Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1990-D5714 Rezonej • • RESOLUTION NO. 57 4 A RESOLUTION denying the Master Application of Dentan Associ- ates WHEREAS, Dentan Associates are owners of property upon which the Yakima Valley Internists operate a medical clinic at 402 South 12th Avenue; and WHEREAS, Dentan Associates filed a Master Application on November 6, 1989 with the Department of Planning and Commu- nity Development, which application requested the vacation of Spruce Street between South 12th and South 13th Avenues, the expansion of a non -conforming use to allow use of a lot in an R-2 Zone as a parking lot, and permission to allow 70% lot coverage for parking areas rather than the 50% permitted in an R-2 Zone; and WHEREAS, after appropriate notices, a hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner on December 20, 1989, and a public meeting was held before the City Council on February 20, 1990; and WHEREAS, all members of the Council indicated that they had not been previously contacted by either proponents or opponents of said Master Application; and WHEREAS, at said public meeting, members of the Council heard presentations by attorneys for proponents and opponents, statements by City staff, comments by members of the public, and accepted written arguments from proponents and opponents, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The Master Application of Dentan Associates cataloged under UAZO R/W Vac #10-89, UAZO ALT/NON-CONF #5-89, AND UAZO EC #33-89 and Examiner No. 89-0861-69 is hereby denied and the Council adopts the Hearing Examiner's recommendation No. 89- (res/dentan) 0861-69, a true copy of which is attached hereto and rated herein by reference. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this IC) day of 1990. (;;it 44.^-e)? Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk - 2 (res/dentan) incorpo- i • • In Re Master Application by DENTAN ASSOCIATES (YAKIMA VALLEY INTERNISTS) for Street Vacation, Expansion) of a Non -Conforming Use for ) Parking Lot Development, and ) Lot Coverage Adjustment ) at 12th and Spruce. ) r EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION City No. UAZO R/W VAC #10-89 UAZO ALT/NON-CONF #5-89 UAZO EC #33-89 Examiner No. 89-0861-69 Dentan Associates (Yakima Valley Internists) have filed a master application. A public hearing was conducted on December 20, 1989. The Staff Report presented by Mr. John Elsden recommended denial of both the proposed street vacation and the proposed expansion of a non -conforming parking lot. The applicant was represented by Dr. David Williams and architect Dave Franklund. The office manager of Yakima Valley Internists, Mr. Calvin Howe, also spoke in favor of the proposal. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION. Denial. The vacation of Spruce Street between 12th and 13th Avenues is inappropriate because of the impact on traffic circulation patterns. This uniquely affects the businesses along 12th, and the residents on 13th and 14th. The proposed parking lot expansion should not be granted if the street is not vacated, because the lot does not adjoin the non -conforming lot across Spruce to the south. Since the parking lot cannot be developed there is no point in dealing with the request to expand the lot coverage. Options not applied for and therefore not considered include the possibility of relocating Spruce Street to the north edge of the applicant's property, and/or rezoning the Two -Family Residential lot so that it can be used as a parking lot. Attorney Ron Whitaker appeared on behalf of dentist Mike Iasella, and other dentists with offices north of Spruce Street, EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 1 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 1809) 2480706 L. all opposed to the proposal. Drs. Iasella and William Gilmore testified in opposition, as did eight neighborhood residents. A number of petitions and letters were received, which are part of the official record, opposing the application. Letters were received from the St. Paul Cathedral School Board, at least four residents, and ten dentists or physicians with offices in the immediate vicinity, opposing the vacation. A petition signed by 20 tenants or suite owners of Medical Center Properties, Inc., indicated that 13 were opposed and 7 were neutral. Eleven petitions were submitted, bearing 166 signatures, all opposed. No attempt has been made to check the possibility of duplicate signatures on petitions or letters. This recommendation is based on the findings and conclusions, not the number of letters or signatures. Mr. Whitaker filed a brief prior to the hearing. The applicant requested and was granted time for their attorney, who was not present, to respond. The Examiner permitted attorney David Thorner, on behalf of Dentan Associates, to file a brief, and Mr. Whitaker a response, on or before January 10, 1990. The briefs were filed, reviewed, and are part of the record. Three neighborhood residents had also requested a continuance of the hearing so that they could attend. They were permitted to submit written comments prior to January 10, 1990, and so notified. The Examiner inspected the property on December 19, 1989, and again on January 24, 1990. From the view of the site, the matters contained in the official record including the Staff Report, a review of applicable statutes, ordinances and case law, and from evidence received at the hearing, the Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS 1. Applicant. Dentan Associates, owner of the property in which Yakima Valley Internists operate their medical clinic and associated parking lots, at 402 South 12th Avenue. 2. Application. This is a master application with three elements. The first requests vacating Spruce Street between South EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 2 • • • • HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CT' AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKI MA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 • 12th and South lath Avenues. The second involves expansion of a non -conforming use, to allow use of a lot in the Two -Family Resident (R-2) zone to be used as a parking lot. The third requests that the parking area if approved be permitted to have 70 percent lot coverage rather than the 50 percent permitted in the R- 2 zone. A master application under the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance allows concurrent processing of related requests, with the most stringent level of review required by any of the requests accorded the entire proposal. Since street vacations require a public hearing by the Examiner and a recommendation to the City Council, the entire proposal will be subject to that level of review. 3. Location. The clinic is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Spruce Street and South 12th Avenue. The parking lot for the clinic is located on the south side of the building, with additional parking across the alley to the west, south of Spruce Street. Denten owns the property on the north side of Spruce Street, between 12th and 13th. Dentan owns all of the property abutting the proposed vacation. If this application is granted, they plan to extend their building to the north into the vacated street, adding approximately 6,000 square feet. The property north of Spruce would be developed for additional parking. 4. History of Existing Development. In 1981, Dentan Associates was granted approval of a rezone from Two -Family Residential (R-2) to Planned Development at this location in order to construct the existing facility and provide the required parking for the development. Recommendations from both Planning Staff and Planning Commission were for denial of the application, however, City Council approved the rezone to Planned Development. When the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1986, the site was recognized as part of a residential neighborhood and zoned R-2. 5. Zoning and Land Use. The subject property is currently zoned Professional Business (B-1) east of the alley, and Two -Family Residential (R-2) west of the alley. Land use on the north side of EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 3 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (8091248-0706 West Spruce Street for this property consists of a vacant building east of the alley, and an occupied single-family structure west of the alley. The Internists' medical office building and parking lot currently exist south of West Spruce Street. Adjacent properties have the following characteristics: Location North B-1 R-2 East (across S. 12th) B-1 South B-1 R-2 West (across S. 13th) R-2 Zoning (east of alley) (west of alley) (east of alley) (west of alley) land Use Medical Offices Single -Family Medical Offices Medical Offices Single -Family Single -Family 6. Character of Area. Land uses in the neighborhood of the subject property consist mainly of a mixture of medical offices and single-family residences. The alley that runs north -south between South 12th and 13th Avenues is essentially the dividing line for medical and residential land uses. Land uses west of the alley to South 16th Avenue, from West Walnut Street to Tieton Drive, consist primarily of single-family residences. East of the alley to South 12th Avenue land uses are mainly a mixture of commercial and residential; east of South 12th Avenue to South 10th Avenue consists mainly of medical office uses. In addition, this alley serves as the boundary district line between the B-1 and R-2 Districts. 7. Traffic Circulation. South 12th Avenue serves as the primary connection between Yakima Avenue and Tieton Drive. It serves as a through street with no traffic controls between those two east -west arterials. It also serves as the effective west boundary of the medical center complex located to the east, between Chestnut and Tieton. It is 40 feet wide with two lanes of traffic and parking on both sides of the street. b South 13th Avenue one block to the west is the east boundary of a residential area bordered by Tieton Drive on the south, South 16th Avenue on the west, and West Yakima Avenue on the north. It is 32 feet wide with parking on both sides. Spruce Street serves as the eastbound outlet because it is EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 4 • • • HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKI9iMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 TAIL NA, WASHINGTON 98907 (809) 248-0708 • • • wider than the other eastbound streets, Walnut and Chestnut. Spruce is 32 feet wide compared to 24 feet for both Chestnut and Walnut. With cars parked on both sides Spruce Street still functions effectively as a two-way street. When cars are parked on the other streets they become effectively one-way streets because they are so narrow that two cars often cannot meet. This is true for Chestnut, Walnut, and 14th, which are all 24 feet wide. Parking is limited to one side of both Chestnut and Walnut, since they border St. Paul's school and playground. Even with parking restrictions these streets are not as effective as Spruce in safely handling two-way traffic. There is no easy access to West Yakima Avenue from this neighborhood. Fourteenth and 15th are offset by the school and are narrow. St. Paul's School and Cathedral occupies two blocks between Chestnut and Walnut, and between 12th and 14th. Anyone using those streets has to be alert for children because of the play fields adjacent to the streets. Tieton Drive is an increasingly busy arterial and left turns from 13th or 14th are especially difficult due to traffic. The elimination of Spruce Street would significantly affect residents abutting both 13th and 14th Avenues. The other major traffic impact is upon the north -south alley between 12th and 13th. The proposal is to vacate Spruce Street, but not to vacate the alley, which would become a two -block long alley with a north exit onto Walnut and a south exit onto Tieton Drive. In addition, users of the alley would be able to utilize various parking lots throughout those two blocks in order to get back to 12th. Offices located south of the Internists have parking lots which are typically entered from South 12th, with the exit into the alley. Dr. Iasella, for instance, has a parking lot directly south of the Internists' parking lot. The entrance is from 12th, and the natural exit is into the alley and north to Spruce. Eliminating Spruce Street would direct that traffic through to Walnut or south to Tieton. Due to utility poles the alley is only one lane wide as EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 5 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 IS09) 248-0706 it enters Tieton. Utility poles restrict the usable width of the alley throughout the entire two blocks north to Walnut. The alley is already inadequate for its existing commercial use. Eliminating Spruce will increase the distance cars use the effectively one -lane wide alley, increasing traffic conflicts and uniquely affecting the offices on 12th between Chestnut and Tieton. Rather than using those street outlets cars would probably also go through one of the Internists' parking lots, or attempt to turn around in Dr. Iasella's lot. The proposed street vacation will thus primarily impact two groups. One is the residents within the area bounded by South 15th to the west, Tieton Drive to the south, West Chestnut to the north, and South 13th to the east. The other group is the professional businesses located on the west side of 12th, between Walnut and Tieton. These residents and businesses are uniquely affected by this street vacation, suffering a special damage different in kind from that experienced by other members of the community, and therefore have standing to object. This is not just a question of inconvenience in moving from point A to point B and having to redirect traffic a few blocks. Spruce Street is wider and more functional compared to other streets to the west and north. It serves to draw traffic from the narrower residential streets and alleys to the widest non -arterial street, 12th, which in turn funnels traffic to the Yakima and Tieton arterials. S. Jurisdiction. The authority and procedure for vacating a right-of-way is established by RCW Ch.35.79. By ordinance the City of Yakima delegated to the Hearing Examiner the obligation of conducting a public hearing and making a recommendation to the Council. 9. Criteria for Vacating Rights -of -Way. The City has administratively adopted criteria for evaluating right-of-way vacation applications. These criteria will be considered within the context of Washington case law. (A) The applicant must establish the public benefits of the EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 6 • • • • HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 protect. the reasons for the proposed vacation. and its lim; s• If granted, this proposal permits Yakima Valley Internists to add to their building and increase the number of physicians and associated staff, resulting in additional jobs and more available health care within the Yakima community, without requiring the Internists to relocate. Granting the proposal will also create the traffic impacts described above. It will also eliminate approximately 18 on -street parking spaces which because of the congested nature of the nearby medical center complex are utilized not only by local residents but also by employees and patients of the nearby medical and dental offices. Every land use development proposal carries with it the probability of direct economic benefit to the community. Land use controls attempt to balance the probable direct benefit with the often less tangible and more indirect costs of development. The proponents and opponents have both cited numerous Washington cases dealing with the nature of the public use or interest which must be served by the vacation. An assessment of the case law is critical to an understanding of the legal conclusions which flow from these findings of fact. The most cogent judicial articulation of the criteria follows: The power of a city, in this state at least, to vacate such of its streets or parts of its streets as it chooses, is unquestioned. To illustrate, it may change a street from its use as a highway to a use for another public purpose, when it is determined that the change will better serve the public good; it may vacate a street when it is no longer required for public use, or when its use as a street is of such little public benefit as not to justify the cost of maintaining it; or when it is desired to substitute a new and different way more useful to the public; and, of course, it is within the power of a city to vacate a EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 7 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITU AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 street where all of the property owners adversely affected consent to the vacation. But in all instances. the order of vacation joust have within it some element of Public usg, and even where the order serves a public use, it cannot be exercised against the will of abutting property owners adversely affected, unless the damages they suffer thereby are in some way compensated. [Emphasis supplied.] Young v. Nichols, 152 Wash. 306, 308, 278 Pac. 159 (1929). The cases cited by both the proponent and the opponent concerning the definition of public use, public good, public interest or public benefit all cite Young v. Nichols with approval. It is clear that a balancing of interests is required, and that the courts will not second-guess the Council's decision except when ". . . there is no possible benefit to the public. . ." 1Banchero v. City Council, 2 Wn. App. 519, 523, 468 P.2nd 724 (1970), citing Yarrow, Etc. v. Town of Clyde Hill, 66 Wn.2d 371, 403 P.2d 49 (1965). Yarrow dealt with whether the town of Clyde Hill could vacate a street which had the effect of landlocking a portion of the town of Houghton, which had been cut off by construction of a new highway from the rest of Houghton. Houghton had approved a high density apartment project for this portion of ground which was now as a practical matter part of Clyde Hill. Clyde Hill did not like the notion that Houghton was foisting a high density project which would have significant adverse impacts on Clyde Hill, and got even by vacating the only street access to this property. The Supreme Court told the Clyde Hill City Council that they had abused their discretion and threw out the street vacation. The court noted that the City . may vacate a street when it is no longer required for public use or when it has little public benefit; or it may vacate a street when it is desired to substitute a new and different way more useful to the public. But, in any event, the vacation of a street must be based upon some element of "public use". [Emphasis supplied.] Yarrow, supra, at 375, citing Young v. Nichols. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 8 • • • • HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY ANO COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAK BAA, WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 The Ranchero case tends to be cited to support the notion that • a city can consider diverse public interests in assessing public benefit and granting a street vacation. The court notes that the • council considered Seattle's need for dairy products, the dairy plant's payroll contribution to the local economy, and the property taxes which it would pay. The fact that these issues are cited as support for the vacation overlooks the actual facts and procedural posture of the case. Banchero applied for a writ of prohibition to enjoin the Seattle City Council from acting on the vacation. The dairy company had requested that a block -long section of street be vacated subject to the dairy company building a new parallel street, dedicating it to the public, relocating all the street utilities, and providing pavement, drainage, curbs and a sidewalk on the new street. Furthermore they widened a street perpendicular to the new street, which was between the dairy plant and Banchero's property. The City Council moved for summary judgment, and won, allowing them to go ahead and grant the street vacation. On appeal of that summary judgment, the Supreme Court noted that Banchero never argued that the vacation served no public purpose. The court further noted that Banchero was not an abutting property owner. As a non -abutting owner he failed to establish that he suffered special damages because of the vacation. The court noted parenthetically that one could even question whether an inconvenience existed, since as a condition to the vacation, the dairy plant had to provide a new street. The fact that access was not affected, that a new street was provided, and that the opponent never argued that the vacation served no public purpose all support the council's decision to • vacate the street regardless of whether they also considered broader economic development issues. Although the Banchero court spoke in terms of public benefit, public interest and public purpose, it cited back to the criteria previously quoted in Young v. Nichols dealing with public use. The Young criteria remain the EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 9 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMd POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 9890' (509) 248-0706 standard with which to balance the competing interests presented by' any vacation request. This proposed vacation creates more than an inconvenience. If granted it would substantially impair access by the two groups of residents and businesses identified above. Any public use or benefit resulting from the street vacation is outweighed by the substantial impairment of access. (B) The vacation of anv richt-of-wav cannot denv sole access to any Property. Approval of this street vacation would not deny sole access to any property. (C) Vacations should be consistent with the Six -Year ss�• o e t �_. , Ub r-. Ces' Plan. and other official city Plans and policies. The current Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan does not contemplate improvements at this location. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Compatibility Table, OLU-1, indicates that professional service uses may be allowed adjacent to low and moderate density residential uses with appropriate site considerations. Although the comprehensive plan does not address street vacations, it does indicate that criteria for considering development proposals place heavy emphasis upon citizen preference, which can be used to identify problems generated by a proposal. The traffic problems previously identified cannot be resolved, short of possibly replacing Spruce Street with a new street to the north of the applicant's property, and therefore this proposal is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Other official city plans and policies include the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, which in this instance applies more specifically to the proposed expansion of the non -conforming use and will be considered below. (D) Vacation of rights-of-way should be appropriate with existing and anticipated development in the area, based upon zoning. current use and long-range plans. EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 10 • • • • HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98907 (809) 248-0706 • • • For the reasons stated, the proposed vacation is not consistent with existing development in this neighborhood. Since this area is fairly well developed, any future development will probably be related to intensifying the business uses along 12th Avenue. Spruce Street at this location has historically been used by both residents living in the area and persons driving to the area for medical and commercial services. Closure of this street would eliminate its public purpose in order to allow for private development without an offsetting public use or benefit. determined that such existing utilities do not need to be relocated. this reauirement may be waived. If approved, the applicant would be required to relocate and to provide an easement for the existing irrigation line running across Spruce Street from South 12th to South 13th, if the proposed building expansion would be over this line. 10. Conations for Aoorovina Expansion_ of a won -Conforming Use. This portion of the application deals with the lot north of Spruce bordered on the west by 13th. This is in an R-2 zone, which does not allow commercial parking lots as a permitted use. Without any significant formality the applicant can develop the other lot north of Spruce, bordered by 12th, as a parking lot because it is in the B-1 zone. The north -south alley is the zone boundary. Expansions of non -conforming uses are governed by UAZO Ch.15.19. In order to consider a request, the proposal must involve an adjoining lot. UAZO §15.19.080. If the street is not vacated, the Internists could still develop the B-1 lot north of Spruce as a parking lot. The R-2 lot can only be developed if it adjoins by virtue of a street vacation the non -conforming parking lot south of Spruce which was approved as part of the 1981 plan development. There are apparently no provisions in the ordinance which EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 11 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CRY ANO COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 1509) 248-0706 would allow the applicant to first develop the 8-1 parking lot and• then apply to expand it into the R-2 lot to the west. Either a street vacation or a rezone is necessary. The non -conforming parking lot south of Spruce fits in well with the residential neighborhood. This is due to the walls and landscaping. Whether a rezone for the north lot is appropriate requires a different application and public hearing. City staff have not reviewed the matter, but the physical evidence seen and heard to date suggest that it might be appropriate. Another option not considered in this application is the possibility of relocating Spruce to the north edge of the Internists' property. In the event that the Council elects to vacate Spruce Street, five criteria must be met in order to expand the parking lot. UAZO §15.19.080(3). No significant issues were raised at the hearing concerning the proposed parking lot expansion. Expansion of non -conforming uses, however, is tightly controlled by the ordinance. A non -conforming use is defined as use of land or structures which were originally lawfully established under a pre-existing zoning ordinance, but which do not now conform to the provisions of the Urban Area Zoning Ordinance for the Two -Family Residential District. UAZO §15.02.020 (p.15). The criteria follow: (A) The expansion must not be contrary to the public health. safety or welfare. The proposal complies. (B) The proposed expansion must be compatible with the character of the neiahborhood and not significantly ieopardize future development of the area in compliance with the Provisions and intent of the R-2 zoning district. The existing parking lot, because of the way it has been designed, constructed and maintained, is a good example of a commercial use which is reasonably compatible with the EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 12 • • • • HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CIT/ AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 residential area. Allowing expansion of the lot though does significantly jeopardize future development of the area in conformity with the R-2 zoning district. If this expansion is appropriate, the property probably should be rezoned. It is reasonable to anticipate continued pressure from businesses on the west side of 12th which want to expand by growing to the west across the alley. If this expansion is approved, it will be harder to resist similar requests in the future. The current non -conforming lot was built as part of the 1981 Planned Development, under Planned Development provisions of the zoning ordinance which allowed intensive input and regulation by the City in developing the project. Those provisions are no longer in the ordinance. If this property is developed, housing will be removed and it is unlikely that it will ever revert to the residential uses characteristic of a Two -Family Residential zone. (C) The sign j f cance of the applicant's hardship must be more compell i._na than _and reasonably overbalance the public interest resulting from denial of the relief reauested. Expansion of non -conforming uses has typically been approved in cases where no other viable use of a building is possible without expansion, and the building would remain unusable unless the expansion was granted. Given the restrictive approach toward non -conforming uses, economic hardship or inconvenience has typically not been a justifiable reason for granting approval. The hardship claimed here is insufficient to override the public interest. (D) The use or structure has to be lawful at the time of its inception. Complies. (E) Value of nearby properties must not be significantly_ depressed by this expansion. There is no evidence that property values will decline. The proposal complies with this requirement. 11. Lot Coverage Adiustment From 50 Percent to 70 Percent. If the EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 13 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706 street is vacated, and if expansion of the non -conforming use is' granted, permitting the R-2 parking lot, then the requested lot coverage adjustment from 50 percent to 70 percent should be granted, subject to continuation of the design and landscaping used on the south lot. 12. Anvixonment Review tOEPA). A Determination of Non- significance was issued for this request on December 1, 1989. This Determination was based on SEPA guidelines (WAC 197-11-443) which do not specifically include compatibility issues, public need or The comment period expired on December 18, hardship criteria. 1989, at 5:00 p.m. 13. Public Notice. provided in the November 29, 1989 - Posting of property. November 28, 1989 City Council set date of hearing. November 29, 1989 - Notice of hearing posted in three public places. December 8, 1989 - Legal advertisement. December 8, 1989 - Property owners within 300 feet notified. From the foregoing Findings, the Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS The Examiner has jurisdiction. 2. For the reasons stated herein, the application complies objectives of the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the the R-2 Zoning District, and the provisions of the Urban Public notice for this application was following manner: 1. with the intent of Area Zoning Ordinance. 3. Vacation of this right-of-way is not consistent with RCW Ch.35.79 and applicable Yakima City ordinances and policies. The existing public use served by the right-of-way reasonably overbalances any public use or benefit gained by its vacation. 4. Expansion of the non -conforming parking lot is prohibited if the right-of-way is not vacated, because it is not an adjoining lot. 5. If the vacation is granted by the City Council, all of the necessary criteria for approving expansion of a non -conforming use still have not been met because the expansion would EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION - 14 • • • • HEAR WG EXAMINER FOR THE CIT/ AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 96907 (809) 246-0706 1 • • significantly jeopardize future development of the lot in compliance with the existing R-2 zoning. 6. If the street is vacated, and if expansion of the non- conforming use is granted, then granting the lot coverage adjustment from the current 50 percent limitation to the requested 70 percent is consistent with the existing lot to the south and presupposes that the issues dealing with the street vacation and the expansion of a non -conforming use have been resolved in favor of a parking lot, in which case in order to build the parking lot as a parking lot it should have increased lot coverage permitted. Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Examiner submits to the Yakima City Council the following RECOMMENDATION Deny this master application. RESPECTFULLY submitted this 26th day of January, 1990. EXAMINER°S RECOMMENDATION - 15 PHILIP A. 8 Hearing Examiner HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE cfTY AND COUNTY OF YAKIMA POST OFFICE BOX 4 YA PAA. WASHINGTON 98907 (509) 248-0706