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