Docstoc

City of Yakima_ Washington

Document Sample
City of Yakima_ Washington Powered By Docstoc
					                     City of Yakima, Washington
                 Hearing Examiner’s Recommendation
                                    March 25, 2005


In the Matter of a Petition for Vacation             )
Of Street Right-of-Way Submitted by:                 )
                                                     )
Vaughn Bay Construction & VBC                        ) UAZO R/W VAC # 4-04
Eastridge Housing, L.P. by Paul Page                 )
And Craig Guhlke & Joann Guhlke                      )
                                                     )
                                      th
To Vacate a Portion of North 9 Street                )
Right-of-Way North of East “D” Street                )


Introduction.         The hearing examiner conducted an open record public hearing
on February 24, 2005, and continued the hearing for additional information from
Joan Davenport, the City‟s Supervising Traffic Engineer, and from Paul Page, one
of the petitioner‟s representatives. The last of this information was received by the
hearing examiner on March 11, 2005, and this recommendation has been issued
within ten business days thereof. The staff report presented by Assistant Planner
Jeff Peters recommended denial of this street vacation request. Letters and
testimony were submitted in favor and in opposition to this proposed vacation.


Summary of Recommendation. Unless and until the petitioners can reach
agreement with the property owners abutting the right-of-way as to how this street
vacation may be granted without adversely affecting future development options,
the hearing examiner agrees with the Planning Division‟s recommendation against
approving the proposed vacation of undeveloped street right-of-way at this time.



Vaughn Bay Construction                    1
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
Basis for Recommendation. Based upon a view of the site without anyone
else present on February 22, 2005; the staff report, exhibits, testimony and
evidence presented at an open record public hearing on February 24, 2005, as
supplemented by evidence received up to March 11, 2005; and a review of the
Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, the Yakima Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 35.79 of the Revised Code of Washington and the City of
Yakima‟s street vacation policies; the hearing examiner makes the following:



                                    FINDINGS



Petitioners. The petitioners are Vaughn Bay Construction and VBC Eastridge
Housing, L.P. by Paul Page, and also Craig and Joann Guhlke.


Location. The location of the proposed street vacation is 811 East “D” Street on
the north side of “D” Street 50 feet east of where North 9th Street meets “D” Street
from the south; parcel numbers 191318-43488, 43533 & 43489.


Petition. The petitioners request the vacation of the undeveloped portion of
North 9th Street lying northerly of the north right-of-way line of East “D” Street in
order to provide additional land for their development of multifamily housing in
this area. The petition for vacation was signed by the owners of the properties
abutting the east and west sides of the street right-of-way proposed for vacation
which comprise at least two-thirds of the properties abutting the right-of-way. But
the petition was not signed by the owners of the property abutting the north side of
the street right-of-way whose properties could potentially be served by the


Vaughn Bay Construction                  2
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
undeveloped portion of North 9th Street in the future. Those owners are LeeLynn,
Inc., Wiley Mt., Inc. and Boise Cascade who have leased the land abutting the
north boundary of the 100-foot-wide right-of-way on a long-term basis to Yakima
Resources, LLC. LeeLynn, Inc., Wiley Mt., Inc. and Yakima Resources, LLC
submitted letters and/or testimony against the proposed vacation, as did Gary
Lukehart and several residents of the area.


Notices. The Yakima City Council set February 24, 2005 as the date for the
public hearing regarding this request for vacation of undeveloped street right-of-
way for North 9th Street north of “D” Street by Resolution No. R-2005-38 in
accordance with RCW 35.79.010. Notice of the hearing was posted on the right-
of-way to be vacated, was posted in three public places and was mailed to all
owners abutting the street rights-of-way to be vacated as required by RCW
35.79.020. Notice also was given in addition to the minimum legal requirements.
Notice of the open record public hearing was given as follows:

    Mailing of notice to property owners within 500 feet     January 13, 2005
    Posting of notice on area to be vacated                  January 20, 2005
    Posting of notice in three public places                 January 20, 2005
    Publishing of notice in Yakima Herald-Republic           January 27, 2005
    Mailing of notice of rescheduled hearing to property     January 27, 2005
       owners within 500 feet



Environmental Review. Street vacations are categorically exempt from SEPA
review in accordance with WAC 197-11-800(2)(h) and Chapter 6.88 of the
Yakima Municipal Code.




Vaughn Bay Construction                  3
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
Transportation Capacity Management Ordinance. A traffic study was not
required for this petition for vacation of undeveloped street right-of-way.


Zoning and Land Use. The area proposed for vacation is technically not zoned.
But surrounding properties on the east and west are in the Multi-Family
Residential (R-3) zoning district and any vacated street right-of-way would receive
that zoning designation. Adjacent properties have the following characteristics:

     Direction               Zoning                            Land Use
      North            Heavy Industrial (M-2)          Boise Cascade (Lumber Mill)
      South         Single-Family Residential (R-1)      Residential development
      West          Multi-Family Residential (R-3)       Residential development
      East             Light Industrial (M-1)                    Vacant

Development Services Team.                No comments were submitted at the
Development Services Team meeting held on January 26, 2005 to discuss the
possible impacts of the proposed vacation of the undeveloped portion of North 9th
Street right-of-way located north of “D” Street.


Criteria for the Vacation of Street Rights-of-Way. The hearing examiner
finds that five of the six criteria for vacating street rights-of-way have been
satisfied in favor of granting this petition, but that a serious concern was
established by the weight of the evidence relative to one of the required criteria:


        A) Criteria That are Established. The weight of the evidence submitted
relative to this petition establishes that the following five criteria in the City‟s
policies to be considered in determining the propriety and requisites of street right-
of-way vacations are in fact satisfied by this petition:


Vaughn Bay Construction                    4
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
                i) Public Benefit and Reasons Supporting the Proposed Vacation
        and the Limits of the Proposed Vacation. The proposed vacation would
        allow the development of a limited area of undeveloped street right-of-way
        in conjunction with the petitioners‟ multi-family residential development.
        The proposed in-fill of this vacant property by development of multi-family
        residential facilities on that area would help provide needed quality housing
        for low income and homeless adults and their children.


                ii) Necessity for the Right-of-Way as Access to Property.
        Approval of the request would not eliminate the sole means of access that is
        currently necessary for any parcel of property.


                iii) Consistency with the Six Year Transportation Improvement
        Plan, the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and other Official City
        Plans and Policies. The current Transportation Improvement Plan does
        not indicate any planned improvements to this portion of North 9th Street.
        The future use of the vacated property as part of a multi-family residential
        development would be consistent with the Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
        and other official City plans and policies. The proposed use would be a
        Class (1) use permitted outright in the Multi-Family Residential (R-3)
        zoning district where the street right-of-way is located. Termination of this
        right-of-way would not impede or impact current traffic patterns in the area.


                iv) Provisions for Relocation of Existing Utilities or Easements
        for Existing Utilities. Relocation of existing utilities or easements for




Vaughn Bay Construction                   5
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
        existing utilities would not be necessary because no existing utilities are
        located within the area proposed for vacation


                v) Fair Market Appraisal and Compensation to the City.
        Compensation to the City would not be necessary under City Resolution D-
        5630 because the City has neither purchased, maintained nor made any
        improvements to the portion of the right-of-way here proposed for vacation.


        B) Criteria That is At Issue. At issue here is the one criteria relating to
“Consistency with Existing and Anticipated Development in the Area, Based on
Zoning, Current Use and Long-Range Plans.”          There is opposition from the
owners and from the long-term lessee of abutting properties due to their possible
future need for the right-of-way and due to the damages that they claim will result
from its loss. Although the proposed street right-of-way vacation would be
consistent with the existing development in the area, there is a serious issue as to
whether it would be consistent with anticipated development in the area. The
following evidence supports a finding that the proposed street right-of-way
vacation would not be consistent with anticipated development in the area:


                i) Letter from Gary Lukehart. Mr. Lukehart‟s letter of January
        27, 2005 indicates that there have been conversations since 2003 with the
        purchasers of the Boise Cascade properties about future development of the
        southeast portion of their property; that Bill Cook and Glen Rice have
        discussed the possibility of using Brownfield funds for removal of solid
        waste on the property; that a major commercial development could be
        undertaken on the property abutting the undeveloped North 9th Street right-


Vaughn Bay Construction                   6
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
        of-way in conjunction with Jeld-Wen‟s parcels and Mr. Lukehart‟s
        properties that are available for that purpose; and that with these
        discussions underway it would be a mistake at this time to vacate a major
        access for this new commercial development currently being considered.


                ii) Letter from the long-term lessee, Yakima Resources, LLC,
        submitted by Jeff Demers. Mr. Demers‟ letter of February 14, 2005
        indicates that Yakima Resources, LLC would like to preserve this potential
        major access that could allow log trucks a more direct route to the mill in
        the future rather than having to turn onto “D” Street from North 9th Street
        and then onto North 8th Street from “D” Street and that could also facilitate
        future expansion and development of the operations and the property.


                iii) Letter from the attorney for the abutting owners LeeLynne,
        Inc. and Wiley Mt., Inc. Mr. Larry Gildea‟s letter of February 23, 2005
        indicates that his clients leased the property abutting the right-of-way
        proposed for vacation to Yakima Resources, LLC on the understanding that
        North 9th Street could provide future access to the leased property. The
        letter further indicates that vacation of the undeveloped right-of-way would
        restrict Yakima Resources‟ future access, would reduce the value of the
        property and would impair the ability to use the property for its highest and
        best use for which his clients would look to the City for just compensation.


                iv) Testimony submitted by Mr. Demers. Mr. Demers‟ testimony
        of February 24, 2005 indicated that the North 9th Street right-of-way could
        be utilized for higher and better uses in the future and that there are


Vaughn Bay Construction                   7
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
        potential future uses for that right-of-way to serve the 200 acres to the north
        in addition to just providing access by log trucks. He expressed a desire to
        keep options open for existing and future uses. He stated that it would be
        preferable to keep North 9th Street available as a possible access in addition
        to North 8th Street, particularly for the southwest portion of the property.


                v) Testimony of resident Premetra Williams.            Ms. Williams‟
        testimony indicated that the adult family home in her residence at the
        southeast corner of North 9th Street and “D” Street would be adversely
        affected in any event either by the proposed housing project because of
        increased traffic on those streets or by opening the undeveloped right-of-
        way to log truck traffic at sometime in the future.


                vi) Testimony of resident Phonsenette Lomax.              Ms. Lomax‟
        testimony indicated that from her place of residence on the southeast corner
        of North 9th Street and “D” Street she has seen log trucks knock signs down
        when turning from North 9th Street onto “D” Street, a problem that could
        perhaps be alleviated by a straighter route there than what currently exists.


                vii) Testimony of resident Bev Luby Bartz. Ms. Bartz‟ testimony
        indicated that the land to the north of the right-of-way can be used for a lot
        of uses in the future, but that if the right-of-way is vacated, it would not be
        available for future development, and future options would be limited.


                viii) Testimony of resident Lynne Kittelson.          Ms. Kittelson‟s
        testimony indicated that the vacation of the undeveloped North 9th Street


Vaughn Bay Construction                    8
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
        right-of-way would allow more units to be built which would in turn make
        the area more crowded and cause increased traffic to the south over North
        9th Street and to the west over “D” Street.


                ix) Testimony of resident Maud Scott.         Ms. Scott‟s testimony
        indicated that Yakima Resources should have the option to use this
        undeveloped right-of-way as an access in the future; that the proposed
        project would add traffic and create a bottleneck; that the petitioner‟s
        residents would either have to pass through the residential area on North 9th
        Street to the south or through the intersection having limited site distance at
        North 8th Street and “D” Street to the west; and that denial of the proposed
        street vacation petition would preserve the quality of life for residents, the
        safety for motorists and pedestrians, and the options for future development
        of the property to the north of the undeveloped street right-of-way.


        On the other hand, the following evidence supports the view that the
proposed street right-of-way vacation would be consistent with anticipated
development in the area:


                i) Letters and testimony of Paul Page. Mr. Page‟s letters of
        February 21 and March 8, 2005 and testimony of February 24, 2005
        indicated that North 9th Street should not be opened to log trucks in view of
        its width and residential character; that remedying the solid waste problem
        north of the undeveloped right-of-way could be a lengthy process; that
        North 9th Street is not needed for Mr. Lukehart‟s joint development that
        would utilize various properties north of North 9th Street because those


Vaughn Bay Construction                    9
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
        properties have frontages on Fair Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, North 10th
        Street, North 8th Street, and/or “D,” “E,” “F” and/or “G” Streets; that the
        petitioners‟ proposed multi-family use would provide a solid buffer
        between the single-family residential neighborhood on the south and the
        industrial use on the north; that the proposed use is consistent with the
        City‟s revitalization plan and would convert vacant land into new, tax-
        paying housing through the use of tax credits like those used to renovate the
        Commercial Hotel; that the proposed use would benefit the public by using
        federal tax credits to build high-quality, affordable housing to serve
        families earning between 30% and 60% of the median family income for
        this area and by providing housing for up to five homeless families; that
        existing accesses lead to the same areas as the North 9th Street right-of-way
        leads; that failure to vacate the North 9th Street right-of-way would require
        a 25% to 30% reduction in the proposed development which has already
        been reduced because a survey now shows less property than the GIS map
        showed when the property was purchased; that failure to vacate the right-
        of-way would require petitioners as a condition of development to construct
        a full street with curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and to possibly dedicate
        additional right-of-way; that North 9th Street is not a good method of access
        to property to the north due to its misalignment and width problems; that he
        has complied with all the requests of the City; and that Boise Cascade has
        failed to comment on the proposed street vacation even though it still owns
        36 acres abutting the undeveloped street right-of-way.


                ii) Testimony of Douglas Gray. Mr. Gray‟s testimony indicated
        that the singular lack of curb returns on the undeveloped North 9th Street


Vaughn Bay Construction                  10
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
        right-of-way would suggest that the City thought the right-of-way was
        already vacated when it installed the curbs; that notations of vacations are
        written on some City, County and title company maps; that the title
        company can locate no documentation of a vacation of any portion of the
        North 9th Street right-of-way involved in this petition; and that he cannot
        say whether access to northerly properties would be sufficient from 10th
        Avenue or Fair Avenue due to the need to go through adjacent properties.


                iii) Letter of Craig and Joann Guhlke. The February 17, 2005
        letter of Mr. and Mrs. Guhlke, who own a residence at 901 East “D” Street
        that would become a part of the proposed multi-family development,
        indicates that the alignment, width and residential nature of North 9th Street
        make it inappropriate for log trucks and make it appropriate for affordable
        housing that would be a nice addition to the neighborhood.


                iv) Letter and testimony of Louise Worden.            Ms. Worden‟s
        February 21, 2005 letter and February 24, 2005 testimony indicate that she
        believed the fence was the property line of the property she sold last year to
        one of the petitioners; that North 8th Street rather than North 9th Street is
        appropriate for log trucks; that the lumber mill will not remain inside the
        City limits much longer because of new environmental restrictions; that the
        petitioners‟ multi-family proposal would improve the neighborhood; that
        North 9th Street would not be a logical access for Mr. Lukehart‟s
        development which would likely be commercial rather than residential; and
        that Mr. Lukehart and Yakima Resources have many locations for
        accessing their properties other than North 9th Street.


Vaughn Bay Construction                   11
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
Legal Principles Regarding the Obligations to Owners of Properties
Abutting Vacated Streets. The following principles found in Washington
cases help to determine what duties the City may have and what remedies a
property owner may have relative to vacation of street rights-of-way that may be
needed for anticipated development. Pertinent principles from pertinent cases are:


        i) Banchero v. City Council, 2 Wn. App. 519, 468 P.2d 724 (1970) at
pages 522 and 523:

            “This doctrine allows compensation to those only who suffer an
        injury unlike that suffered by the public.
            There have been certain judicially created exceptions to this
        doctrine. One not suffering some special damage may challenge a
        vacation upon a proper allegation of fraud or collusion. Ponischil v.
        Hopquiam Sash & Door Co., 41 Wash. 303 83 P. 316 (1906);
        Capitol Hill Methodist Church v. Seattle, supra. Appellant here has
        made no allegation of fraud or collusion.
            Other cases support the idea that a street vacation will be stricken
        when it is not in the furtherance of some public use.
            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 street where all of the
            property owners adversely affected consent to the vacation. But
            in all instances, the order of vacation must have within it some
            element of public use, 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.”



Vaughn Bay Construction                    12
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
      ii) Hoskins v. Kirkland, 7 Wn. App. 957, 503 P.2d 1117 (1972) at pages
960 and 961:
      “… A public use may exist even if some private benefit may result.
      Banchero v. City Council, 2 Wn. App. 519, 468 P.2d 724 (1970).
      The power to vacate a public street exists notwithstanding some
      inconvenience will follow to others who are thereby deprived of
      street access they would otherwise have had. Thus, a person,
      whether or not a landowner, who sustains damage not different in
      kind even though different in degree from that suffered by others,
      has no legal basis for complaint. No legal right of such a person is
      violated by the street vacation and the damage sustained is damnum
      absque injuria. Accordingly, refusal to compensate him for his
      injury is not a taking of property without compensation in violation
      of U.S. Const. amend. 14 and Const. art. 1, § 16 (amendment 9).
      State v. Wineberg, 74 Wn.2d 372, 444 P.2d 787 (1968); Capitol Hill
      Methodist Church v. Seattle, 52 Wn.2d 359, 324 P.2d 1113 (1958);
      State v. Kodama, 4 Wn. App. 676, 483 P.2d 857 (1971); 11 E.
      McQuillan, supra §§ 30.192, 30.194.
          [3] It is only the landowner whose property abuts upon a street
      vacated or proposed to be vacated, or the nonabutting landowner
      who suffers special injury that may complain of illegality. Yarrow
      First Associates v. Clyde Hill, 66 Wn.2d 371, 403 P.2d 49 (1965);
      Kemp v. Seattle, 149 Wash. 197, 270 P. 431 (1928); Banchero v.
      City Council, supra; 11 E. McQuillan, supra § 30.192. Case law
      elsewhere on what constitutes special injury is divided. In
      Washington, at least in the absence of overriding public benefit, a
      landowner whose land becomes landlocked or whose access is
      substantially impaired as a result of a street vacation is said to
      sustain special injury. Yarrow First Associates v. Clyde Hill, supra;
      Capitol Hill Methodist Church v. Seattle, supra; Kemp v. Seattle,
      supra, Banchero v. City Council, supra; 11 E. McQuillan, supra §
      30.192. If, however, the landowner still retains an alternate mode of
      egress from or ingress to his land, even if less convenient, generally
      speaking he is not deemed specially damaged. He has no legal right
      to prevent the vacation because no legal right of his has been
      invaded. As stated in Capitol Hill Methodist Church v. Seattle,
      supra:
          To maintain this action, their right of access must be
          „destroyed or substantially affected,‟ or, to put it another way,


Vaughn Bay Construction              13
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
           their reasonable means of access must be obstructed, and they
           must suffer a special damage, different, in kind and not
           merely degree, from that sustained by the general public.
        52 Wn.2d at 366.”


      iii) Capitol Hill Methodist Church v. Seattle, 52 Wn.2d 359, 324 P.2d
1113 (1958) at pages 365 and 366:

               “The general rule supported by this court is that only
            abutting property owners, or those whose reasonable means
            of access has been obstructed, can question the vacation by
            the proper authorities. To warrant such interference with
            proceedings relative to street or road vacations, it must
            appear that the complaining parties suffered a special
            damage different in kind and not merely in degree from that
            sustained by the general public.” (Italics ours.)

               In Taft v. Washington Mutual Savings Bank, 127 Wash. 503,
            221 Pac. 604 (1923), this court stated:

                “We conclude that the correct rule is that only those
            directly abutting on the portion of the street or alley vacated,
            or alleged to be obstructed, or those whose rights of access
            are substantially affected, have such a special interest as to
            enable them to maintain an action. The further rule,
            deducible from our own cases and the authorities generally, is
            that owners of property abutting on a street or alley have no
            vested right in such street or alley except to the extent that
            their access may not be unreasonably restricted or
            substantially affected. Owners who do not abut, such as
            respondents here, and whose access is not destroyed or
            substantially affected, have no vested rights which are
            substantially affected.” (Italics ours.)

               We find, in 11 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations (3d ed.)
            146, § 30.194, the following statement:




Vaughn Bay Construction                   14
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
                “On the other hand, if the street directly in front of one‟s
            property is not vacated but the portion vacated is in another
            block, so that he may use an intersecting cross street,
            although perhaps it is not quite so short a way nor as
            convenient, it is almost universally held that he does not
            suffer such a special injury as entitles him to damages. And
            this is so notwithstanding the new route is less convenient or
            the diversion of travel depreciates the value of his property.
            The fact that the lot owner may be inconvenienced or that he
            may have to go a more roundabout way to reach certain
            points, it is generally held, does not bring him an injury
            different in kind from the general public, but in degree only.
            „If means of ingress and egress are not cut off or lessened in
            the block of the abutting owner, but only rendered less
            convenient because of being less direct to other points in the
            city, and made so by the vacation of the street in another
            block, such consequence is damnum absque injuria.‟” (Italics
            ours.)

                [2] It must be borne in mind that the appellants in this case
            are not abutting owners of property on the portion of the street
            vacated by the city of Seattle. To maintain this action, their right
            of access must be “destroyed or substantially affected,” or, to put
            it another way, their reasonable means of access must be
            obstructed, and they must suffer a special damage, different, in
            kind and not merely degree, from that sustained by the general
            public. This, they have failed to show by their pleadings and
            affidavits.

                [3] They contend that east John street is their principal means
            of access and the closing thereof will deprive them of the most
            direct and convenient access to their respective properties. This
            allegation is insufficient under the above authorities to allow the
            appellants to maintain this action. The only practical effect the
            vacation has on the appellants‟ properties is the deflection of
            traffic one block to Denny Way and east Thomas street. This is
            too slight a consideration to be controlling in this case. See
            Mottman v. Olympia, 45 Wash. 361, 88 Pac. 579 (1907).”



Vaughn Bay Construction                    15
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
Application of Legal Principals to Facts of this Petition. The legal
principals suggest that Mr. Gildea‟s letter indicating that the abutting
owners would look to the City for just compensation if this vacation
petition is granted asserts an arguable claim. Regardless of the merits of
that claim, the weight of evidence establishes a possible use of the
undeveloped portion of North 9th Street in connection with anticipated
future development of abutting property on the north which warrants denial
of the street vacation under the City‟s policies.       If the vacation were
granted, that possible use of North 9th Street in connection with future
development would be foreclosed.          If the vacation is denied and the
abutting owners utilize the street for future access to property to the north,
it is possible that traffic will then be allowed to also circulate to the north,
west and/or east rather than all be funneled onto “D” Street and/or North 9th
Street to the south in the manner that would result from granting this
petition. It is also possible that realignment of the street more in line with
the existing street may be accomplished if it is utilized to access future
development. On balance, although there are cogent arguments both ways,
the hearing examiner believes that the weight of evidence favors leaving
options for potential access and traffic circulation alternatives open for
possible future development north of the undeveloped right-of-way for
North 9th Street rather than irrevocably foreclosing all options at this time.


                                    CONCLUSIONS


    1. The hearing examiner has jurisdiction and authority by virtue of Subsection
1.43.080(H) of the Yakima Municipal Code to conduct open record public


Vaughn Bay Construction                   16
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
hearings regarding petitions and resolutions to vacate streets and public rights-of-
way and to make recommendations to the City Council relative thereto.


    2. All public notice requirements for a street vacation have been completed in
accordance with applicable statutory and ordinance requirements.


    3. SEPA review was not required because street right-of-way vacations are
categorically exempt from SEPA review.


    4. A traffic analysis report was not required for this petition for street right-of-
way vacation.


    5. All but one of the criteria under the City‟s street vacation policies are
satisfied by this petition, but failure to establish that criteria as to consistency with
anticipated development in the area requires denial of this petition.


                                    RECOMMENDATION


       The hearing examiner recommends to the Yakima City Council that the
petition for vacation of the North 9th Street right-of way lying north of “D” Street
described in the documentation for UAZO R/W VAC #4-04 should be DENIED.


    DATED this 25th day of March, 2005.



                                            _________________________________
                                            Gary M. Cuillier, Hearing Examiner


Vaughn Bay Construction                    17
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04
Vaughn Bay Construction             18
Vacation of Street Right-of-Way
Ptn. of 9th St. at 811 E. “D” St.
Right-of-Way Vacation #4-04

				
DOCUMENT INFO