neighborhood,this is not the case for this situation.The City understands that there has been limited maintenance on the right-of-way, but that is the case with many streets and different rights-of-way within the City.The City has a certain amount of money allocated for maintenance, and the status of this street/right-of-way will be updated and included in a future maintenance schedule. Vacating this right-of-way may potentially establish a precedent allowing other people to apply to vacate their street simply because they are bothered by limited through traffic. For the reason stated above,the Planning Division still maintains denial of the proposed Vacation and that no revocable License Agreement be established in lieu of vacating the right-of-way. Respectfully, Trevor Martin,AICP Planning Manager -M CA s, EX // l 1 2 526 .415,1HIM, YAKIMA FIRE DEPARTMENT Administration 401 North Front Fire Suppression kik 1( Yakima, Washington 98901 Fire Investigation ■ Phone(509)575-6060 Fire Training 'ME DOA' Fax(509)576-6356 Fire Prevention www.yakimafire.com Special Operations MEMORANDUM July 30, 2024 Trevor Martin Planning Manager City of Yakima 129 North 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 Re: N. 68th Ave. vacation request Mr. Martin, This letter is in regards to the request of a right of way vacation to a section on North 68th Avenue, between Englewood Avenue and Scenic Drive. The Yakima Fire Department is in opposition of this request due to the already limited access to areas of Scenic Drive from Englewood Avenue. The installation of gates or other barriers to fire department access roads significantly increases response times during times of emergency when every minute counts. The fire department staff recommendation is to deny the request. Respectfully, Aaron J. Markham Fire Chief. DOC. INDEX #__(;:a.1.4... We will provide all-risk emergency and non-emergency services to our community We are committed to serving with courage and compassion as stewards of public trust We shall leave a positive and genuine impact on all who call upon us 527 RECEIVED 611 North 68th Ave Yakima, WA 98908Cityf ,, t nn Legal Depa:rrne! t To Whom it may concern We still oppose vacating of 68" Ave. Although we live on the south part of 68t", our mailbox is at the north end. Just one gate at the top of 68th will block access to our mailbox. We ask the city to explore other options for reducing road traffic. We also ask the city to collect data on actual road traffic. Does the quantifiable data justify vacating the road and adding gates? If the city does decide to vacate the road or add gates, we ask that this decision include a stipulation that there cannot be a gate at the south end of 68th or along the Farren property that blocks access. Please evaluate ADA rules and how they apply to the proposed gates. Jennifer Farren is physically disabled and a gate blocking access to our house would cause significant hardship. Even though a gate would have a remote, things like power outages happen, and Jennifer would not be able to get out of her car and open a gate by hand. While our neighbors have said there "Is no plan yet for a gate" —that is actually the whole purpose of having 68" vacated by the city. The intended plan for traffic reduction IS a gate! A gate on the south end of 68" would block access to delivery trucks, so we would not be able to get deliveries. Due to Jennifer's physical limitations, we sometimes need crucial supplies such as groceries delivered to the house. In the event of a power outage, emergency services such as EMS would not be able to access 68th and could not reach our house if there was an emergency. To summarize, we oppose vacation of 68" Ave and support the exploration of other traffic mitigation. If the city does decide to vacate or chooses a revokable license agreement, we would like there to be a legal stipulation that no gate be placed at the south end of 68' Ave or in any way blocking the Farren residence. Thank you, Maxine I Farren Jennifer J Farren -� INDEX a �528 6Z9 / l'i !Fli o °xa _er n ,,L�..a•'e_.___1r r oars.•E csa.9r_—" .,— — R ro ig _ q N.68TH AVE.(PUBLIC) .79M` 8 's#� . i31.9r' N. rll n a 1 \`} m e � z I Ami'g-im 2 ,t_!! ! ' Xg1RA o s m —I 4 g 3tl y 4 W 1 tAz"'-a 4 tS £m c z D 1 '^^$F§ �t Y g (�N p n eacs.'[ e w .I. O 210.011 + O0 T \t 4 2 '4,8 '4,4 91 d8 R [' '' R N 'ga S o aR RN D o r L y ;jEY wa gm " g m I} IV $:\.. 11±I g _ g z� $ 4 a[a. ruw •k7 ,�•�..I Id Ux7W[ fig p O1 I� n Nt0'Se'E MIX, '3v g ,,--x—e x—�'' +55.90' MOO' Srr �"+ sco,_,_ 0,-, le_•% '4 4 m , ,T,I, (,)Vd. t'a 1 t....N ,..i.,. $ A"( cw, N\1 _, ,.. „.. r.,„,i, , N own're.-", N. 10.15, \ A 1 > } U1 p ' _s I I+ 4. ]'KNOT \• t' n'r n•0 s ti a Q �'•"'4 r, m rn v tt9e ^w�. ~"1 �`6 [h A NM1 Pt 'if _ yS nor Y� � : 2•+ I "PVC 1 ]rf & 0 rk•N=1[• sS v. n�' 1i0.GC „/j,II\\'K I [ N.66TH AVE.(PUBLIC) 'x 1i 9q 11 - op_. ss ss gg €k"9i si'avc 55 �s ss fit -v—.v R 1 a " H I -11 ."IA n 099.35•E292a.30' —4, y Xi PE'. y,§ { PARCEL NOs. 181317-44401 &-44402 1 �y � ? a . y, PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT ; TT A2803 River Road '74+� p Yakima,WA98902 // o P e for, MATT SEVIGNY 509.966,7000 m4. X ;T _ g 91 CITY OF YAKIMA,YAKIMA COUNTY,WASHINGTON Fax 509.965.3800 E€jgineeringandlandSurveying,Int ,,,,,hlacivil.com .i - A4 9 r LEGEND YAKIMA BICYCLE MASTER PLAN COMPLETE EXISTING INTERSECTION RECOMMENDED PROPOSED FACILITIES TREATMENTS INTERSECTION TREATMENTS NETWORK Shared Use Trail ' .� { Half Signal (7 Half Signal _-- - -,Bike Lane -- --, Buffered Bike Lane .-i I r j 1 •. il Full Signal Full Signal r5 \ ACrosswalk Marked Crosswalk ma's'Protected Bike Lane a . I I ,i- Bicycle Boulevard 1--- Intersection Improvement ` __ _ Shared Roadway ti /-- EXISTING FACILITIES RRFB +':-- ,Climbing Lane&Shared Roadway 1 \ _ _ - eiv T, Add Buffer to Ex.Bike Lane ` -- �, ER11`� �,\ (C491b)) Shared Use Trail F Add Protection to Ex.Bike Lane ` )rq I Bike Lane r_��� fyp --� 'NIREENW-'Air-.i1` 'szt. lc�� > II- I- c 1 I RHQ a 1- 40 1 9p z cs I N. �� �� RIVER RD V \ "� I \\:hesterley /Tl• ir' l I_ Park Arc' _1_ 1 p --•� QCbp __ J �_.� �. wlsr r IST _`, �• �FECHIFRR• C \ J I —_I `�—. 1 r>f,t e 'op `� CASTLEVALE RD - - -40 I -1001/4 I 3� aG WILLOW ST ) • z _J�l I }f \a'' -y��� r....t l-� ` rpm - � , ' I ENGLEWOOD AVE 1 -r I ` ,I!r, V } : - 111 00 { \ �.....A'1 > W'L•INCOL'N'AV - - 4. i v V �. ,,.. ■ E G SRg4 0 E� - - \ I~. I_f--i _ 1` Ilt ,_.. 4- --j I I ��F �i___, 1�• ■ �rlf-�+K`N t.M �'�� _-1... `\ I ) {I r t r z� -- _. .I.�....L ■� P't'" � P JE - "�1`..,.�i � HubtiArIry �,■ f {� Iy x TJ - i} IIYJJPK\M P n Pain /1; I1 .,I -I` ' rSUMMIT VIEW AVE _.. - I -- 1 i._ z1Y11 / W -{ Niwanls lc, /rlI c; _ ....L.f ALPINE W,4Y IJr_r_ ¢ �- C 1 I �-1_ \. '�A 1. vY T .Pa \ TTIECHr Park_-: _ l , la ' ; - _ x r ,_� � SP� . m WYAP NE�.AP kJ I I •' _ }{ rn !•, a • �` _, i z --.-,, W CHE`� I�E�BESTI rar -_`- ,�_ f� -- (-n�.. �. ..—., I = amoZ _'. W CiIESTNUT AVE M _.x• - _ 1 ]______ , ! "- r -. _ '':1_ i . _..� '�I ....4 -.. Franklin %� _ .jj� _ . 11 IN ri Ali 1 11111 ■■ .iii '� A.E a t.N,• _[ 1 r�r C= I Frsharl-�.. I I �. h, . ... 1 C. Golf . ■� I t C =r `c S .I f •e i y a �� I Ws i Yakrms`A es `♦ �— F n 1 . 0 1 m I BONNIE�OA,I�AVE q AM orezum \ t I a a / 1 Ir bbb I F- y.r _r 1 y� W NOB HILL BLVD --r� rn l m 1 { I - - rir �� - - - -- - - -Rini \ , _ m or "' rrr4rr+ ni.1 / L F , a'� IL---1 r ; i —_ 1 weal Valley 1 .4[4 .-1 N+I' Park .� `� _ f ir'h w-LOGANAVE - 1 i T ��II-1. 1 _ Randall I ,Ei. , , 1 a I Park `_ jI W f -_ Q � t -117 !rN. , //,,//��� `i,.�{/ ' Emr ifI 'R``Z' ...T I Kis 'w I ��,__, .,�F rPa w > I ..------- TERRYAV€ • �I.. . I 1 ilr. I__ `_1` -�__I. L ,ASHINGTONAVE W WASHINGTON AVE Iili_ I I i 1 _ ' r It—I 1�_. — J I -T1 i�! I I__J1 _ _ _____1_____1._ `-i—_- .!IF COOLIDGE RD _))I I i m 1- ! ; I � i I. I_ ��- I' ----_-- d _------___._.______ ' bO L • . ___ - I-I T-`�i . T OCCIDENTAL RD _f— ' 1, 1,—--- it. ...___ ,____, ii I TgE.X f ? r _. ..'4') _ TooleA—_ L�I I —--—-- I 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles " 41'�rl, ranrr `�"�'e 530 L__—_- Gr6U• November 2017 —7I ,Z --�_ CITY OF YAKIMA CODE ,^ :1MIN.DIVISION J U L 1 7 2024 July 16, 2024 1aXEDo FYI ❑ Dear City of Yakima Planning Department: R e R(V4+-Dd3-Z If Our Active Transportation Alliance group noticed in the upcoming City Council Agenda that there is a Vacation Notice of N. 68th. Our group strongly believes this is a mistake to Vacate N 68th and will provide H ecv ^ x a,v,;h written and in person testimony at the JulyC-� meeting. Ve believe its critical to maintain N. 68th road for public non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Drive and hope that a compromise could be reached before the public loses access to this road. Our group hasn't had a chance to meet with you yet to discuss the "Outer Circle" concept map but in our opinion N. 68th is one of several critical connecting road options for the entire west side of the city to access the newly constructed lower Cowiche trail. The City Bike Master Plan has 66th as the access but we believe N. 68th is much safer and a bit less of a% climb for walkers and cyclists to access Scenic Drive and then Lower Cowiche Trail. One thing active transportation citizens in Yakima living west of 40th avenue lack is a safe access point to the Greenway. This area of N. 68th could provide that critical safe access for thousands of residents. The citizens below agree to this statement and wish to ask City Manager and Planning Department not to Vacate N. 68th. Tom Robinson � `'�'I / -/t/e<145-\:.: 06 _s-o Active Transportation Alliancei>,;z66/,de, die y a,The'd gloq -� ( Rv , ka//' fted ,drsrow 5 r (rd L co?!fLJ9 7/� r COO S.lol) Hy-- (' I e INDEX 3oi3gy 7 531 CITY OF YAKIMA CODE t r1MIN.DIVISION July 17, 2024 JUL 1 7 2024 Trevor Martin,AICP ❑ REC'VD I-AXED❑ Planning Manager �] PAf FYI Q City of Yakima Dept of Community Development 129 N. 2"d Street Yakima,WA 98901 Re: File Number RWV#003-24 (Vacation of N. 68th Ave between Englewood and Scenic) Dear Mr Martin: Vacating the subject street section should not be approved because it is contrary to Yakima's Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Transportation Systems Plan.These plans establish the City's policy to ensure a street network with high connectivity as it grows and develops.The specific policies from these plans are excerpted below*. The reasons causing the City to establish such policies are described in Planning for Street Connectivity': • Decrease traffic on arterial streets; • Provide for continuous and more direct routes that facilitate travel by nonmotorized modes such as walking and bicycling and that facilitate more efficient transit service; • Provide greater emergency vehicle access and reduce response time, and, conversely, provide multiple routes of evacuation in case of disasters such as wildfire; • Improve the quality of utility connections,facilitate maintenance, and enable more efficient trash and recycling collection and other transport-based community services; and, • Create more livable and sustainable communities'. *Comprehensive Plan 2040 policy excerpts: Transportation Network Efficiency—A multimodal transportation network moves people and goods safely through the city and nearby areas.These policies include implementing standards that improve safety and efficiency for all roadway users, and maintaining design standards. 6.5.9. Ensure that the city transportation networks (all travel modes)have good connectivity to provide safe alternate routes and more direct travel. Where possible, encourage small block sizes. (2.1.2) 6.5.12. Reduce growth in vehicle travel demand through transit, active transportation, and other Commute Reduction strategies.This postpones the need for capital roadway projects. (5.1.4, 8.1.1, 8.1.3) Active Transportation—The active transportation system includes pedestrian, bicycling, and other modes that promote healthy lifestyles and provide alternative modes to private vehicles for ' Planning Advisory Service Report Number 515,American Planning Association, May 2003, page 13. 2 Ditto, page iv. 5 t� 4--.°C 532 1f commuting. These modes depend on increasing network connectivity and constructing non-motorized facilities within the city. 6.5.16. Require new development, infill development, and redevelopments to provide pedestrian facilities and transit facilities along their street frontage consistent with adopted street design standards,ADA Transition Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Transit Development Plan. (2.1.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 8.1.4, 10.2.2, 11.2.3) 6.5.17. Give high priority to projects that create or improve safe"Walk to School Routes", provide access to activity centers, provide linkages to transit, and connections to trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. (3.1.6, 4.1.2) 6.5.18.Work to improve pathway linkages to regional and off-street trail systems as identified in the ADA Transition Plan and Bicycle Master Plan. (3.1.8, 4.1.4) Interjurisdictional Coordination—Encouraging coordination between the City and public/private partnerships will help create a cohesive regional transportation network. 6.5.30. Plan and support the transportation networks in the City and region in collaboration with Yakima County,the City of Union Gap,the WSDOT, and other neighboring jurisdictions. (9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3) *Transportation Systems Plan policy excerpts: 1.3.2 Healthy Communities—Recognizing the growing need for physical activity among residents, the Washington State Legislature amended the GMA in 2005 with the Healthy Communities Amendment, ESSB 5186. Comprehensive plans are directed to address the promotion of Healthy Communities through urban planning and transportation approaches.The two amendments to the GMA require that communities: 1. Consider urban planning approaches that promote physical activity in the Land Use Plan; and 2. Include a bicycle and pedestrian component in the Transportation Plan. Conclusion: For the reasons described above,Yakima has adopted the growth and development policies listed above in order to create neighborhoods with high_street conrttiity Vacating the subject section of N. 68th Ave is inconsistent with these adopted comprehensive plan policies and therefore should be denied. Sincerely, RECEIVED 10 /4 JUL 1 7 2024 Phil Hoge,for CITY OF YAKIi�A PLANNING DIV. Yakima Bikes and Walks! DOC, IN D ti X 533 7- I-1 - 211 Dear City of Yakima Planning Department: The Active Transportation Alliance has notified me of a Vacation Notice of N. 68th. I support the Alliance's position to maintain N 68th for public non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Drive. N 68th could be a critical connecting road for bicyclists and pedestrians to use to cross the city safely from west to east, and especially to access the Greenway. Thank you for your consideration. -Cyrus Philbrick DOC. CITY OF YAKIMA CODE A9MIN.DIVISION JUL 17 2024 D REC'VD FAXEDD D PAID FYI D 534 CITY OF YAKIMA CODE r^r,,�IN.DIVIS40N JUL 172024 BPAID REC'Vu I-AXEDD Coleen Anderson FYI D 346 N. 24th Ave. Yakima, WA 98902 July 16, 2024 To: Yakima City Manager City of Yakima Planning Department R e; RW v #'o v 3 I am a volunteer with the Active Transportation Alliance (ATA) and noticed the City Council's Agenda for its next meeting includes a Resolution concerning Petition No. 24-09 to vacate a portion of N. 68th Ave. right-of-way, between Englewood Ave. and Scenic Dr. ATA strongly believes this is a mistake to vacate N. 68th. I agree. We believe it's critical to maintain N. 68th for public non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Dr. and hope that a compromise could be reached before the public loses access to this road. ATA hasn't had a chance to meet with you yet to discuss the "Outer Circle" concept map, but in our opinion N. 68"' is one of several critical connecting road options for the entire west side of the city to access the newly constructed Lower Cowiche Canyon Trail. The City's Bike Master Plan currently shows 66d' Ave. as the access, but we believe N. 68th is much safer and a bit less of a steep climb for walkers and cyclists to access Scenic Dr. and the Lower Cowiche Canyon Trail. One thing the citizens in Yakima living west of 40th Ave. lack is a safe active transportation access point to the Greenway. This area of N. 68th Ave. could provide that critical safe access for thousands of residents. Please take this information into consideration when deciding whether to vacate No. 68th Ave. Respectfully submitted, 6614 01)///zia.:442114— Coleen Anderson INDEX # 4;a-- 535 Rivera, Eva From: philbev <philbevmatt@charter.net> Sent: Tuesday,July 16, 2024 3:50 PM To: Martin, Trevor Subject: Petition to vacate 68th Ave between Scenic Drive and Englewood Ave. Hi Trevor, I am against this petition as this public right away serves as a valuable route for walkers and cyclist to by pass 66th Ave. 66th has no shoulders and you take your life in your own hands to walk on this section of 66th. The petitioner has offered no data to support that cut though traffic has ever or ever will be a problem on 68th. I walk this route once or twice a week and there is virtually no traffic.The City needs to preserve City owned right away and not vacate for no apparent reason. Thanks, Phil Mattoon Vice Chair City of Yakima Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Comittee Sent from Mail for Windows OOC. INDEX 1 536 l e-5•2)A,, l c yn Orretor o � 2 LL e7� RECEIVED l �� N. 5 Planvain -7 -�t�ssi0va ��. �i 2024 vviA 70 YAKIMA Rw V Oa3-2 Lal me i-h 9222 J ,t/22.c, ^AL/4J /ifiza day � Az /et_ •cA_ A 0e, 'fr j L.2 i o fi t .47;837,746-' INDEX .,u)-0-Z17) (324YiL /eittvp:49 Aef/1 ._ viP-e-V-1212) -X 2 q CE VED JUL. 1 7 2024 G%TY OF Y AKIM t PLANNING DNV. L /V-P P 1--W/)--AQ) -0L 1:efti—) (t)=7, .ete,,Az „ZartZ r 6,e2--4/2-ed t:R2. digei ` „eX,e_p_v_, ...AALL,, 7b‘ 4C/1-4 INDEX „.at _Zac? \' (60 # /-zn „7-)1/12. 538 RECEIVED '3 JUL 1 7 2029 CRY aF YRMM cpa + ATL NVNG OIV erA (de ) E Lje YL ' ,te5e&i ,t.ru F)4?-1,4ce--yt-- ta-13,922, qp}4,) f;1/2D,2', 4tt,e-k - togrzNe /kaPt, � � tm oe4--y) „K4Lg- ,tPLot 20;-d:Lail gyz 1-0-1,--y0-ekfLA H oa Z a # 112e7-9 -- 4 sue., � RECEIVED JUL 1 7 2024 CITY OF PLANNING DIV. -C-0-Cee4 4VA)LeAi 2,6-e_detaeL 7fri ;1±). Yre>_, ,Leygilk figy,24_ Ako--)iirALOWL 2/2,. s--zze\r722.-ii9.7t_ oli/ F662/Pe- y i<<m� l7i///t7g7a9 /0,5-6? - INDEX 540 Ce:gr Je_ 1ZA--) RECEPVEC JUL 17 2024 To Whom It May Concern: 't of YAP,m, .ANNING DIV Regarding a "home owners association" and installing a security gate on 68th Avenue I am a widow living on limited fixed income, and do not have the money to pay for home owners association fees or for gates. My family has owned acres on this hill for over 125 years. In that time there has never been a "home owners association" or locked gated road. As the acres were sold off over the years, 68th Avenue remained an access between Scenic Drive and Englewood. Installation of a security gate to gain access to our home would be an inconvenience for us and we do not want it. We reject membership in any home owners association, and oppose gates to res t ct access to our road. Sincerely, .1111C,L .4-16 r-14-4; Maxine I. Farren 611 N. 68th Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 DCC. 1N FX ' J fA 541 Tic; M1 ?j_ L�-rz -► _ Cm OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV (fi 16e-AO.,44 L.Z9 45k, e__/)-w14,7-1„(A44. tda„Ax-,-2r 0 ,se- 0<- " d 4a69-7p--EAL. --ALet/t >/z ot.t mx, _eocrerawL Jzia, ci,oftan.ite '2'n-f14-!-16-r '?? tom 1 oLaAt-- ! 7 ), I) - aAid n d-tiv - N DEX t_e.• N 40, 0 �GG -k/m ror l �� l � l r 542 LCEIVED JUL 1 7 Zan 27 7 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING DIV4- . 4 ✓r l,d f l/�/ �.�z/IJL c..`1 e . (� L(COL—a/a- a d.e ' , ,„„te,_ ,,. t A., ---teg) YLOY-- il--X-e— s J_ _/6„e_i_e_ a_. , , u___)_db_e_ 62_. ,_,,,,k ,r_o_x,_ -777, dazegle.., -T-- C wu s ,) c2,,,,a7 - 6 e.L., ?....a}5, ...e& 0,_e_ifiL-4,ALA,, ,...4.-4.- , ` `-4 7 --11 . ' ' ' -I,/ne.2.6-(fil-c? a-v D?z co/vv,e,5 I la44V4A- 1 6 3 6A \t ,i,,„,,,,, )47/1 ?wo9 DOC�$ INDEX N/ uP :‹ 543 my cell#is 509-307-3716 if you can talk about N. 68th Vacation now. Tom Robinson From: "Preston, Bill" <Bill.Preston@yakimawa.gov> To: "robinsontr" <robinsontr@charter.net> Sent:July 9, 2024 at 9:53 AM MDT Subject: RE: Can we meet_Urgent! Tom, The City Manager and I have a meeting to discuss this on Monday,July 15. I will share your info with him at that time. I'll need to wait until after that before we can discuss. I want to make sure I'm consistent with what the City Manager wants. Bill From:Tom Robinson <robinsontr@charter.net> Sent: Monday,July 8, 2024 7:07 AM To: Preston, Bill <Bill.Preston@yakimawa.gov> Subject:Can we meet_Urgent! Hi Bill, Would you be available for 10 minute phone call or in person meeting around 9:15 am this morning or Friday 7/12 around 9:30am? Our Active Transportation Alliance group noticed in the upcoming City Council Agenda that there is a Vacation Notice of N. 68th. (See City Council Agenda N 68th pg 20-27 pdf attached). Our group strongly believes this is a mistake to Vacate N. 68th and will provide written and in person testimony at the July 17 Council meeting. We believe its critical to maintain N. 68th road for public non-vehicular access from Englewood to Scenic Drive and hope that a compromise could be reached before the public loses access to this road. Our group hasn't had a chance to meet with you yet to discuss the "Outer Circle" concept map (attached) N. 68th in our opinion is a critical connecting road for the entire west side of the city to access the newly constructed lower Cowiche trail. The City bike master plan has 66th as the access but we believe N. 68th is much safer and a bit less of a %climb for walkers and cyclists to access Scenic Drive and then Lower Cowiche Trail. One thing active transportation citizens in Yakima living west of 40th avenue lack is a safe access point to the Greenway.This area of N. 68th could provide that critical safe access for thousands of residents. See the attached close-up map of Tieton Drive to Cowiche Trail to see our vision.This is an example of a change to the City's Bike Master Plan we hope to propose when updates and public input become possible. What I'm seeking is 10 minutes with you to discuss best way for the group asking for the Vacation and our ATA vision map to work together if possible so both things can occur. Before approaching these land owners of which I know some personally, I would like to know the engineering possibilities for both to occur if there is any? I'll be dropping off this email and maps this morning around 9:30 am and hope you are available. If not, please call me 509-307-3716 or let me know if we can meet on the 12th? DOC. 1NDF&-40 2 544 Tom Robinson Active Transportation Alliance Yakima Bikes&Walks 3 545 L ia, S L O i L d += O o -8 Li i J O . Z -2 V O N N ,O 2 D 2 N 2 2 2 S N U �> U p S u a 2 d d d O Y x InT y, p O CO Oi m O O 2 la N vvi vi m N a 2 a u L 5 c a a3 v F2 E Y E a o a c w o 'O 'O '8 N "B p l7 = ' v ,E `N° v U F H o m ,o w a L L L E L o E 2 L o 8 L x N LU L S J c o a 3 3 2' t in z a o v = U " 2 U a v 00., L 0 - y 2 Y u o _ a a a a v v 0 0. m 2 2 m m -o L v ,Oi D a - a 8 . z a m v - Y Y ,- c >o, 8 2 a a a a d ce § Q o a - w o m 2 T _ y a m V c o w a ', m mT ''„ a a a c E E m 0 N v - - 2 a S LU 5 c E 5 U a., v ai 00, a`v _ v c a Na 3 c l-7 [7 C7 E 2 „ w 3 LU El v E A rS a, of a! a a I 1 3o m u v avi v v w 9 0 2 0 0 L v 0 t v 0 5 L a E L L ' L 0 L 5 .o ,a' o v v v v d-g z y v 0 Y Q L U a .n a LU i0 ¢ in z z z LU z d U U ^ ,„ l7 U O U U' Vl S C 7 Q Q m C L --,-, N 0 M U V T- ill U ,O 1� W T -, 2 -,9 9 U 9 .2-, 2 ti W -, N N N N N N 2 .`N� N L9 N(J N U Om U M Z M 0 `J A, C c_ o c . o Ramm c, L > . E N a r YY_ a, ,N >- QY _ ' 4 -. CO � VI(r1 4 C.O o .-, Pa•u ? � Bc --a C •a � co a ]Sui en Roo Canal ,_-c-- a i S 18th St .° > s, Canal - `� ' a selah Moxee �r = e''o a aAy,Ile S _ 1 m �1Y .0o St e 2 z S'\st V1 l_.seCO } co ��. �' Stith St �' b E S 1st St •,.. Good• Rry c _ > x N'\stSt eMS any Pik S _ v �'. N1stF a w Q- v e y �� to N 5 th f\\Je .0 ? .% � n o r+ •. v 0 •U� a, any LIIZ I. S y - i•- S 16th Ave N ., - LU Cl) Q. .. , N V7 N ti `^ dJ _ >, > _ al > O N CO al Q u 4ti• > anv 47bZ S o a� I —LT_ a RS N o z E „ ¢w CO.--- c1 a U _c al H _.. _ N 9 E H co U 5 O c. S ✓ GAY 44017 N S 40th Ave o a f] f II I L. and 11Y1b� 5 0 O u o o U m S 48th Ave -n c.7i v )4 I. OI .t tch w. �• m- 0 any PuZS S COo .- N o D OC. c� ] -,2 C I, r/n4 - ,,,n • 10 7 01 cnN ° S 6 cd A 2 N,yN b H , > J� I # .3. .......... ce rp E 't N ¢ > -o any PUZL S w o z. Cany t{][ :MI FF5� fir fi$ J ry�E. + o N , a) LOa a ` u CO Fy ny ( U OJ ,y ,C e >7, Q W dO Ou o N sN' a �e5 0 0 • 546 As rsd hI Dr IN 1 CO‘e..1\4441/4....., ;, as 2 $ 6 3 3 p 3 a k / g rn m co m m � Inc t. * L IS ` e a z z z z � • ` i.i ro vp 2 N 2 a Qi p .-i N ri 10 Lt 2 vD 2 .--� V .-� Z .y m .-1 .i .-I v i N N rsi J. N v N a N VI N # 5 4sth Ati Ni ! a 1•� 1- % L ei `, a ,:s•a •tea ,.; o 1 �fpi 16 a ' 0r ( Isss ��+ • rip t N With Aga - � r 4 i %Wink c 5 N 1 N V 4 u�' '0 I�1 y -J �W IT tom•*� g T �f - _ i I— N 1 I O ., f I '� • N � ri � ® N GGtt7 Av L ty4. . , , f. i t...1 ,.y;h Ai, ;,... „ip I �i N >, -I, '61V( ' y •�;4 S y j6 td_9 t•••• X. > 572nai 1 I cY vs • r -_.... anV Lilt, " y o I c a 1 w E t ') 1 g 1 1 g 1 i IN 0 sis IA 1 INDEX • CA,._S......,. 547 L Fir y kl !1 At. Z 5 ,ova. Yakima, W '4 ,5,(p9Occ, rr Ufr 871/ ��s fog, j ±&rrm OF YAKI MA n1tL 7 19 e v op CITY DIVISION JUL 8 2024 // / A/0 2.n-c) Sfr-r-et ❑REC'VD FAXED❑ ID PAID FYI ❑ Yiiinc'J V V 98 901 DOC. INDEX eva 548 inn i �r far r G�Tv o� YAKi�AN f _/� N• d� A v�u� CODE ADMIN. DIVISIO Yakiiial WA q&9Og JUL 8 2024 I / L/ ❑ REC'VD FAXFEYDI 0 U c` g) v'Zc2� 1` ❑ PAID i II Beres�o n, .Zr)ter i)n D/recii v' o-T Cc )4 2/2 Rw0/1c t)e.v ) p22 ei� / /2 9 llb rah $ece9z7d 6-7r1 % c7o s� Y )1 ; 1 4'A 9 12J ft 1 if V 4,cy el- R W v>?i` tir-rei) •) fl-,9`-e6m_ 2 ate(At "I` • / 1AVaL- " El-10_4)24 e_a_a,ae,— f A ±-e-,-->t-A1:41J2-V,26AW_ ta,0±3ta, O3 9Wid Cr-ID . 6"?:4/2, (100 , W P /0-71770-' 4146 107LI, ZT2.0_4 _;b24"4" 4 � 7 )104LetAlt -r d a&042' "4-4- 1 e 62-A/2e677-€2.)2-17511. e2-2//?/7;37-„)2J2e--e---A- 1,,af-4_44-22";-/z) ; MEX jaia„ 549 r,dc,cv.,17,1v JUL0 ;1 2024. (UY Uf YAKIMA PLANNING 01V, Pio ar`th AdOe-P-4UP_,Xat ;6112 /T24 )11)1a:,0/2tp- 46Z . (32-4A/ 4-e4.72,-+Y)1} ti Y2tvost)1-0-yr.cp 1LeF tt Q4tfijeiv)A "22 2 , ‘,0164.kontia2ueJi1j .-6.rip-rutatzLOae- Poe) 40 ).),J1if.,161 11/1 eit-01/14.;:)},-z!v34a Antt/tpy. 4a)4) (0z2J.,v4cA/2. L' :_i-toLect . 1/),A INDEX 550 ] A�irM s• n ��- JUL 0 8 2024 CITY Of YAKi 1h PLANNING DIV. I �rr YV64-etg 7 4-Y2 • JO/2- }112,22-WiJia_eeZ92 A tcle .6) v21,za,yi _jryp �- r ,,b02-id, 6 �. 0--a0 410#'-7F"°-° igth (32,4 fiv '&11) tei,j2j 09.)2__ ZUbLAZV:2-) ` J h Ze,rra- . • sue . _ ;61/2 +P") -448-eitZI- 4 j-.44 DEC. INDEX 551 RECEIVED JUL., 0 8 2024 CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING OIV. 4 c AJL4y_d_16,/b y r ! e '9/2_afr„tte " 4 7_,_)/2w/y-rta • L)L.5:0 a G1JYlf1� 1101 JA..14) ii--)OYL al_ _e_14,1j2A;e12d frej. /tAc47/. z.e2 { ;1)2_ , INDEX _.._.� Y .,. 552 RECEIVED i. JUL 0 $ 2024 CITY OF YAKII' A PLANNING oIV. id,Lext)±02-,) ,PLaA__„,e_,eat/di°, �..� 2):0),p4 R J39112. 1,0-J2J) yv%i-e-t --1)914 , ,0-71 � rt i14 2tep-231 � L ( 5/ Doc. INDEX ' [ 553 RECEIVED MAR 0 7 2024 Y OF YAKIMt PLANNING DIV. To Whom It May Concern: Regarding a "home owners association" and installing a security gate on 68th Avenue I am a widow living on limited fixed income, and do not have the money to pay for home owners association fees or for gates. My family has owned acres on this hill for over 125 years. In that time there has never been a "home owners association" or locked gated road. As the acres were sold off over the years, 68th Avenue remained an access between Scenic Drive and Englewood. Installation of a security gate to gain access to our home would be an inconvenience for us and we do not want it. We reject membership in any home owners association, and oppose gates to restrict access to our road. Sincerely, nn Maxine I. Farren 611 N. 68th Avenue Yakima, WA 98908 DOC. INDEX 554