Shoreline Permit
VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET
Please sign in and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list
to receive future agendas and minutes.
ALL CITY HEARING EXAMINER MEETINGS ARE AUDIO TAPED. FOR INFORMATION ON OBTAINING A
COPY PLEASE CALL YELM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 360-458-3835
MEETING: YELM HEARING EXAMINER DATE: AUGUST 4, 2003
TIME: 9:00 AM LOCATION: YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Hearing: 1. Benum/Coyne Subdivision and Shoreline Permit, SUB-02-8329-YL
NAME & ADDRESS MAILING LIST? / SPEAKER?
(Indicate which public hearing by
the assigned numbers above)
il ~r DNS
City of Yelm
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 947
Yelm, WA 98597
(360) 458-3244
To: Stephen Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner
From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development
Date: July 31, 2003
Subj: Revised Staff Report
BenumjCoyne Subdivision and Shoreline Permit, SUB-02-8329-YL
Applicant: Robert Coyne and Robert Benum
Benum Enterprises
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
Agent: Terry Brink
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson, & Daheim, LLP
1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2200
P.O. Box 1157
Tacoma, WA 98401-1157
Engineer: James Crippen, P.E.
2601 South 35th Street, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
Background: After the preparation of the staff report dated June 17, 2003, and before
the originally scheduled public hearing on this matter, the applicants and Community
Development staff held a series of meetings in order develop a revised site plan that
staff could support in relation to the proposed 5101507 Loop and met the applicants
goals for the development.
In consideration of the accommodation demonstrated by the applicants with respect to
the proposed 510/507, the City is issuing this Revised Staff Report as a supplement to
the original Staff Report dated June 17, 2003. The original Staff Report shall remain
operative and have vitality except: (i) when any provision(s) included in the Revised
Staff Report conflict with it, in which event, the Revised Staff Report shall prevail; and
(ii) with respect to the following provisions included in the original Staff Report that are
hereby expressly deleted:
a. The fourth Finding on page 7;
b. The fifth Finding on page 7;
C. The sole Conclusion on page 8;
d. The proposed alternative conditions of approval 6.A. on page 8; and
e. The proposed condition 15.A. on page 14.
Revisions to Site Plan: In order to maintain the size of the proposed lots, the revised
site plan includes 104 lots rather than the originally proposed 108 and this is only
accomplished by utilizing the open space areas normally required by the code.
The revised site plan contains the following changes from the original proposal:
To meet the open space requirements of the Code, the applicant's have utilized
the City owned railroad right of way and will construct a pedestrian trail along the
property frontage. This trail has been planned for by the City and is a 10 foot
asphalt walkway with a fence separating the trail from the railroad tracks.
Because the tracks are not yet utilized by the City, the applicant will not be
required to construct the separation fence.
Landscaping requirements along the railroad right of way and the power canal
are waived, as these natural features accomplish the same goal of separating
adjacent land uses as the required landscaping. The original proposal included a
6 foot board fence along these two boundaries, which is also waived because it
was part of the landscaping requirements.
The road section within the subdivision is modified to eliminate one lane of on-
street parking with landscape islands on the other side of the street to clearly
define the remaining single parking lane.
Flag lots and lots with narrow frontages on cul-de-sacs will utilize shared
driveways. Homes on some flag lots will have the garages oriented to the side of
the property and will be located behind the face of the building.
The applicant's engineer has determined on a preliminary basis that the water
system does not need to be looped to provide fire flow if the line is upsized to a
12 inch line from the point of connection to the subdivision. Within the
subdivision, the main size will be smaller and will vary in diameter.
The City of Yelm will reconstruct or waive the reconstruction of City and County
roads disturbed during the installation of the water and sewer lines.
The applicants will be entitled to a latecomers agreement for the installation of
water and sewer lines pursuant to Chapter 13.12 YMC entitled "Assessment
Reimbursement Contracts (Latecomers Agreements)".
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 2 of 5
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve the amended subdivision with the
following changes to the conditions proposed in the June 17, 2003, staff report.
New Condition 1.A. Setbacks shall be as shown on the revised site plan dated July 17,
2003.
New Condition 3.A. The applicant shall construct a 10 foot wide asphalt pedestrian trail
as identified in the Yelm Rail with Trail proposal for acquisition of
the railroad right of way, provided that a fence shall not be
constructed along the subdivision frontage within the City of Yelm
railroad right of way. This shall satisfy the open space
requirements of Chapter 14.12 YMC by providing usable public
open space.
New Condition 5.E. The neighborhood collector road standard shall be modified for all
roads within the subdivision to include:
A 5 foot (5) sidewalk;
A six foot (6') planting strip;
A one and one half foot (1 Y2') rolled concrete curb;
Two eleven foot (11') asphalt travel lanes;
A nine foot (9) parking lane with period landscape planters to
clearly delineate the parking area;
A one and one half foot (1 '/2') rolled concrete curb;
A six foot (6') planting strip.
A road section prepared by the Applicant's engineer is included in the revised site plan
dated July 17, 2003, which represents the specifications acceptable to the City of Yelm.
New Condition 5.F. Shared driveways will be allowed for the following lots:
21 and 22 52, 53, and 54 72 and 73
23 and 24 55 and 56 80 and 81
25 and 26 57 and 58 82 and 83
27 and 28 62 and 63 84 and 85
35, 36, 37, and 38 65 and 66 87 and 88
39 and 40 68 and 69 89 and 90
41 and 42 70 and 71 91 and 92
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 3 of 5
Replacement of Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes in relevant
fourth finding on part the following policy regarding right-of-way:
page 7 of original
staff report: To retain existing right-of-way and to identify,
acquire, and preserve rights-of-way
Replacement of Although the revised site plan does not result in the retention of
conclusion on page existing right-of-way, or the identifying, acquiring and
8 of original staff preservation of a right-of-way, it, together with revised Condition
report: 6.A. below, affords the City additional time in the development
process to accelerate its efforts to obtain sufficient funding to
begin condemnation of the desired right-of-way for the proposed
510/507 corridor by delaying the issuance of building permits on
the lots situated within said proposed corridor.
Replacement No building permit shall issue for any of the lots listed below, all of
Condition 6.A. which are situated in Phase II of the subdivision and within the
proposed 5101507 corridor, until building permits have been issued
for every other lot located outside the corridor: 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84,
85, 86 and 87. Once building permits are issued on all other lots
than those listed above, the applicant may apply for building
permits on any and all of the lots listed above without regard to the
sequence or number of lots.
New Condition 8.C. The City of Yelm will coordinate and be responsible for the
reconstruction of N.P. Road and Wilkensen Road after installation
of the water line by the applicant. Civil plan review and approval
shall include the timing of installation to coordinate with the City's
road maintenance program and condition of the backfilled utility
trench. The processing of the applicants' final plat approval shall
not be delayed due to the timing of the City's satisfaction of this
condition.
New Condition 9.C.
The City of Yelm will coordinate and be responsible for the
reconstruction of N.P. Road and Wilkensen Road after installation
of the sewer line by the applicant. Civil plan review and approval
shall include the timing of installation to coordinate with the City's
road maintenance program and condition of the backfilled utility
trench. The processing of the applicants' final plat approval shall
not be delayed due to the timing of the City's satisfaction of this
condition.
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 4 of 5
Replacement The applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan to
Condition 15.A. include the perimeter of the project site, planter strips, open space,
and stormwater facilities. The landscaping requirements for the
northern and eastern boundaries of the property adjacent to the
Centralia power canal and the City's railroad right of way are
waived, including the previously planned fencing. Landscaping
within remaining common open space areas, tracts A and B, shall
be Type VII, or lawn, at the sole discretion of the Applicant.
Based on the Analysis and Findings, and the Conditions of Approval above, staff
recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve SUB-02-8329-YL.
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 5 of 5
=~A City o 'elm
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 947
Yelm, WA 98597
Y E L3Vd (360) 458-3-944
To: Stephen Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner
From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development
Date: July 31, 2003
Subj: Revised Staff Report
B'enumICoyne Subdivision and Shoreline Permit, SUB-02-8329-YL
Applicant: Robert Coyne and Robert Benum
Benum Enterprises
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
Agent: Terry Brink
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson, & Daheim, LLP
1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2200
P.O. Box 1157
Tacoma, WA 98401-1157
Engineer: James Crippen, P.E.
2601 South 35~h Street, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
Background: After the preparation of the staff report dated June 17, 2003, and before
the originally scheduled public hearing on this matter, the applicants and Community
Development staff held a series of meetings in order develop a revised site plan that
staff could support in relation to the proposed 510507 Loop and met the applicants
goals for the development.
In consideration of the accommodation demonstrated by the applicants with respect to
the proposed 510/507, the City is issuing this Revised Staff Report as a supplement to
the original Staff Report dated June 17, 2003. The original Staff Report shall remain
operative and have vitality except: (i) when any provision(s) included in the Revised
Staff Report conflict with it, in which event, the Revised Staff Report shall prevail; and
(ii) with respect to the following provisions included in the original Staff Report that are
hereby expressly deleted:
a. The fourth Finding on page 7;
b. The fifth Finding on page 7;
C. The sole Conclusion on page 8;
d. The proposed alternative conditions of approval 6.A. on page 8; and
e. The proposed condition 15.A. on page 14.
Revisions to Site Plan; In order to maintain the size of the proposed lots, the revised
site plan includes 104 lots rather than the originally proposed 108 and this is only
accomplished by utilizing the open space areas normally required by the code.
The revised site plan contains the following changes from the original proposal:
To meet the open space requirements of the Code, the applicant's have utilized
the City owned railroad right of way and will construct a pedestrian trail along the
property frontage. This trail has been planned for by the City and is a 10 foot
asphalt walkway with a fence separating the trail from the railroad tracks.
Because the tracks are not yet utilized by the City, the applicant will not be
required to construct the separation fence.
Landscaping requirements along the railroad right of way and the power canal
are waived, as these natural features accomplish the same goal of separating
adjacent land uses as the required landscaping. The original proposal included a
6 foot board fence along these two boundaries, which is also waived because it
was part of the landscaping requirements.
The road section within the subdivision is modified to eliminate one lane of on-
street parking with landscape islands on the other side of the street to clearly
define the remaining single parking lane.
Flag lots and lots with narrow frontages on cul-de-sacs will utilize shared
driveways. Homes on some flag lots will have the garages oriented to the side of
the property and will be located behind the face of the building.
The applicant's engineer has determined on a preliminary basis that the water
system does not need to be looped to provide fire flow if the line is upsized to a
12 inch line from the point of connection to the subdivision. Within the
subdivision, the main size will be smaller and will vary in diameter.
The City of Yelm will reconstruct or waive the reconstruction of City and County
roads disturbed during the installation of the water and sewer lines.
The applicants will be entitled to a latecomers agreement for the installation of
water and sewer lines pursuant to Chapter 13.12 YMC entitled "Assessment
Reimbursement Contracts (Latecomers Agreements)".
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve the amended subdivision with the
following changes to the conditions proposed in the June 17, 2003, staff report.
New Condition I.A. Setbacks shall be as shown on the revised site plan dated July 17,
2003.
New Condition 3.A. The applicant shall construct a 10 foot wide asphalt pedestrian trail
as identified in-the Yelm Rail with Trail proposal for acquisition of
the railroad right of way, provided that a fence shall not be
constructed along the subdivision frontage within the City of Yelm
railroad right of way. This shall satisfy the open space
requirements of Chapter 14.12 YMC by providing usable public
open space.
New Condition 5.E. The neighborhood collector road standard shall be modified for all
roads within the subdivision to include:
A 5 foot (5) sidewalk;
A six foot (6') planting strip;
A one and one half foot (1 W) rolled concrete curb;
Two eleven foot (11') asphalt travel lanes;
A nine foot (9') parking lane with period landscape planters to
clearly delineate the parking area;
A one and one half foot-(1 W) rolled concrete curb;
A six foot (6') planting strip.
A road section prepared by the Applicant's engineer is included in the revised site plan
dated July 17, 2003, which represents the specifications acceptable to the City of Yelm.
New Condition 51. Shared driveways will be allowed for the following lots:
21 and 22 52, 53, and 54 72 and 73
23 and 24 55 and 56 80 and 81
25 and 26 57 and 58 82 and 83
27 and 28 62 and 63 84 and 85
35, 36, 37, and 38 65 and 66 87 and 88
39 and 40 68 and 69 89 and 90
41 and 42 70 and 71 91 and 92
Replacement of Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes in relevant
fourth finding on part the following policy regarding right-of-way:
page 7 of original
staff report: To retain existing right-of-way and to identify,
acquire, and preserve rights-of-way....
Replacement of Although the revised site plan does not result in the retention of
conclusion on page existing right-of-way, or the identifying, acquiring and
8 of original staff preservation of a right-of-way, it, together.with revised Condition
report: 6.A. below, affords the City additional time in the development
process to accelerate its efforts to obtain sufficient funding to
begin condemnation of the desired right-of-way for the proposed
510/507 corridor by.delaying the issuance of building permits on
the lots situated within said proposed corridor.
Replacement No building permit shall issue for any of the lots listed below, all of
Condition 6.A. which are situated in Phase 11 of the subdivision and within the
proposed 5101507 corridor, until building permits have been issued
for every other lot located outside the corridor: 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, . 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84,
85, 86 and 87. Once building permits are issued on all other lots
than those listed above, the applicant may apply for building
permits on any and all of the lots listed above without regard to the
sequence or number of lots.
New Condition 8.C. The City of Yelm will coordinate and be responsible for the
reconstruction of N.P. Road and Wilkensen Road after installation
of the water line by the applicant. Civil plan review and approval
shall include the timing of installation to coordinate with the City's
road maintenance program and condition of the backfiiled utility
trench. The processing of the applicants' final plat approval shall
not be delayed due to the timing of the City's satisfaction of this
condition.
New Condition 9.C.
The City of Yelm will coordinate and be responsible for the
reconstruction of N.P. Road and Wilkensen Road after installation
of the sewer line by the applicant. Civil plan review and approval
shall include the timing of installation to coordinate with the City's
road maintenance program and condition of the backfilled utility
trench. The processing of the applicants' final plat approval shall
not be delayed due to the timing of the City's satisfaction of this
condition.
Replacement The applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan to
Condition 15.A. include the perimeter of the project site, planter strips, open space,
and stormwater facilities. The landscaping requirements for the
northern and eastern boundaries of the property adjacent to the
Centralia power canal and the City's railroad right of way are
waived, including the previously planned fencing. Landscaping
within remaining common open space areas, tracts A and B, shall
be Type 1lli, or lawn, at the sole discretion of the Applicant.
Based on the Analysis and Findings, and the Conditions of Approval above, staff
recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve SUB-02-3329-YL.
6690-CO (900 !Vel t6tt-CLt (900
r OQ~ 3~1?'JS y///' (YO/,G/J9/~/OO/il/ LI/7pr I 5559.9V0(m)t GM-60t96 uol6ulycoM """I ` NI
J-y 0L696'VM'dniivAOd 006 oilnS 41ST 41rw5 1092 I
ZO- /G 31vO OEMXOS'O•d O
oN : 1839INdN3LN3WNN38010 . 6UIaaU16Ul / O
ONO&IQ
~Z H J. G/ 036 O ' G\ ±3NA00'l12l38021 tNSf lO
WXCGHO
a7Pna'VV X lmmwwa lyld AHVNIWll3Ud ammaOW X;)U w Q
rr73/la'ds N°~~O ava NOU,dII-naaa No16 H ON 3S IN N f 1 S N Ibrl N f 1 OW \17 cn
o. 3wi
O. N GMMVNt~(s /Y3G /a 7 'H S?npl? =waovNvn 1o=lroa-i
0
z w
v.H n~ g ~ LL ~SN_ c 2_N
z c co a f {;Oo 0O
w Fj '3 N OW VLLiO aod0 ~~~0
HiubtaN
d" Q. °~m cWi wZ ' z rn7ro Nw3o <
Q c W OZ rz Y3 Z
N w d= ~ _
Alp J W z AN L4og6 6 _°-~N3o"oa w rv~N f7~o d~
N 4 w ~pP a Z •~c 7a ~Ls~3 O ~G
J °d ya Q 98v~ EQy wLL o hWO~ 2 ~Ny o'~yc~ z
II'~~ o-OGAA~ C 92 N
K~ UJ 0NWII~L 0-u UWC-~WW ~U?z11?N~
W 6g s~~ m l O^t~+-x~~s• Z (n ~Yz 1~i jy a o~Y~ = C
va NoSNaa7iM' ep a~ YQ Z Q(o3 Q_' o m!< "T z ~Sd c/N3(~ c7 Y rdo rNF,po sN
V .=,•M $p y... N }U N WI'
WWO-UOcSN U ~LLtnLLK rvr7SLL NC ry<
CK7Z Za" ~a~?00F•-•
Q ~o $u ~~Z a~ °1 tli 0~ yWWZt.O LLO~a Q~QOx
3A/DYI u+ •r9 hs>' =9 WR Q O:N~ rn~r•+NrLLnN UIUyW Co
v o v E 0 ,SSQo jz owwz C
W/ W W:Z.w° Q + W~~n c~~i ~ w
v0Nf o 0
R Q r. a• Ll y. w W Wtn;z Q S y SQL ~ z O J aN Y Y i
~`6 z 0. n F_ }O~ ?O~-. -+U~WOLU~..4 ^.l Tl ll - ~m0 C O L)
oa' /?Olo/Mll MN °3z = J 5 z~ x J ctiU O~ z~0SP, uo7~~iCiUNN S°y 0 < rW°-• r
id 9 u qr9.~. /n LL W u Ad~$ cg W~tGy, t°n' .a.~p~dC~ccbsj~o jY `4 c~
~FxS Z LwL J J S J aFC7 0. dn:UW MH V11- } } }
pw
rp~ \ ROr z>. v~}uY l- ~i=u p.u k~k ~bNh>
~ZO(719- IK-2 ~-M i
V U OF• ln~y N WO ONUOj r-•~
W U O~ Va i
IU ` 'LLKo WQZIZ-C lj N<~ WQQ Wnh >~~'C .a
{J~ OnN N UlW LL NW T 6 S O ~ Ww ' WO¢ 3
¢ } z 0 _
l(~W $wY o FNa ~ R~ h U o uiOwuu
°0 orc zn l w ~~o a w
~h"u m ~INao`
6~~?U~ LLUtUwyN~u~~ OOW U=?UO O <~Oa
WOW On°S~gKA jUQ U QO<W=JU W ~aNw
N 7 a
VL? N~ j \ Z~z wFUN OQONVN= by wN, u Olm lh-~d S WWOF<
1~jpl \ 07~y WU~ oW~ <"Z O U-O<i
~Zlu NW rC .-U ~'Kn ri.d~ 1~1 4 0: ~FZU
la' `q\ < am} <8o002arl }<O ~USW omO w Nl'O<Oi
Or~ 4 ON~Z h0~w0 m Z 4`O
W O fin ` Zw0} omw E?LL UNO } 022L.>0 5f0+ 0
v~wZ W Y OF-t ~wO ~lj' '~r`vLLONaa O-M
W ~i0 1 N>~0r9 o~i ayu"lo~°o~z K_€mo ~L do~w~ gym- 4fj oW~WQ
SODf/~ J sh N~n6 2J O Zos W
(n Q / Z(., 2Q. F<<-n0 d OrC fV'l~uW. 6 ,-~~N W 2}OQn, S =-~wVwO
-I1. ' Z YO f~l/JJ}~ N(SZ WZO WOK FE VNh-O rw~r K=mOS
~ &7SS N•NL HE 4h JUK0>
W W UO LL 0
; a~ O°o°n'oSOS T8
-ko }W~4 !=m °wy~ot
N~y ' Sp~p / ~d /.I^ Q L j ay uF~t~_Z ~'O tmO r0 ~O gip` O
trap / O, _I~~/ OJ dWh ownlwFxp-,F-r¢uwl snc'~w l-S u<io<oy
V . F n lq~ .i =U UUu...W<O K
N~LL ,L S5..N 07 1U=~W O_ l-~N
y NI_a MOlunWtn~aW WZO~j Hi>.-
L Zov~ xwr-a~S:aoO OU.3i= §a 1OV~w m~ low<x
U ~S ~~h Mmrn lULm N U>ann.-
.W~0 LL•/O/'),' ~~vII mr~
F- p o
„ ~ N ~ ~ / a. ~ ~ 'lam ~ \ ~ s`,~sd a
w Lli
g~
O u i<
v-
F-' Q cr $ S, ' ' v~ `tom o
Qg +
UA n raw= - ~ ~ E b
Z
IiJ-+ S q ~ tY
W / ~ F O v ~ ~ _ -S9 OQ q 'c N •"V1 ~ 1 \ ~ U ` ~
Z
Z. Z
U) FL
U r ~ /h0 sr vl' \ o ~ V k rnw=KV++ I "a~
W O J IL -A
i . O Z J j~. yG0/ f f ;gyp 54'ti~t h r. n.Hla=mr _~t~€
W C'1 ' a titi 2 < „yca~ • C~M n~a
a
\ /J
LL w
16 A
® f
LL.
p t~ a °
NN%
^ O \ sa J/~ ~4tiV ~D Ft 6 + o'~oOI ~,do}ff~
\o q~ o O'(G ~d7,~•
1 - pdy Eo, ~y ~0 y 7
LIL
r
/ / M I ,oar r- =cl ~ ~ m a H_~)vsSQ~
r AlNO N3S fl O 30
T'N'd'V ALNg00 NOISNNHLI.WS33dOlS.OL .
/ ~d"0 w \60~
$ I Z a I
I o °
:D z
W Ric . CAe,,R;pv U (7 N W \
z Q Z 1-
Z? RHO O V LL
LL 06
6 O o ~ v o Z
Hl~ON s z0 0
t+ e_~, N Z ~3~a Q F- Q of
~C W
D F-
a
p Q ~ U
C1 ?Mu
z E-
z F-- U)
TCity of Yelm
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 947
Yelm, WA 98597
YELM (360) 458-3244
WAa",NGTOM
To: Stephen Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner
From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development
Date: June 17, 2003
Subj: BenumjCoyne Subdivision and Shoreline Permit, SUB-02-8329-YL
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit I Site Plan and Application Packet
Exhibit II Notice of Application
Exhibit III Revised Determination of Non-Significance and
Comments
Exhibit IV Public Hearing Notice
Exhibit V Shea Group Technical Memorandum - Canal Road
Exhibit VI Shea Group Memorandum - Y3 Corridor
Exhibit VII Map of Impacted Lots
Applicant: Robert Coyne and Robert Benum
Benum Enterprises
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
Agent: Terry Brink
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson, & Daheim, LLP
1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2200
P.O. Box 1157
Tacoma, WA 98401-1157
Engineer: James Crippen, P.E.
2601 South 35th Street, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 28.02 acres into X
single-family residential lots in two phases. The property is zoned R-4 Low Density
Residential, which allows up to 4 dwelling units per acre.
Location: The property is located on the east side of Wilkensen Road, bounded on the
north by the Centralia Power Canal and on the east by the YelmlRoy Prairie Line
Railroad, in a portion of Sections 17 and 20, Township 17 North, Range 2 West, W.M.
The property is identified by Assessor's Tax Parcel Numbers 64301200100 and
22717330100.
Description of Property: The subject property is a triangular parcel of land
approximately 28.02 acres in area, bounded on the north by the Centralia Power Canal,
on the southeast by the YelmlRoy Prairie Line Railroad, and on the west by Wilkensen
Road.
The Centralia Power Canal was constructed in the 1920's to provide hydroelectric
power to the City of Centralia. Water from the Nisqually River is diverted to the power
canal and serves the hydroelectric generating facility located west of the City of Yelm.
The power canal is a shoreline of the state pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act
and it's rules.
The YelmlRoy Prairie Line Railroad is a City owned short line railroad that, although is
unused at this time, will serve Yelm's industrial area located southwest of the project
site. The right-of-way and tracks are both owned by the City of Yelm.
The property also is bisected by a natural gas pipeline owned by the Olympic Pipeline
Company and located within a 30 foot easement which generally runs along the eastern
property line. At the northern end of the property, the easement is approximately 230
feet west of the property line, creating a triangular portion of the site that is detached
from the main portion of the property by the pipeline. This area would include the
recreational open space, a portion of the stormwater facilities, and three lots.
The property is very flat and level, ranging in elevation from approximately 224 feet to
336 feet. The northeast corner of the property is the lowest point of the property and is
the proposed location for the stormwater facilities.
The property is currently vacant with scotch broom and several Douglas Fir trees.
Notice of Application, SEPA, and Public Hearing: Notice of this application was
mailed to state and local agencies, and property owners within 300 feet of the project
site on February 2, 2003. Public Notice of the date and time of the Public Hearing was
posted on the project site, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site,
and mailed to the recipients of the Notice of Application June 17, 2003, and advertised
in the local newspaper on June 13, 2003.
The City has performed an environmental review, including review of a transportation
analysis, and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on February 7, 2003,
with a comment deadline of September February 21, 2003, and an appeal deadline of
February 28, 2003. Based on comments received during the comment period, the City
revised and reissued the Mitigated DNS on May 23, 2003, with an appeal deadline of
June 6, 2003. No appeal of the revised MDNS was filed.
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 2 of 15
Staff Analysis and Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. Lot Size and Setbacks:
Finding - The R-4 zoning district does not have a minimum or maximum lot size,
although it does require standard yard setbacks of 15 feet from the front property
line adjacent to local access road (with a minimum 20 foot driveway approach), 5
feet from side property lines (with a minimum of 12 feet between the two side
yards), and 25 feet from the rear property line.
The setback on a flanking yard is 15 feet from the property line.
The maximum building coverage. allowed is 50% and the maximum development
coverage is 75% of the lot.
Conclusion - The lots within the proposed preliminary subdivision appear to
contain sufficient area for subsequent development to meet setback and lot
coverage requirements.
2. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning:
Finding - Properties to the north and southeast of the subject property are in
unincorporated Thurston County. The area southeast of the property is within
Yelm's Urban Growth Area. The area to the north is zoned Rural Residential 2/1
(1 home per'/2 acre), the area to the northeast and southeast is zoned Rural
Residential 1/5 (1 home per 5 acres), the area to the southwest is zoned
Industrial, and the area to the west is zoned R-4. Developed densities in the
immediate area range from rural (1 unit per five acres or greater) to suburban (2
to 4 units per acre).
3. Open Space:
Finding - The Growth Management Act establishes a goal for open space and
recreation that states "encourage the retention of open space and development
of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access
to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks" [RCW 36.70A.020(9)].
Finding - The Yelm Comprehensive Plan states that adequate recreation and
park facilities should be developed and improved to provide a broad range of
recreational facilities which meet the needs of the Yelm community [Section VII
(C)(3)(a)(ii) Yelm Comprehensive Plan]. The plan further establishes a level of
service for neighborhood and community park and recreation facilities of five
acres of land per 1,000 population.
Finding - The City presently has a total of 15.26 acres of recreation and park
facilities, including the 13.98-acre Longmire Community Park which is presently
CUP-02-8329-YL staff Report Page 3 of 15
under construction. Yelm's 2001 population was 3,485 in 2002, according to the
Thurston Regional Planning Council, which would require a minimum of 17 acres
of recreation and park facilities pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding - Yelm's average household size, according to the Thurston Regional
Planning Council, is 2.50 persons per household. A 108 unit subdivision,
therefore, would be expected to add 270 people to the City's population, requiring
an additional 11,760 square feet of recreation and park facilities.
Finding - Chapter 14.12 YMC provides guidelines for the retention and creation
of open space within the City. This chapter requires a minimum of five percent of
the gross area be dedicated as open space or pay a fee in-lieu-of providing the
open space on site. Five percent of the site is equal to 61,027 square feet.
Finding - The proposed subdivision. includes 133,688 sq. ft. (just over 3 acres)
of open space generally located between the Olympic Pipeline Company
easement and the YelmlRoy Prairie Line Railroad, and includes a 4 foot wide
footpath.
Conclusion - The applicant has exceeded the minimum recreation and open
,space requirements.
4. Schools:
Finding - New residential units create a demand for additional school services
and facilities. The Yelm School District requests that the developer enter into an
agreement with the school district for the payment of mitigation fees based on the
project's impact.
Finding - The school districts request for a mitigation agreement between the
developer and the school district is a mitigation measure of the Mitigated
Determination of Non-significance.
5. Transportation and Site Access:
Finding - The property fronts Wilkensen Road, which is the only vehicular
access to the property. The subdivision proposes two access connections to
Wilkensen, one approximately 375 feet north of the intersection of Canal Road
and Wilkensen Road and the second approximately 200 feet south of the
Centralia Power Canal.
Finding - The 1992 Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the
Transportation chapter of the Yelm Comprehensive Plan, and the Development
Guidelines provide policies and regulations in which the Transportation Plan will
be implemented. Included in these policies and regulations is the requirement of
the continuation of streets. In most cases, the developer shall provide for the
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 4 of 15
continuation of streets to adjoining properties and subdivisions. In the case of
undeveloped land, the street ends in a cul-de-sac or hammerhead, with a sign
that states "future road connection".
Finding - The site conditions do not allow for any continuation of interior streets
as the property is bounded by a public street, the Centralia Power Canal, and the
YelmlRoy Prairie Line Railroad.
Finding - The completed project will increase traffic and impact the City's
transportation system. Chapter 15.40 YMC, Concurrency Management, requires
all development to mitigate impacts to the City transportation system. A single
family home generates 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips per unit. The Transportation
Facility Charge per unit is $757.50 and. payable at time of building permit
issuance.
Finding - Heath and Associates prepared a traffic impact analysis which
analyzed the traffic impacts of the proposed development. The analysis found
that the project would generate 1,034 vehicles per day of average weekday
traffic, with a PM peak of 109 vehicles per hour which is a 19% increase over the
existing peak PM volume of 563 vehicles per hour.
Finding - The City of Yelm Development Guidelines require all new
developments, including subdivisions, improve street frontages to current
standards. Wilkensen Road is a neighborhood collector, which requires a 16 foot
drive lane, vertical curb, a 7 foot planter strip with street trees 35 feet on center
and street lighting as required by the City Engineer, and a 5 foot sidewalk.
Finding - Intercity Transit reviewed the proposed subdivision and requested that
frontage improvements include an accessible transit stop, including a bus stop
pad. The pad would include a solid, level depth of 8 feet from the edge of the
roadway and 6 feet in width. This request could be accommodated within the
required frontage improvements through the placement of a 6 foot width of
sidewalk section in the required 7 foot planter strip adjacent to the sidewalk.
Finding - Canal Road currently intersects Wilkensen Road at an angle of
approximately 50 degrees, which does not provide safe sight distance for
vehicles entering Wilkerson Road from Canal Road. An additional 1,034
weekday trips added to Wilkerson Road, almost all of which will be traveling
southbound past the intersection with Canal Road, would be generated by the
proposed subdivision.
Finding - The Shea Group prepared for the City of Yelm a technical
memorandum addressing the safety of the Canal Road intersection, which
recommends that the intersection be reconstructed to present standards.
CUP-02-8329-YL staff Report Page 5 of 15
Conclusion - The condition of the MDNS relating to the realignment of Canal
Road mitigates the impacts to traffic safety attributable to the addition of the
projects traffic on Wilkensen Road.
Conclusion - The placement of a bus pad pursuant to Intercity Transit's request
can be accommodated as part of the required frontage improvements for the
project.
Proposed Conditions of Approval -
5.A. Pursuant to the Mitigated DNS, the proponent shall mitigate transportation
impacts based on the new residential p.m. peak hour trips generated by
the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based on
1.01 new peak hour trips per residential unit. The proponent will be
responsible for a TFC of $757.50 per dwelling unit which is payable at
time of building permit issuance.
5.13. Pursuant to the Mitigated DNS, the applicant shall mitigate impacts to
Canal Road through realigning Canal Road with Wilkensen to meet City
Standards for intersections, provided that the cost of improvement does
not exceed the Transportation Facility Charge and no additional right-of-
way is required for the realignment.
5.C. Frontage improvements are required for this project. Frontage
improvements shall be consistent with the City of Yelm's Development
Guidelines. Frontage improvements for Wilkensen Road shall be
consistent with the section "Neighborhood Collector'. Interior street
improvements shall be consistent with the section "local access
residential".
5.D Frontage improvements shall include a bus pad constructed to Intercity
Transit's standards.
6. 510/507 Loop
Finding - The proposed 510507 Loop is identified to bisect the subject property.
The Loop is a proposed replacement for State Routes 507 and 510 through the
City of Yelm, creating a route for regional traffic to avoid the City core and local
access traffic. The Loop has been identified, an Environmental Assessment has
been prepared, and a Finding of No Significant Impact has been issued. A public
process was used to identify the proposed route and the Yelm Comprehensive
Plan was updated to adopt the route as part of the transportation system in the
City. Yelm is currently attempting to obtain funding for preliminary engineering
and right-of-way acquisition for the northern portion of the Loop.
CUP-02-8329-Y1 Staff Report Page 6 of 15
Finding - The Yelm Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2000 to adopt the
preferred alternative location of the 5101507 Loop, known as the Y2/Y3
transportation corridor, as identified in the Y2/Y3 Environmental Assessment.
Finding - The Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan is adopted as an
element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding - The 5101507 Loop is identified as a project on the City's Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program.
Finding - The Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan establishes the
following policy regarding right-of-way...
To retain existing right-of-way and to identify, acquire, and
preserve rights-of-way.
The City intends to use the recommendations from this
Transportation Plan to identify current and future transportation
system needs. The City will identify specific transportation
system needs. The City will identify specific transportation
corridors and alignments and locate and protect needed rights-
of-way as soon as possible. Some methods that will be used to
acquire and preserve rights-of-way include:
• Requiring dedication of rights-of-way as a condition for
development when the need for such rights-of-way is linked
to the development;
• Requesting donations of rights-of-way to the public,
• Purchasing rights-of-way by paying fair market value; and
• Acquiring development rights and easements from property
owners.
The City also seeks to protect rights-of-way from encroachment
by any structure, substantial landscaping, or other obstruction to
preserve the integrity of a comprehensive plan recommendation.
Protection methods that may be used include a minimum
setback requirement for property improvements to preserve
sufficient right-of-way to allow for expansion of roadways; and
development of specific guidelines regarding the installation and
maintenance of any landscaping within the public right-of-way.
Finding - The Shea Group prepared for the City of Yelm an analysis of the
proposal as it relates to the 510/507 Loop. The analysis includes two alternative
subdivision layouts that address the issue of the 510/507 Loop corridor. The first
maintains the corridor in open space to be purchased when funding is acquired.
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 7 of 15
This proposal provides 90 lots and requires less roadway, stormwater piping and
a smaller stormwater infiltration pond than the applicant's proposal. The second
provides 102 lots and recognizes the right-of-way lines as property boundaries
and allows the areas north and south of the right-of-way to function as
neighborhoods after the right-of-way necessary for the 510/507 Loop is
purchased.
Conclusion - Accommodating the future 510/507 Loop right-of-way through
phasing protects the integrity and functionality of the future neighborhoods and
provides time to fund the acquisition of the corridor.
Proposed Conditions of Approval -
The proposal should be conditioned for consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan as it relates to transportation and, specifically, the 510/507 Loop. The
following potential conditions would address the proposal's inconsistency with the
Comprehensive Plan by phasing the development or building within the
development to maximize the time for funding the acquisition of right-of-way
before having to purchase buildings along with land within the corridor.
6.A. The applicant shall design the plat so that the phase line runs
through the site from east to west. Phase 1 shall be fully
contained and functional, south of the Y3 corridor. Phase 2 shall
be completely independent of Phase 1, fully contained and
functional north of the Y3 corridor. Figure 12 of the Shea
Group Memorandum (Exhibit VI) illustrates acceptable Phasing.
Alternative 6.A. The applicant shall design the plat so that it minimizes impacts
to the neighborhoods upon public purchase of the right-of-way
necessary for the Y3 corridor. Figure 13 of the Shea Group
Memorandum (Exhibit V) illustrates acceptable design, with the
condition that lots within the Y3 corridor are the last to obtain
building permits in the development.
Alternative 6.A No building permit shall be issued for any lot identified on
Exhibit VII as being impacted or partially impacted by the Y3
corridor until building permits have been issued for every lot
outside the corridor. No building permit for those lots identified
on Exhibit VII as being impacted should issue until building
permits have been issued for every lot shown on Exhibit VII as
being partially impacted.
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 8 of 15
7. Parking:
Finding - Chapter 17.72, Off-Street Parking and Loading, requires minimum
parking ratio of two spaces per dwelling unit.
Conclusion - The lots within the proposed subdivision allows sufficient area for 2
parking spaces while meeting the maximum lot coverage of 75%.
8. Water:
Finding - The City's Water Comprehensive Plan identifies a portion of the City
area for service. The City is pursuing additional land areas for approval and the
extension of facilities. Completion of such activities is dependent on grant and
developer funding, as well as planned bonding and existing public funds. The
status of such plans and funding sources must be considered in any review of
concurrency. Developer extensions and or dedications, latecomer agreements,
over sizing agreements, and the creation of local improvement districts may all
be considered. In the event of a new funding source, however, concurrency is
not found until the funding source is in fact in pace - e.g. award of a grant, a
binding letter commitment for third parting funding, or the successful formation of
a local improvement district. Any necessary water rights are considered, only
after approved for municipal use by the Washington State Department of
Ecology, or appropriate appeals board, and the time for appeal or challenge has
expired.
Finding - There is an existing 10 inch PVC water line on N.P. Road SE
approximately 1,200 feet south of the southern boundary of the subject property.
There is a second existing water line approximately 1,200 feet north of the
northern property line on Wilkensen Road, which is an 8 inch PVC line. The
applicant has proposed connecting to the existing water line on N.P. Road to the
south of the project.
Finding - The City of Yelm Comprehensive Water Plan calls for a 10 inch PVC
line to connect the line on N.P. Road and the line on Wilkensen Road.
Finding - The Fire Codes and Development Guidelines require minimum fire
flows of 1,500 gallons per minute for 120 minutes with a minimum system
pressure of 20-psi. Completing the loop between the Wilkensen Road and N.P.
Road water lines would increase available fire flow at the project site.
Conclusion - City water service is available to the site from the water line in N.P.
Road. The developer is responsible for extending the water line to the property,
along the entire frontage of the parcel, and within the subdivision.
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 9 of 15
Conditions of Approval -
8.A. The applicant shall connect to the City's water system. Water ERU's
(equivalent residential units) are based on a consumption rate of 240
gallons per day and are currently charged at a rate of $1,500/ERU
(subject to change) inside city limits. This fee is payable at time of
building permit issuance.
8.B. If required fire flows cannot be met through the connection of the project to
the existing line at N.P. Road, the developer shall complete the loop by
extending a 10 inch water main from the project site to the existing 8 inch
line near the end of Wilkensen Road.
9. Wastewater:
Finding - The City's Sewer Comprehensive Plan identifies a portion of the City
area for service. The City is pursuing additional land areas for approval and the
extension of facilities. Completion of such activities is dependent on grant and
developer funding, as well as planned bonding and existing public funds. The
status of such plans and funding sources must be considered in any review of
concurrency. Developer extensions and or dedications, latecomer agreements,
over sizing agreements, and the creation of local improvement districts may all
be considered. In the event of a new funding source, however, concurrency is
not found until the funding source is in fact in pace - e.g. award of a grant, a
binding letter commitment for third parting funding, or the successful formation of
a local improvement district.
Finding - The nearest existing sewer line is located at the intersection of N.P.
Road and Rhoton Road, approximately 3,500 feet south of the project site.
Finding - The property owners participated in the Local Improvement District for
the construction of the sewer treatment plant and purchased 108 connections
through the LID. The LID assessment is separate from connection fee's and may
be segregated at the time of final subdivision approval.
Conclusion - City sewer service is available at the intersection of N.P. Road and
Rhoton Road. The developer is responsible for extending the sewer line to the
property, along the entire frontage of the parcel, and within the subdivision.
Conditions of Approval -
9.A. The applicant shall connect to the City's S.T.E.P System. The S.T.E.P.
System shall be designed to City standards. The applicant shall submit
final civil plans to the Community Development Department for review and
approval.
CUP-02-8329-Y1_ Staff Report Page 10 of 15
9.B. Sewer connection fees for properties participating in the LID are charged
at the current discount rate of $2,620.00 per connection (fee subject to
change), payable at building permit issuance. All connections require an
inspection, with a fee of $145.00 per connection, also payable at building
permit issuance. These fees will be assessed at building permit issuance
for each lot.
10. Drainage/Stormwater:
Finding - The completed project will increase impervious surfaces on the site
and adjacent streets. Impervious surfaces create storm water runoff.
Uncontrolled and untreated storm water runoff can create health and safety
hazards. The City of Yelm requires all, development to comply with the
Stormwater Manual for the control and treatment of stormwater runoff.
Finding - The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Stormwater Report that
estimates the impervious surface, infiltration rates of the runoff, and a conceptual
design for treatment and storage of the stormwater. Following preliminary plat
approval the City Stormwater Manual requires the developer to submit a final
plan consistent with the final impervious calculations for the site.
Finding - The Preliminary Stormwater Report does not include the surface water
runoff from the frontage improvement on Wilkensen Road and understates the
amount of impervious surfaces in the proposed internal roadways. Including this
additional stormwater runoff in the pond size calculations will probably require a
larger treatment area and infiltration area within the stormwater pond system.
There is sufficient area within the stormwater tract and the open space tract to
accommodate a larger stormwater pond and still meet open space requirements.
Finding - Stormwater facilities require continued maintenance to ensure they
remain in proper working condition.
Conditions of Approval -
10.A. The applicant shall design and construct all storm water facilities in
accordance with the current Storm Water Manual, as adopted by the City
of Yelm. Best Management Practices (BMP's) are required during
construction. The applicant shall compile a final storm water report along
with construction drawings.
10.B. All roof drain runoff shall be infiltrated on each lot. Infiltration shall be
accomplished utilizing individual drywells.
10.C. The applicant shall submit a storm water operation and maintenance plan
to the Community Development Department for approval prior to final plat
approval.
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 11 of 15
10.D. The stormwater system shall be held in common by the Homeowners
Association. The Homeowners Agreement shall include provisions for the
assessment of fees against individual lots for the maintenance and repair
of the stormwater facilities.
11. Fire Protection:
Finding - Fire protection is provided by the Thurston County Fire District #2. As
development occurs there will be additional demands for fire service.
Conditions of Approval -
11.A. The applicant shall submit a fire hydrant plan to the Community
Development Department for review and approval as part of the civil
engineering plans prior to final subdivision approval.
11.13. The applicant shall submit fire flow calculations for all existing and
proposed hydrants. All hydrants must meet minimum City standards,
including flow requirements.
12. Street Lighting:
Finding - Adequate street lighting is necessary to provide safety to pedestrians,
vehicles, and homeowners. Street lighting is reviewed to assure adequate
lighting.
Conditions of Approval -
12.A. Per the City of Yelm's Development Guidelines, street lighting and interior
street lighting will be required. A lighting design plan shall be submitted to
the Community Development Department for review and approval.
13. Subdivision Name and Addressing:
Finding - The proposed project is not currently named. Addressing is approved
by the Community Development Department.
Conditions of Approval -
13.A. Prior to the submission final plat application, the applicant will provide the
Community Development Department with a proposed subdivision name
which is unique within the City of Yelm and Thurston County and is
distinguishable from other subdivision names and an addressing and
street name plat map for approval.
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 12 of 15
14. State Environmental Policy Act:
Finding - The applicant submitted a completed environmental checklist,
including a traffic analysis with preliminary subdivision application. The City
performed an environmental review and issued a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance on February 7, 2003.
Conditions of Approval -
14.A. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation requirements of the MDNS
issued on February 7, 2003, and revised on May 23, 2003. Mitigation
includes:
The proponent shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new
residential p.m. peak hour trips generated by the project. The
Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based on 1.01 new peak
hour trips per residential unit. The proponent will be responsible for a TFC
of $757.50 per dwelling unit which is payable at time of building permit.
Prior to final subdivision approval, the developer shall realign Canal Road
with Wilkensen to meet City Standards for intersections, provided that the
cost of improvement does not exceed the Transportation Facility Charge
in condition 1 above and no additional right-of-way is required for the
realignment. The TFC's for the project required pursuant to Mitigation
Measure No. 1 above shall be waived, in their entirety, in the event that
the for the cost of realignment described in this Mitigation Measure 2 is
effected by the proponent.
Prior to final subdivision approval, the proponent shall submit to the City of
Yelm a signed school mitigation agreement between the developer and
the Yelm School District.
15. Landscaping:
Finding - Landscaping and screening are necessary to promote safety, to
provide screening between compatible land uses, to safeguard privacy and to
protect the aesthetic assets of the City. Chapter 17.80, Landscaping, requires
the applicant to provide on-site landscaping for all development proposals.
Finding - The site is adjacent to properties that are compatibly zoned. Chapter
17.80 requires that the perimeter of the site be landscaped with a Type II
landscaping. In residential subdivisions the city also allows fencing to meet the
landscaping requirement for the perimeter of the site.
Finding - Landscaping is required in open space and above ground stormwater
facilities.
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 13 of 15
Finding - Chapter 17.80 requires that at time of civil plan review and approval
the applicant provide the Community Development Department a final landscape
and irrigation plan for approval.
Conditions of Approval -
15.A. The applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan to include
the perimeter of the project site, planter strips, open space, and
stormwater facilities.
16. Shoreline Management Act/Thurston County Shoreline Master Program:
Finding - The Centralia Power Canal bounds the northern line of the property.
The power canal was constructed in ,1929 to provide hydroelectric power to the
City of Centralia through the diversion of waters from the Nisqually River. The
mean annual flow of the canal is greater than 20 cfs.
Finding - The Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region states that
residential development should not exceed 35 feet above average grade, that
storm drainage facilities should prevent direct entry of surface water runoff into
receiving waters, that subdivisions shall provide general public access to and
along shorelines that have been historically used by the public for recreation, and
that setback, lot area, and density requirements are established by the local
development regulations.
Finding - The property has not historically been used by the public for recreation
purposes.
Conclusion - The proposed subdivision is consistent with the policies and
regulations of the Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region.
Conclusion and Staff Recommendation:
Section 16.12.170 YMC requires written findings prior to a decision on a preliminary
plat. Based on the project as proposed by the applicant, and the proposed conditions
of approval as stated above, Community Development staff finds that the subdivision:
Adequately provides for the public health, safety and general welfare and for
such open spaces, drainage ways, streets, potable water supplies, sanitary
wastes, parks and recreation, schools, and sidewalks;
That the public use and interest will be served by the subdivision of the property,
if conditioned as proposed;
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 14 of 15
The subdivision, if conditioned as proposed, is in conformance with the Yelm-
Thurston County Joint Comprehensive Plan, the City of Yelm Zoning Code, the
City of Yelm Subdivision Code, the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline
Master Program for Thurston County, and the City of Yelm Development
Guidelines.
Based on the Analysis and Findings, and the Conditions of Approval above, staff
recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve SUB-02-8329-YL.
CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 15 of 15
RECEIVED
CITY OF YELM NOV 4 1~OZ
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires all governmental agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. The purpose of this checklist is to
provide information to help identify impacts from your proposal, to reduce or avoid impacts from the
proposal if it can be done, and to help the City decide whether an EIS is required. An environment
impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for any proposal with probable significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
This environmental checklist asks you to describe `some basic information about your proposal. The
City will use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are
significant and require preparation of an EIS. You must answer each question accurately, carefully and
to the best of your knowledge. Answer the questions briefly, but give the best description you can. In
most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans
without the need for experts. If you do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your
proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid
delays later. If the space provided is too small, feel free to attach additional sheets.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of
time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your
proposal or its environmental effects. You may be asked to explain your answers or provide additional
information for determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Nonproject Proposals Only:
Complete both the checklist (even though many questions may be answered "does not apply") and the
Supplemental Sheet For Nonproject Actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the referenced in the
checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal,"
"proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
CITY OF YELM CITY USE ONLY
FEE: $150.00
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE REC'D
BY:
FILE NO.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if any: Preliminary Plat, Benum and Coyne Property
2. Name of applicant: Robert L. Coyne
3. Address and phone number of applicant and of any other contact person:
c/o Benum Enterprises, Inc., P.O. Box 7313.0; Puyallup, WA 98373
(253) 845-5555
4. Date checklist prepared: October 21, 2002
5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Yelm
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The applicant proposes to complete the project in two phases, within 5 years of preliminary plat
approval.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected
with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No plans for future additions other than the phasing schedule mentioned under item #6.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared,
directly related to this proposal.
A traffic impact analysis will be prepared as a part of this proposal.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
None known.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Preliminary Plat, Shoreline management Substantial Development Permit, Site Development Permit
Approval, Final Plat, and Building permits.
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 1
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of
the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe
certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.
The Applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat application in order to subdivide a 28.02
acre ownership into 108-lots for single-family residential use. The subdivision will be served by
City of Yelm water and sewer systems and public streets.
12. Location of proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location
of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if
known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the
site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. You need not duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications
related to this checklist.
The project site is located east of Wilkeson Road, west of the railroad and south of the Centralia
Power Canal in the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, and the Northwest Quarter of Section 20 of
Township 17 North, Range 2 East.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one):
flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous; other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Approximately 8 percent across a small portion of the site near its southeast corner.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example; clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime
farmland.
The Soil Survey of Thurston County, Washington, prepared by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, lists the on-site soils as Spanaway Gravelly Sandy
Loam, and Spanaway Stony Sandy Loam.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 2
Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of grading will be done on-site in order to built roads,
utility systems and to prepare the site for future homes. No export or import of material is
anticipated.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
The probability that erosion would occur is extremely low due to the type of soil on-site and
the gentle gradients.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction such as asphalt or buildings?
Roads, driveways, sidewalks and patios 21.3 + percent. Buildings 17.7 + percent.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
A temporary erosion control plan will be submitted to the City prior to any site development
and will be implemented according. Any erosion potentials would be mitigated in
accordance with City regulations.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile
exhaust, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is
completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
During construction, dust and exhaust fumes will be generated by construction equipment.
On completion of the future residences, automobile exhaust and possibly wood smoke will
be emitted from the site as a result of normal residential activities.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
During construction, the project will be watered, as necessary, to control dust.
3. Water
a. Surface Water
1) Is there any surface water body or wetland on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. State what stream or river it flows into?
The Centralia Power Canal borders the site to the north.
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 3
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 300 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Roads, utility systems and houses will be constructed within 300 feet of the canal. See
the accompanying application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development for
details.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in, or removed
from, surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
None. See the accompanying application for Shoreline Management Substantial
Development for details.
4) Will the proposal require surface.. water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
No.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note elevation on the site plan.
No, per the Federal Emergency Management Agencies' FIRM Panel #5301880355C.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
b. Groundwater:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or- will water be discharged to groundwater? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
No. The project will be served by City water and sewer systems. There will be no direct
discharge to groundwater but some release can be expected from on-site percolation from
the stormwater release system and individual lot roof drain percolation systems.
2) Describe the underlying aquifer with regard to quality and quantity, sensitivity,
protection, recharge areas, etc.
The Thurston County Critical Areas Inventory - Aquifer Recharge Areas identifies this
area as extreme.
3) Describe waste material that will be discharged into or onto the ground from septic tanks
or other sources, if any (such as domestic sewage; industrial by products; agricultural
chemicals).
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 4
There will be no direct discharge to groundwater but some release can be expected from
on-site percolation from the stormwater release system and individual lot roof drain
percolation systems. Sanitary sewer service to the subdivision will be provided by the
city.
c. Water Runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Stormwater runoff from the roads and other impervious surfaces will be collected and
directed in a pipe system to the stormwater treatment and disposal system to be located in
Tract C. There will be individual percolation systems on each lot, where soils permit, to
percolate stormwater from roof, patio and driveway drainage. All aspects of the storm
drainage system design will be subjeci to review and approval by the City.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
See 1 above.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
Maintenance of a stormwater collection treatment and release system is extremely
important. Cooperation between the City, the developer and future home owners could
result in education programs designed to provide information and technical expertise to
ensure that water quality is maintained and that the system functions properly.
Information regarding the proper use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides could be
provided in an effort to reduce water quality impacts.
4. Plants
a. Check types of vegetation found on the site and list specific species:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen; other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine; other
X shrubs
_ grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage; other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil; other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Most natural vegetation in the area of the roads and lots will be removed. Natural vegetation
will be retained to the maximum extend possible in the area of the canal and in the open
space Tracts A and B. Tracts A and B comprise approximately 13.2 percent of the site.
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 5
c. List threatened or endangered plant species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
Appropriate landscaping will be provided through adherence to the City's landscape code.
Please see the accompanying Conceptual Landscape Planning Plan for details of street and
open space planting. Also, each lot would be expected to provide its own landscape
program.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds or animals that have been observed on or near the site, or that are known to
be on or near the site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds; other:
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver; other:
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, shellfish; other:
b. List any priority, threatened or endangered animal species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
None known.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
See 4.b. above.
6. Energy And Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, gasoline, heating oil, wood, solar, etc.) will be
used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, transportation, etc.
Electricity and natural gas will be utilized as principal heating and lighting sources for the
future single family residences.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 6
All structures will be constructed to meet current building codes.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of
fire and explosion, spills, of hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If
so describe.
No.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
None.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
None proposed due to lack of significant environmental impacts.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment operation, other)?
None.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Noise associated with construction and development of the property will have a short
term impact during regular working hours. Full development of the project will have a
longer term impact limited to typical residential community background noise.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
No special measures are proposed due to lack of significant environmental impacts.
Also, see 4.b. above.
8. Land And Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
North - Centralia Power Canal and Residential (Nisqually Pines)
East, South and West - Large parcel single-family and agriculture
b. Has the site been used for mineral excavation, agriculture or forestry? Is so, describe.
The site may have been used for pasture. Currently, it is vacant, unimproved and not
actively used.
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 7
c. Describe any structures on the site.
None.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No.
e. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Urban.
f. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
R-4 Residential.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Urban.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "natural resource", "critical" or
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, please specify.
No.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Approximately 274 at a multiplier of 2.54.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
None.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses
and plans, if any:
The proposal is compatible with the comprehensive plan, zoning and subdivision codes.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing.
108 middle income.
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 8
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None proposed.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
35 feet. The principal exterior building material proposed is wood.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
See 4.b. above.
11. Light And Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
The future development will produce exterior and interior, lighting typical of a single-family
residential community.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
The light generated from the completed development is not likely to interfere with views or
affect wildlife.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
See 4.b. above.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 9
Golf courses, playgrounds, hiking trails and sports centers are easily accessible from the
proposed project site.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts or provide recreation opportunities:
The project will provide footpaths in the open space Tracts A and B.
13. Historic And Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so generally describe.
None known.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
None known.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None proposed.
14. Transportation
a. Identify sidewalks, trails, public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Existing and proposed access to the site is provided by Wilkeson Road. See site plan for
details.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? By what means? If not, what plans exist for transit
service?
No. No known plans exist to serve the site with transit.
c. How many parking spaces would the complete project have? How many would the project
eliminate?
Provided 216, eliminated 0.
d. Will the proposal require any new sidewalks, trails, roads or streets, or improvements to
existing sidewalks, trails, roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 10
New sidewalks and traffic land improvements will be provided along the Wilkeson Road
frontage. Sidewalks will be provided along the internal subdivision streets. Off road foot
paths will be installed in open space Tracts A and B.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation?
If so, generally describe.
The project is adjacent to the railroad but will not use rail service.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,
indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Approximately 1,100.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
See 14.d. above. Adequate sight distance will be provided at intersections. The TFC per
Chapter 15.40 will apply.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe:
It is anticipated that the completed project may increase the need for fire protection, police
protection and schools.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
The impacts on public services will be mitigated through payment of an assortment of taxes
and fees by the developer and future property owners.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system; other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and
the general utility construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might
be needed.
Water City of Yelm
Sewer City of Yelm
Natural Gas PSE
Electrical Power PSE
Telephone Yelm Telephone Co.
Cable Yelm Telephone Co.
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 11
SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:/--
- a RC C:
y /
Date Submi ed: r~, a .
7
I/27002/docs-rpts/docs_jc102102
CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
C:\OFFICE\FORMS\SEPAFRM PAGE 12
HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation and Civil Engineering
BENUM-COYNE PLAT
7 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
TRAFFIC RSAPACT ANALYSIS
YELM. WA
OF A gel
o
4
720
1STER~'91tt`'~
'SSjONAI.
tolrgloz.
EXPIRES 30 d3
Prepared for: Benum - Coyne
C/o Benum Enterprises
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
OCTOBER 2002
221 t'('acrnm [lOaI l • PU}'alluh, WA 98371 • (253) 770-1-101 • Fax (253) 77(1-1473
BENUM-COYNE PLAT
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................3
H. Project Description ......................................................................................................3
III. Existing Conditions ......................:..............................................................................3
IV. Forecasted Traffic Demand ..........................................................................................9
V. Conclusions and Mitigation ......................................................................................16
Appendix
LIST OF TABLES
1. Existing Level of Service ............................................................................................9
2. Trip Generation .........................................................................................................10
3. Future Level of Service .............................................................................................12
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Vicinity Map and Roadway System
2. Site Plan ......................................................................................................................5
3. Existing Peak Hour Volumes ......................................................................................7
4. Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................................................11
5. Pipeline Traffic .........................................................................................................13
6. 2006 Peak Hour Volumes Without Project ...............................................................14
7. 2006 Peak Hour Volumes With Project ....................................................................15
2
BENUM-COYNE PLAT
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
TRAFFIC IlViPACT ANALYSIS
I. INTROD UCTION
This study serves to investigate traffic impacts related to the proposed Benum-Coyne Plat
subdivision. The main goals of this study focus on the assessment of existing traffic
conditions and intersection congestion, forecasts of newly generated project traffic, and
estimatibns of future intersection delay. The first task includes the collection of general
roadway information, road improvement information, entering sight distance data, and
peak hour traffic counts. Next, a detailed level of service analysis of the existing volumes
is made to determine the present degree of intersection congestion. Forecasts of future
traffic and dispersion patterns on the street system are then determined using established
trip generation and distribution techniques. Following this forecast, the future service
levels for the key intersections are investigated. As a final step, appropriate conclusions
and possible off-site mitigation measures are defined.
H. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a residential subdivision comprised of 108 individual housing
lots. The site is located in the northeast quadrant of Yelm with Wilkenson Road along its
west border. The triangular shaped property is bordered on the southerly side by the
Burlington Northern Railroad and the Centralia Power Canal on the north. Primary
access to site will be via two accesses to Wilkenson Road. Other roads serving the site
include Canal Road and N.P. Road. Based on management projections, occupation of
this development is anticipated by 2005/2006. Figure 1 on the following page shows the
general site location and serving roadways while the overall lot configuration and internal
roadway is shown in Figure 2.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Surrounding Roadway System
Roadways serving the proposed site range from two lane major arterials to two-lane
collector roads which vary in width, terrain, and posted speeds. These roadways vary in
their overall function as part of the general network. The key streets near the site are
described on page 6.
3
I
i
I
1V
l I
I I
I
i
Cq~
~l`PO
51TE
pp N
K z p
J N Z
0
u < p P~ ~Q
510 u
C,9
F
507
507
CJ
G
507
fn
0 ~'PD
O
I
l
BENUM-COYNE PLAT
I
VION17Y MAP e ROADWAY 5Y5TEV
HEATH & Tran portagiori and ASSOCIATES,
Lill Engineering
FIGUP,F I
I
i
N
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
BENUM AND COYNE PROPERTY
APART OF THE SWA SECTION ST, TATN, R2£, W.M.
CITY OF YELM, THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
GRAM xAM
NISQUALLY PINE
j _ \\PEPPERIpCE Wf
CENTRAL.IA PowER
1b qII CM/AL
Y.- 4
Hunt
ell- -
ypo I
• • • w`• ~^j IRRIGATON YM41S
Ti I
61 ~
s
i
HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC STEFLA..N
Transportation and Civil Engineering P GUR` 2
South First Street is also State Route 507. This is a two lane road, with a left turn lane at
the intersection with SR-510. The speed limit near the intersection is 25 mph, while to
the south the speed limit is 55 mph. Shoulders are roughly 5 feet wide and consist of
asphalt and grass or curb and sidewalk.
Yelm Avenue is a two-lane roadway which lies northeast of the property and runs in a
northwesterly-southeasterly direction. Lanes are 12 feet wide, while shoulders are
roughly 4 feet wide and composed of asphalt/gravel or curb and sidewalk. Northwest of
the intersection with the S First Street, Yehn Avenue is also State Route 510, while
southeast of the intersection it is State Route 507.
Wilkenson Road is a two-lane roadway which lies along the west side of the property.
Lane widths are approximately 10 feet wide'while shoulders are minimal. The speed
limit is 25 mph south of its intersection with N.P. Road and 35 mph north of the
intersection.
N.P. Road is a two-lane roadway which lies southeast of the property and runs in a
southwesterly-northeasterly direction. Lanes are approximately 10 feet wide, while
shoulders are gravel and minimal in cross-section. The speed limit along this road is
posted at 35 mph.
Rhoton Road is a two-lane roadway which lies west of the properly and runs in a north-
south direction. Lanes are also approximately 10 feet wide, while shoulders are minimal
along this street. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph.
B. Existing Peak Hour Volumes
Field data for this study was collected in May, July and October of 2002. Traffic counts,
for this type of use, are taken during the evening peak period between the hours of 4 PM
and 6 PM. This specific peak period is targeted for analysis purposes since it generally
represents a worst case scenario for residential developments with respect to traffic
conditions. This is primarily due to the common 8 AM to 5 PM work schedule and the
greater number of recreation and shopping trips associated with the early evening period
as they travel home from work.
In order to discern the true peak hour in the area an AM peak hour count was taken at the
intersection of 1st and Yelm. As was noted in the comparison, volumes are 38 percent
higher during the PM peak hour versus the AM peak hour. Figure 3 on the following
page shows the evening peak hour count taken at several intersections which would most
likely receive the bulk of this project's traffic. The route and intersections analyzed
provide the routes to the regional corridors serving Yelm, namely SR-507 and SR-510.
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for State Routes are available from the Washington
State Department of Transportation.
1
I
I
a` 83 4
4
STOP
r-7G +
53 57
Ile
SITE
z E2
IL z
J O
U ¢ O
510 oz P~
u
~Q.
tiq
`pN
y3~ \ W 202
6y 1
yz sz~
~ ~~_p~ ~ b STOP
NO
5 4` O
~9A F O 181
507
507
J
123 G
1 ~ ! ~ 507
STOP pp
44
I OC e
u~ ~y~ ,per
9 74 O `C U
I
i
BENUM PLAT
HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC EXI5TING PM PEAK MOUR VOLUME5
Transportation and Civil Engineering
FIGURE 3
C. Level of Service Description
Existing peak hour delays were determined through the use of the Highway Capacity
Manual. Capacity analysis is used to determine level of service (LOS) which is an
established measure of congestion for transportation facilities. LOS is defined for a
variety of facilities including intersections, freeways, arterials, etc. A complete definition
of level of service and related criteria can be found in the HCM. The methodology for
determining the LOS at signalized intersections strives to determine the volume to
capacity (v/c) ratios for the various intersection movements as well as the average control
delay for those movements. Delay is generally used to measure the degree of driver
discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost time. Control delay, in particular,
includes movements at slower speeds and stops on intersection approaches as vehicles
move up in queue position or slow down upstream of an intersection. Aside from the
overall quantity of traffic, three specific factors influence signalized intersection LOS.
These include the type of signal operation provided, the signal phasing pattern, and the
specific allocation of green time. The methodology for determining the LOS at
unsignalized intersections strives to determine the potential capacities for the various
vehicle movements and ultimately determines the average total delay for each movement.
Potential Capacity represents the number of additional vehicles that could effectively
utilize a particular movement, which is essentially the equivalent of the difference
between the movement capacity and the existing movement volume. Total delay is
described as the elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the
vehicle departs from the stop line. Average total delay is simply the mean total delay
over the entire stream. A number of factors influence potential capacity and total delay
including the availability/usefulness of gaps.
The range for intersection level of service is LOS A to LOS F with the former indicating
the best operating conditions with low control delays and the latter indicating the worst
conditions with heavy control delays. Existing LOS is shown in Table 1 on the following
page. This analysis involved the Signal 2000 and HCS-2000 programs which is based on
the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.
D. Level of Service Results
The results of the level of service analysis are given below the table. These results were
determined through the use of the automated intersection analysis programs known as
HCM 2000 and Signal 2000. This program is based on Highway Capacity Manual
analysis procedures for unsignalized and signalized intersections.
8
targeted and analyzed. Baseline 2006 peak hour volumes without the project were
derived by applying a 3 percent growth rate per year to the existing volumes of Figure 3.
The traffic from several pipeline projects (see Figure 5) were also added to the volume to
reflect future 2006 traffic without the project The pipeline projects identified were Dairy
Queen, Jack in the Box, Bruno Plat, Yelm Alternative School, Rhoton Industrial Plat and
the Teitge (Mill Road) Plat. 2006 intersection volumes without the project are given in
Figure 6, with pipeline trips included, while volumes with the project are shown in Figure
7.
D. Level of Service
A level'of service analysis was made of the future peak hour volumes with and without
project generated trips added to the primary intersections and entrance nodes. Results for
intersection delay conditions were determined through the use of the HCM 2000 and
Signal 2000 programs. A summary of the analysis results is shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Future 2006 Level of Service
Delays given in seconds per vehicle
Without Proiect With Project
Intersection Control Geometry LOS Delay LOS Delay
Yelm/SR-507 Signal Southbound D 50.9 D 52.9
Westbound E 58.5 E 59.7
Northbound F 97.7 F 99.6
Eastbound E 60.4 E 64.2
Overall E 66.3 E 68.7
Railway/1st Stop Westbound B 13.7 C 15.0
Southbound A 8.0 A 8.1
Rhoton/NP Rd Stop Westbound B 12.6 B 14.0
Southbound A 7.7 A 7.9
NP/Wilkenson Stop Eastbound C 15.8 C 20.8
Northbound A 8.1 A 8.2
S Ent/Wilkenson Stop Westbound - - C 16.5
Southbound - - A 8.2
N Ent/Wilkenson Stop Westbound - - B 14.9
Southbound - - B 8.0
The 2006 LOS analysis both with and without the project indicate delays of LOS E
overall for the primary Yelm Ave/First St intersection. Project traffic is expected to add
several seconds to average overall delays at this location. Other intersections studied as
part of this project will experience LOS C or better without or with project traffic.
12
V
i
42 0
N 1 °
STOP 1
i
-42
A
II 12
c
gtiq! ~ 4
51TE
N
z
z a
u `t r P~
510 ~
U
ae.
cq
~9!
~A 41 O
ay y59 12J 1
® '50 5TOP
'~p Roo gC~~~ ° 1
2~ 5 F v
35
507
507
CJ_
L
64 0
1 507
°
stop 6q
20 (n
C'E'O
23 10 0
I
MNUM-COYNE PLAT
I
f ^
HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC PIPELINE VOLUMES
Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGURE 5
i
I
I
135 5
• 5
i STOP
128
j •
71 Ito
I
c i.
qyq`
SITE
Z
Z
w z
U ¢ O Q~
5 I 0 ~ ~\V\Np~(
U Q 29
cy
6
\G 140 2127
`~2 6\ `A\~89 116 7
fro ® ~~~C 9 SYOP Q
5
~ I O
0 204
507 p
oC 507
J
J_
222 7
1 507
12
STOP
70
u~ hid
1 Fof @~(O
202 93 C
2
1
BENUM-COYNE PLAT
HEATH & ASSOCIATES, I\ C 2000 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
Transportation and Civil Engineering
FIGURE 6
E. Left Turn Lane Warrants
Left turn lanes are a means of providing a necessary storage area for left turning vehicles
at intersections. For a two-lane or four-lane arterial with no left turn storage, delays are
often created by vehicles waiting to complete the desired left turn movement. These
turning vehicles typically block the heavier through movement, thereby causing some
disruptions to traffic flow and subsequent congestion. Methods have been developed by
various agencies to determine under what circumstances a left turn lane would be needed.
Moderate traffic presently exists on Wilkenson and very little traffic for the project is
expected to be coming from the north into the plat. By inspection a left turn pocket is not
warranted.
V. CONCL USIONS AND MITIGATION
The Benum-Coyne Plat project is located northeasterly of downtown Yelm and proposes
108 single-family residential lots. Access to the site is proposed off of Wilkenson Road.
Based on ITE data, this project is expected to create an average of 1034 residential trip
movements during a typical weekday. An estimated 81 vehicle trips are generated during
the AM peak hour and 109 trips during the PM peak.
Several intersections were reviewed for LOS which is expected to receive the bulk of
project traffic. Based on this review, the project does not result in a change in LOS at the
intersections studied. Sight distance at the project entrances appears to be adequate,
based on a 35 mph assumed speed limit but should meet city of Yelm requirements. The
light amount of project volume from the north coupled with the moderate traffic on
Wilkenson Road would not warrant a left turn pocket at either entrance. Based on this
analysis the following recommendations are made:
1. Provide the city of Yelm mitigation fee for 109 PM peak hour trips.
No other mitigation is identified.
16
BENUM-COYNE PLAT
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
TRAFFIC M4PACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX
17
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The following are excerpts from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual - Transportation
Research Board Special Report 209.
Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions
within a traffic stream. Level of service (LOS) is a quality measure describing
operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures
as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and
convenience.
Six LOS are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available.
Letters designate each level, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating
conditions and LOS F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating
conditions and the driver's perception of those conditions.
Level-of-Service definitions
The following definitions generally define the various levels of service for arterials.
Level of service A represents primarily free-flow operations at average travel speeds,
usually about 90 percent of the free-flow speed for the arterial classification. Vehicles are
seldom impeded in their ability to maneuver in the traffic stream. Delay at signalized
intersections is minimal.
Level of service B represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds,
usually about 70 percent of the free-flow speed for the arterial classification. The ability
to maneuver in the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and delays are not bothersome.
Level of service C represents stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and change
lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues,
adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower average travel speeds of
about 50 percent of the average free-flow speed for the arterial classification.
Level of service D borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause
substantial increases in approach delay and hence decreases in arterial speed. LOS D may
be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some
combination of these. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free-flow speed.
Level of service E is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of one-
third the free-flow speed or less. Such operations are caused by some combination of
adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical
intersections, and inappropriate signal timing.
1s
Level of service F characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds, from less than one-
third to one-quarter of the free-flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical
signalized locations, with long delays and extensive queuing.
These definitions are general and conceptual in nature, and they apply primarily to
uninterrupted flow. Levels of service for interrupted flow facilities vary widely in terms
of both the user's perception of service quality and the operational variables used to
describe them.
For each type of facility, levels of service are defined based on one or more operational
parameters that best describe operating quality for the subject facility type. While the
concept of level of service attempts to address a wide range of operating conditions,
limitations on data collection and availability make it impractical to treat the full range of
operational parameters for every type of facility. The parameters selected to define levels
of service for each facility type are called "measures of effectiveness" or "MOE's", and
represent available measures that best describe the quality of operation on the subject
facility type.
Each level of service represents a range of conditions, as defined by a range in the
parameters given. Thus, a level of service is not a discrete condition, but rather a range of
conditions for which boundaries are established.
The following tables describe levels of service for signalized and unsignalized
intersections. Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of average
control delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and
lost travel time, as well as time from movements at slower speeds and stops on
intersection approaches as vehicles move up. in queue position or slow down upstream of
an intersection. Level of service for unsignalized intersections is determined by the
computed or measured control delay and is determined for each minor movement.
Signalized Intersections - Level of Service
Control Delay per
Level of Service Vehicle (sec)
A <_10
B >10and<_20
C > 20 and <_35
D >35 and <_55
E > 55 and <_80
F >80
19
Unsignalized Intersections - Level of Service
Average Total Delay
Level of Service per Vehicle (sec)
A <_10
B >10and <15
C >15and_525
D >25 and <_35
E > 35 and _<50
F >50
As described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, level of service breakpoints for all-
way stop controlled (AWSC) intersections are somewhat different than the criteria used
for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this difference is that drivers expect
different levels of performance from distinct kinds of transportation facilities. The
expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes
than an AWSC intersection. Thus a higher level of control delay is acceptable at a
signalized intersection for the same level of service.
AWSC Intersections - Level of Service
Average Total Delay
Level of Service per Vehicle (sec)
A <_10
B >10and <_15
C > 15 and :525
D >25 and :535
E > 35 and <_50
F >50
BENUM-COYNE PLAT
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 108 Dwelling Units of Single Family Detached Housing
October 14, 2002
Average Standard Adjustment Driveway
Rate Deviation Factor Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 9.57 3.69 1.00 1034
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.19 0.00 1.00 21
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.56 0.00 1.00 60
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.75 0.90 1.00 81
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.65 0.00 1.00 70
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.36 0.00 1.00 39
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 1.01 1.05 1.00 109
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0..19 0.00 1.00 21
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.58 0.00 1.00 63
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.77 0.91 1.00 83
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.65 0.00 1.00 70
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.37 0.00 1.00 40
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 1.02 1.05 1.00 110
Saturday 2-Way Volume 10.09 3.67 1.00 1090
Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.51 0.00 1.00 55
Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.43 0.00 1.00 46
Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.94 0.99 1.00 102
Sunday 2-Way Volume 8.78 3.33 1.00 948
Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.46 0.00 1.00 50
Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.40 0.00 1.00 43
Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.86 0.95 1.00 93
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
Heath & Associates Inc.
Transportation Division
2214 Tacoma Road File Name : untitled2
Puyallup, WA 98371 Site Code :00001924
Start Date : 05/14/2002
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Unshifted
YELM AVE 1ST AVE SE YELM AVE 1ST AVE SE
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Rig ht Thru Left Right Thru Left Ri ht Thru Left Int. Total
t_ Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
04:00 PM 11 129 33 31 12 7 13 96 40 46 24 34 476
04:15 PM 27 134 34 22 11 14 9 98 34 44 17 27 471
04:30 PM 28 132 40 19 19 14 6 84 53 35 12 28 470
04:45 PM 25 134 30, 17 15 10 8 96 53, 44 22 26 480
Total 91 529 137 89 57 45 36 374 180 169 75 115 1897
05:00 PM 28 136 49 27 15 13 7 85 47 47 25 33 512
05:15 PM 25 125 32 29 15 - 10 8 101 52 32 12 29 470
05:30 PM 27 132 37 34 16 '13 17 101 51 53 26 35 542
05:45 PM 33 145 26 28 19 .16 8 94 44 51 15 25 504
Total 113 538 144 118 65 52 40 381 194 183 78 122 2028
Grand Total 204 1067 281 207 122 97 76 755 374 352 153 237 3925
Apprch % 13.1 68.8 18.1 48.6 28.6 218 6.3 62.7 31.0 47.4 20.6 31.9
Total % 5.2 27.2 7.2 5.3 3.1 2.5 1.9 19.2 9.5 9.0 3.9 6.0
YELM AVE
= Tota
275
Right Thru Lgft
J~ NT
w
-a L'i
AL'I
114/02 4:00:00 PM +-12' <
F ~ 114/02 5:45:00 PM N
m
Unshifted
4i I F'
s -ItMj- iflh1.,
ZS~~~J
[meted 1 05; G2Z ll
Out In Total
I
Heath & Associates Inc.
Transportation Division
2214 Tacoma Road File Name : untitled2
Puyallup, WA 98371 Site Code :00001924
Start Date : 05/14/2002
Page No : 2
YELM AVE 1ST AVE SE YELM AVE 1ST AVE SE
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App. Int.
Total Total Total Total Total
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 05:00 PM
Volume 113 538 144 795 118 65 52 235 40 381 194 615 183 78 122 383; 2028
Percent 14.2 67.7 18.1 50.2 27.7 22.1 6.5 62.0 31.5 47.8 20.4 31.9 i
05:30 27 132 37 196 34 16 13 63 17 101 51 169 53 26 35 114j 542
Volume !
Peak Factor j 0.935
High Int. 05:00 PM 05:30 PM 05:30 PM 05:30 PM
Volume 28 136 49 213 34 16 13 '63 17 101 51 169 53 26 35 1141
Peak Factor 0.933 0.933 0.910 0.840
YELM AVE
To I
61
InM141
Right Thru Lgk
w T
North
CO N
1
Uj J9 cc
114/02 5:00:00 PM-~ <
~ /14/02 5:45:00 PM m
4 r
1941 31311 401
[~l 3
, ~JCe
Out In Total
Heath & Associates Inc.
Transportation Division
2214 Tacoma Road File Name : untitled1
Puyallup, WA 98371 Site Code : 00001924
Start Date : 06/13/2002
Page No : 1
Grou Printed- Unshifted
YELM AVE 1ST AVE SE YELM AVE 1ST AVE SE
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Ri ht Thru Left Ri ht Thru Left Rig ht Thru Left Int. Total
Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 110 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
07:00 AM 4 49 9 74 16 10 2 129 20 25 3 53 394
07:15 AM 11 67 17 32 12 1 2 100 28 32 15 34 351
07:30 AM 17 89 11 49 12 7 1 100 19 29 8 31 373
07:45 AM 12 70 16 38 15 9 6 100 17 33 9 30 355
Total 44 275 53 193 55 27 11 429 84 119 35 148 1473
08:00 AM 15 68 13 30 9 8 1 81 29 31 9 25 319
08:15 AM 16 72 16 24 91 3 3 87 19 27 6 27 309
08:30 AM 25 62 14 29 12 3 5 104 28 34 15 44 375
08:45 AM 31 84 18 32 30 11 5 106 35 38 18 60 468
Total 87 286 61 115 60 25 14 378 111 130 48 156 1471
Grand Total 131 561 114 308 115 52 25 807 195 249 83 304 2944
Apprch % 16.3 69.6 14.1 64.8 24.2 10.9 2.4 78.6 19.0 39.2 13.1 47.8
Total % 4.4 19.1 3.9 10.5 3.9 1.8 0.8 27.4 6.6 8.5 2.8 10.3
YELM AVE -Total
r_QUI_ 113 14191 -j-
122251
1 1311 5611 1
Right Tr Lgft
N
T
W
cn
F 13102 7:00:00 AM <
y 3113102 8:45:00 AM fn
4M
4 I r
5 807 25
@62 91
Out In Total
Heath & Associates Inc.
Transportation Division
2214 Tacoma Road File Name : untitled1
Puyallup, WA 98371 Site Code : 00001928
Start Date : 07/31/2002
Page No : 1
_ Groups Printed- Unshifted
RHOTON RD RAILWAY RD SE FIRST ST
Southbound Westbound Northbound
Start Time Right Thru i Left ; Right Thru I Left Right Thru Left : Int._ T_ o_t_a_I
Factor 1.0 1.0 j 1.0 j 1.0 1.0 i 1.0: 1.0 1.0 1.0 .
04:00 PM 0 32 0 2 0 7 22 38 0 101
04:15 PM 0 29 2 I 1 0 13 13 30 0 88
04:30 PM 0 26 01 2 0 7 12 48 0 95
04:45 PM 0 33 0 2 0 9 6 33 _ 0 83
Total 0 120 2 7 0 36 53 149 0 367
05:00 PM 0 32 2 3 0 15 16 41 0 109
05:15 PM 0 31 2 2 0 9 20 47 0 111
05:30 PM 0 25 1 l.. 0 10 17 38 0 92
05:45 PM 0 35 1 5 0 10 21 33 0 _ 105
Total 0 123 6 11. 0 441 74 159 0 417
Grand Total 0 243 8 I 18 0 801 127 308 .01 784
Apprch % 0.0 96.8 3.2 18.4 0.0 81.61 29.2 70.8 0.0
Total % 0.0 31.0 1.0 2.3 0.0 10.2 16.2 39.3 0.01
IOTON
Out In Total
326 251 577
~ 243 8
Thru Left
1 L?
O
T
aw~
North
»m
/31/2002 4:00:00 PM S D
/31/20025:45:00 PM m o,
T co v
Ur>shffW o m
i
i
Thru Right
--308 127
323 435 758
Out in Total
FIRST ST
Heath & Associates Inc.
Transportation Division
2214 Tacoma Road File Name : untitled1
Puyallup, WA 98371 Site Code : 00001928
Start Date : 07/31/2002
Page No : 2
RHOTON RD RAILWAY RD SE FIRST ST
_ Southbound Westbound j Northbound _
Start Time . Right " Thru j Left ( Total i Right j Thru Left i Tot&' Right Thru Left f- ToApp.
tal `Int. Total
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 05:00 PM
Volume 0 123 6 129 11 0 44 55 j 74 159 0 233 417
Percent 0.0 95.3 4.7 20.0 0.0 80.0 31.8 68.2 0.0
05:15 Volume 0 31 2 33 2 0 9 11 20 47 0 67 111
Peak Factor I 0.939
High Int. 05:45 I'M 05:00 PM 05:15 PM
Volume 0 35 1 36 j 3- 0 15 181 20 47 0 67
Peak Factor 0.896 j 0.764 0.869
N
Out In Total
170 129 299
123 6
Thru Left
1 L?
T °
North °
/31/20025:00:00 PM le /31/2002 5:45:00 PM X
~~A o
Unshifted
m
o M
w Si'
v-
- I
4
Ttw Right_
159; 74
Out in Total
FIRST ST
Heath & Associates Inc.
Transportation Division
2214 Tacoma Road File Name : untitled4
Puyallup, WA 98371 Site Code :00001928
Start Date : 10/10/2002
Page No :2
WILKENSEN RD WILKENSEN RD NP RD SE
Southbound _-Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Right ; Thru ! Left App' Right Thru Left APP' Right Thru Left APp' Int. Total
Total _ Total Total
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 04:00 PM
Volume 88 202 0 290 0 181 0 181 8 0 92 100 571
Percent 30.3 69.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 92.0
04:30 Volume 17 57 0 74 0 47 0 47 5 0 31 36 157
Peak Factor 0.909
High Int. 04:45 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM
Volume 26 53 0 79 0 .49 0 491 5 0 31 36
Peak Factor 0.918 ! 0.923 0.694
ILK N RD
Out In Total
273 290 563 i
88 202
Right Thru
+j 1
75 T
rth
No
w
CO 9
C O
- 0/10/2002 4:00:00 PM
0 C_ 0/10/2002 4:45:00 PM
zz
~
S m Unshifted
O
i
i
4
Left Thru
181
210_ 181 391
Out J In Total
WILKENSEN RD
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:15:42
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.10] - HCM Input Worksheet
Intersection # 0 - Area Location Type: NONCBD
I I I I I I Key: VOLUMES >
118 ( 65 I 52 II I 1 WIDTHS
0.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 II I v LANES
I 0 I 1 1 1 II
i I I it \ 40 12.0 1
/ I \
381 12.0 1 1
1
144 12.0 1 194 12.0 1 North
I
538 12.0 •1
\ I /
113 12.0 1 \ II I I I
II 122 I 78 I 183 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 44
I II 12.0 1 12.0 I 0.0 I PERMSV N N N N
I I I 1 1 1 I 0 I OVERLP N N N N
I II I I I LEADLAG LD LD
SB WB NB EB
RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Heavy veh, %HV 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Pk-hr fact, PHF .93 .93 .93 .91 .91 .91 .84 .84 .84 .93 .93 .93
Pretimed or Act A A A A A A A A A A A A
Strtup lost, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext eff grn, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival typ, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Ped vol, vped 0 0 0 0
Bike vol, vbic 0 0 0 0
Parking locatns NO NO NO NO
Park mnvrs, Nm 0 0 0 0
Bus stops, NB 0 0 0 0
Grade, %G .0 .0 .0 .0
Sq 44 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 I Phase 5 1 Phase 6 1
I + I++ I I I I I
+ I++ I I ++++I I I
/I\ I 1<+ + I I <++++I I I
I I I V I ****I I I f
i I I I++++ v i 1 I I
North I I **>I I****> I I I
I I * ! I 1++++ I I I
I * I I I v I l I
C=120"1 G= 13.9" 1 G= 27.9" 1 G= 19.1" I G= 43.2" 1 G= 0.0" I G= 0.0" 1
I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" l Y+R= 4.0" l Y+R= 0.0" I Y+R= 0.0" 1
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:15:42
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.10] - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet
Delay SB WB NB EB
and LOS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Lane group, LG RT+TH LT RT TH LT RT+TH LT RT TH LT
Adj Flow, v 197 56 44 419 213 311 145 122 578 155
LG capacity, c 391 204 570 670 281 387 204 570 670 281
v/c ratio, X .504 .275 .077 .625 .758 .804 .711 .214 .863 .552
Grn ratio, g/C .232 .116 .360 .360 .159 .232 .116 .360 .360 .159
Unif delay, dl 40-.0 48.5 25.3--31.7 48.3 43.5 51.1 26.6 35.7 46.5
Incr calib, k .11. .11 .11 .21 .31 .35 .27 .11 .39 .15
Incr delay, d2 1.1 .7 .1 1.8 11.3 11.7 11.0 .2 11.2 2.3
Queue Delay, d3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Unif delay, dl* .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Prog factor, PF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Contrl delay, d 41.1 49.2 25.3 33.6 59.6 55.1 62.1 26.8 46.9 48.9
Lane group LOS D+ D C+ C E+ E+ E+ C+ D D
Final Queue,Qbi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appr delay, dA 42.9 41.2 57.4 44.4
Approach LOS D+ D+ E+ D+
Appr flow, vA 253 676 456 855
Intersection: Delay 45.9 LOS D
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:15:42
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.10] - HCM Back of Queue Worksheet
Queues in SB WB NB EB
Worst Lanes RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Lane group, LG RT+TH LT RT TH LT RT+TH LT RT TH LT
Init queue, QbL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln flow, vL 197 56 44 419 213 311 145 122 578 155
Ln satflow, sL 1683 1770 1583 1863 1770 1667 1770 1583 1863 1770
Ln capacity, cL 391 204 570 670 281 387 204 570 670 281
Flow ratio,.yL .117" .032 .028 .225 .120 .187 .082 .077 .310 .088
v/c ratio, XL .504 .275 .077::625 .758 .804 .711 .214 .863 .552
Effect green, g 27.9 13.9 43.2, 43.2 19.1 27.9 13.9 43.2 43.2 19.1
Grn ratio, g/C .232 .116 .360 .360 .159 .232 .116 .360 .360 .159
Upstr filter, I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Grn arrivals, P .23 .12 .36 .36 .16 .23 .12 .36 .36 .16
Platn ratio, Rp 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prog factr, PF2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Queue (1st), Q1 5.7 1.7 1.0 11.5 6.8 9.8 4.7 2.8 17.9 4.8
Queue factr, kB .47 .32 .58 .64 .38 .46 .32 .58 .64 .38
Queue (2nd), Q2 .5 .1 .0 1.0 1.1 1.6 .7 .2 3.2 .5
Avg queue, Q 6.2 1.8 1.0 12.6 7.9 11.4 5.4 3.0 21.1 5.2
90% factor, fB 1.69 1.77 1.78 1.61 1.67 1.63 1.71 1.74 1.54 1.71
90% queue, Qp 10.5 3.2 1.8 20.3 13.1 18.5 9.2 5.2 32.4 8.9
Avg spacing, Lh 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3
Avail storg, La 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avg distance 156 46 26 318 199 289 136 75 533 132
Avg ratio, RQ .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
90% distance 265 81 46 513 332 469 232 132 820 226
90% ratio, RQp .00 .00 .00 '.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:15:42
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.101 - Evaluation of Intersection Performance
Sq 44 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1
i + 1++ I I ^ I
1 + 1 + + I 1 ++++1
/I\ I 1<+ + I 1 <++++I
I l i v I ^ ****I I
I I I 1++++ v I I
North 1 1 * *>1 I****> I
I I * I I I++++ i
I * 1 1 I v I
I G/C=0.116 I G/C=0.232 { G/C=0.159 I G/C=0.360 1
1 G= 13.9" 1 G= 27.9" 1 G= 19.1" I G= 43.2" 1
I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" l Y+R= 4.0" l Y+R= 4.0" I
1 OFF= 0.0% I OFF=14.9% ( OFF=41.5% 1 OFF--60.7% 1
C=120 sec G=104.0 sec = 86.7% Y=16.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
MVMT TOTALS SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Int
Param:Units RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
AdjVol -vph 127 70 56 44- 419 213 218 93 145 122 578 155 2240
wid/Ln:ft/# 0/0 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1 0/0 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1
g/C Rqd@C:% 0 29 25 25 35 29 0 33 27 27 41 27
g/C Used: % 0 23 12 36 36 16 0 23 12 36 36 16
SV @E: vph 0 375 175 570 670 255 0 371 175 570 670 255 4086
Svc Lvl:LOS D+ D C+ C E+ E+ E+ C+ D D D
Deg Sat:v/c 0.00 0.50 0.28 0.08 0.63 0.76 0.00 0.80 0.71 0.21 0.86 0.55 0.67
HCM Del:s/v 0.0 41.1 49.2 25.3 33.6 59.6 0.0 55.1 62.1 26.8 46.9 48.9 45.9
Tot Del:min 0 34 11 5 59 53 0 71 38 14 113 32 430
# Stops:veh 0 43 13 7 87 51 0 73 35 21 134 36 500
Queue 1:veh 0 10 3 2 20 13 0 19 9 5 32 9 32
Queue 1: ft 0 265 81 46 513 332 0 469 232 132 820 226 820
APPR TOTALS Int
Param:Units SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Total
AdjVol vph 253 676 456 855 2240
Svc Lvl:LOS D+ D+ E+ D+ D
Deg Sat:v/c 0.45 0.63 0.77 0.71 0.67
HCM Del:s/v 42.9 41.2 57.4 44.4 45.9
Tot Del:min 45 117 109 159 430
# Stops:veh 56 145 108 191 500
Queue l:veh 10 20 19 32 32
Queue 1: ft 265 513 469 820 820
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:18:04
2006 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.10] - HCM Input Worksheet
Intersection # 0 - Area Location Type: NONCBD
I I ( I Key: VOLUMES >
1 188 i 92 i 89 1 WIDTHS
1 0.0 ( 12.0 ( 12.0 II I v LANES
I 0 1 1 1 1 II
I I I II \ 53 12.0 1
/ I \ /I\
439 12.0 1 1
1
176 12.0 1 253 12.0 1 North
I
616 12.0 1
\ I /
172 12.0 1 \ II I I I
II 167 1 99 1 231 I Phasing: SEQUENCE 44
I II 12.0 1 12.0 1 0.0 I PERMSV N N N N
I I I 1 1 1 1 0 1 OVERLP N N N N
I II I I I LEADLAG LD LD
SB WB NB EB
RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Heavy veh, %HV 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Pk-hr fact, PHF .93 .93 .93 .91 .91 .91 .84 .84 .84 .93 .93 .93
Pretimed or Act A A A A A A A A A A A A
Strtup lost, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext eff grn, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival typ, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Ped vol, vped 0 0 0 0
Bike vol, vbic 0 0 0 0
Parking locatns NO NO NO NO
Park mnvrs, Nm 0 0 0 0
Bus stops, NB 0 0 0 0
Grade, %G .0 .0 .0 .0
Sq 44 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 Phase 6 1
1 + 1++ 1 I I I I
1 + 1++ 1 1 ++++I I I
/I\ I 1<+ + I 1 <++++1 1 I
I I I v I ****I I I I
1 i i i++++ v 1 1 I I
North 1 I **>I I****> I I I
I I * I I i++++ i 1 I
I * I I I v I I I
C=120"1 G= 13.6" 1 G= 28.5" 1 G= 19.0" 1 G= 42.9" 1 G= 0.0" ( G= 0.0" 1
I Y+R= 4.0" l Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 0.0" 1 Y+R= 0.0" 1
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:18:04
2006 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.10] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet
Volume SB WB NB EB
Adjustment RT TH LT RT TH IT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Volume, V 188 92 89 53 439 253 231 99 167 172 616 176
Pk-hr fact, PHF .93 .93 .93 .91 .91 .91 .84 .84 .84 .93 .93 .93
Adj my flow, vp 202 99 96 58 482 278 275 118 199 185 662 189
Lane group, LG RT+TH LT RT TH LT RT+TH LT RT TH LT
Adj LG flow,' v 301 96 58 482 278 393 199 185 662 189
Prop LT, PIT .000 1.00 .000`.000 1.00 .000 1.00 .000 .000 1.00
Prop RT, PRT .671 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .700 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Saturation SB WB NB EB
Flow Rate RT TH IT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Number lanes, N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Heavy veh, fHV .980 .980 .980 .980 .980 .980 .980 .980 .980 .980
Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Lane util, fLU 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Left-turn, fLT 1.000 .950 1.000 1.00 .950 1.000 .950 1.000 1.00 .950
Right-turn, fRT .899 1.00 .850 1.00 1.00 .895 1.00 .850 1.00 1.00
PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Adj satflow, s 1675 1770 1583 1863 1770 1667 1770 1583 1863 1770
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.101 - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet
Capacity SB WB NB EB
Analysis RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Lane group, LG RT+TH LT RT TH LT RT+TH LT RT TH LT
Adj Flow, v 301 96 58 482 278 393 199 185 662 189
Satflow, s 1675 1770 1583 1863 1770 1667 1770 1583 1863 1770
Lost time, tL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Effect green, g 28.5 13.6 42.9 42.9 19.0 28.5 13.6 42.9 42.9 19.0
Grn ratio, g/C .237 .113 .358 .358 .158 .237 .113 .358 .358 .158
LG capacity, c 398 200 567 667 280 396 200 567 667 280
v/c ratio, X .756 .480 .102 .723 .993 .992 .995 .326 .993 .675
Flow ratio, v/s .180 .054 .037 .259 .157 .236 .112 .117 .355 .107
Crit lane group
Sum Grit v/s,Yc 0.861 Total lost, L 16.0
Crit v/c, Xc .993
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:18:04
2006 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.10] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance
Sq 44 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1
I + I++ I I I
1 + 1 + + 1 1 ++++1
/I\ I 1<+ + 1 1 <++++1
I I f v I ****I I
I I I 1++++ v I i
North 1 G* I * *>I I****> I
I i * I I - 1++++ 1
I * I I I v I
1 G/C=0.113 1 G/C=0.237 1 G/C=0.158 1 G/C=0.358 1
1 G= 13.6" 1 G= 28.5" 1 G= 19.0" 1 G= 42.9" 1
1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1
1 OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=14.7% 1 OFF=41.7% 1 OFF=60.9% 1
C=120 sec G=104.0 sec = 86.7% Y=16.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
MVMT TOTALS SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Int
Param:Units RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
AdjVol: vph 202 99 96 58 482 278 275 118 199 185 662 189 2843
Wid/Ln:ft/# 0/0 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1 0/0 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1
g/C Rqd@C:% 0 32 26 25 37 31 0 36 29 29 44 28
g/C Used: % 0 24 11 36 36 16 0 24 11 36 36 16
SV @E: vph 0 383 171 567 667 254 0 381 171 567 667 254 4082
Svc Lvl:LOS D D C+ D+ ' F F F C E D E+
Deg Sat:v/c 0.00 0.76 0.48 0.10 0.72 0.99 0.00 0.99 1.00 0.33 0.99 0.68 0.82
HCM Del:s/v 0.0 50.6 51.7 25.8 37.2102.2 0.0 88.8115.3 28.3 71.2 53.9 66.3
Tot Del:min 0 64 21 6 75 118 0 145 96 22 196 42 785
# Stops:veh 0 70 23 10 104 69 0 98 50 34 165 45 668
Queue 1:veh 0 17 6 2 25 21 0 28 15 8 43 11 43
Queue 1: ft 0 440 144 61 621 521 0 701 391 207 1095 285 1095
APPR TOTALS Int
Param:Units SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Total
AdjVol: vph 397 818 592 1036 2843
Svc Lv1:LOS D E+ F E+ E+
Deg Sat:v/c 0.69 0.77 0.99 0.82 0.82
HCM Del:s/v 50.9 58.5 97.7 60.4 66.3
Tot Del:min 85 199 241 260 785
# Stops:veh 93 183 148 244 668
Queue l:veh 17 25 28 43 43
Queue 1: ft 440 621 701 1095 1095
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:19:45
2006 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.10] - HCM Input Worksheet
Intersection # 0 - Area Location Type: NONCBD
i I I I I I Key: VOLUMES >
i 203 ( 100 J 93 II I 1 WIDTHS
1 0.0 i 12.0 1 12.0 JI I v LANES
I 0 1 1 1 1 II
I I I II \ 60 12.0 1
/ I \ /I\
439 12.0 1
1_____--
204 12.0 1 253 12.0 1 North
616 12. 0 ' 1
\ I /
172 12.0 1 \ II i I I
II 167 1 113 1 231 J Phasing: SEQUENCE 44
I II 12.0 1 12.0 1 0.0 J PERMSV N N N N
II 1 1 1 1 0 1 OVERLP N N N N
I II I I I LEADLAG LD LD
SB WB NB EB
RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Heavy veh, %HV 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Pk-hr fact, PHF .93 .93 .93 .91 .91 .91 .84 .84 .84 .93 .93 .93
Pretimed or Act A A A A A A A A A A A A
Strtup lost, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext eff grn, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival typ, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Ped vol, vped 0 0 0 0
Bike vol, vbic 0 0 0 0
Parking locatns NO NO NO NO
Park mnvrs, Nm 0 0 0 0
Bus stops, NB 0 0 0 0
Grade, %G .0 .0 .0 .0
Sq 44 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 Phase 6 1
J + J++ I I I I I
1 + 1++ i J ++++I I I
/J\ 1 1<+ + J J <++++1 I I
I I I v I ****I I I I
I I I J++++ v J J I I
North 1 I **>i I****> i I I
I t * I I J++++ I I i
I * I I I v I I I
C=120"1 G= 13.4" I G= 29.3" I G= 18.8" J G= 42.5" 1 G= 0.0" J G= 0.0" I
I Y+R= 4.0" l Y+R= 4.0" J Y+R= 4.0" l Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 0.0" I Y+R= 0.0" I
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:19:45
2006 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.10] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet
Volume SB WB NB EB
Adjustment RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Volume, V 203 100 93 60 439 253 231 113 167 172 616 204
Pk-hr fact, PHF .93 .93 .93 .91 .91 .91 .84 .84 .84 .93 .93 .93
Adj my flow, vp 218 108 100 66 482 278 275 135 199 185 662 219
Lane group, LG RT+TH LT RT TH LT RT+TH LT RT TH LT
Adj LG flow,, v 326 100 .66 482 278 410 199 185 662 219
Prop LT, PLT .000 1.00 .000-..000 1.00 .000 1.00 .000 .000 1.00
Prop RT, PRT .669 .000 1.0'00'.000 .000 .671 .000 1.000 .000 .000
Saturation SB WB NB EB
Flow Rate RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Number lanes, N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Heavy veh, fHV .980 .980 .980 .980 .980 .980 .980 .980 .980 .980
Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Lane util, fLU 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Left-turn, fLT 1.000 .950 1.000 1.00 .950 1.000 .950 1.000 1.00 .950
Right-turn, fRT .900 1.00 .850 1.00 1.00 .899 1.00 .850 1.00 1.00
PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00
Adj satflow, s 1676 1770 1583 1863 1770 1675 1770 1583 1863 1770
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.10] - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet
Capacity SB WB NB EB
Analysis RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Lane group, LG RT+TH LT RT TH LT RT+TH LT RT TH LT
Adj Flow, v 326 100 66 482 278 410 199 185 662 219
Satflow, s 1676 1770 1583 1863 1770 1675 1770 1583 1863 1770
Lost time, tL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Effect green, g 29.3 13.4 42.5 42.5 18.8 29.3 13.4 42.5 42.5 18.8
Grn ratio, g/C .244 .112 .354 .354 .157 .244 .112 .354 .354 .157
LG capacity, c 409 198 561 660 277 409 198 561 660 277
v/c ratio, X .797 .505 .118 .730 1.00 1.002 1.01 .330 1.00 .791
Flow ratio, v/s .195 .057 .042 .259 .157 .245 .112 .117 .355 .124
Crit lane group
Sum Grit v/s,YC 0.870 Total lost, L 16.0
Crit v/c, Xc 1.003
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:19:45
2006 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.10] - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet
Delay SB WB NB EB
and LOS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Lane group, LG RT+TH LT RT TH LT RT+TH LT RT TH LT
Adj Flow, v 326 100 66 482 278 410 199 185 662 219
LG capacity, c 409 198 561 660 277 409 198 561 660 277
v/c ratio, x .797 .505 .118 .730 1.00 1.002 1.01 .330 1.00 .791
Grn ratio, g/C .244 .112 .354 .354 .157 .244 .112 .354 .354 .157
Unif delay, dl 42.6 50.1 26.1 33.8 50.6 45.4 53.3 28.3 38.8 48.7
Incr calib, k .34 .11 .11' .29 .50 .50 .50 .11 .50 .34
Incr delay, d2 10.6 2.1 .1 4.1 55.0 45.1 65.3 .3 35.8 14.3
Queue Delay, d3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Unif delay, dl* .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Prog factor, PF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Contrl delay, d 53.2 52.2 26.2 37.9 106 90.5 119 28.7 74.5 63.1
Lane group LOS D D C+ D+ F F F C E E+
Final Queue,Qbi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Appr delay, dA 52.9 59.7 99.6 64.2
Approach LOS D E+ F E+
Appr flow, vA 426 826 609 1066
Intersection: Delay 68.7 LOS E
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:19:45
2006 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.101 - HCM Back of Queue Worksheet
Queues in SB WB NB EB
Worst Lanes RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT
Lane group, LG RT+TH LT RT TH LT RT+TH LT RT TH LT
Init queue, QbL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ln flow, vL 326 100 66 482 278 410 199 185 662 219
Ln satflow, sL 1676 1770 1583 1863 1770 1675 1770 1583 1863 1770
Ln capacity, cL 409 198 561 660 277 409 198 561 660 277
Flow ratio, yL .195' .057 .042 .259 .157 .245 .112 .117 .355 .124
v/c ratio, XL .797 .505 .118.:730 1.00 1.002 1.01 .330 1.00 .791
Effect green, g 29.3 13.4 42.5-42.5 18.8 29.3 13.4 42.5 42.5 18.8
Grn ratio, g/C .244 .112 .354..354 .157 .244 .112 .354 .354 .157
Upstr filter, I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Grn arrivals, P .24 .11 .35 .35 .16 .24 .11 .35 .35 .16
Platn ratio, Rp 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Prog factr, PF2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Queue (1st), Q1 10.2 3.1 1.5 14.0 9.3 13.7 6.6 4.5 22.1 7.0
Queue factr, kB .48 .31 .58 .64 .38 .48 .31 .58 .64 .38
Queue (2nd), Q2 1.6 .3 .1 1.6 3.7 5.0 2.8 .3 7.4 1.2
Avg queue, Q 11.8 3.4 1.6 15.6 13.0 18.7 9.5 4.8 29.5 8.3
90% factor, fB 1.62 1.74 1.77 1.58 1.61 1.56 1.65 1.71 1.49 1.66
90% queue, Qp 19.2 6.0 2.8 24.7 20.9 29.1 15.6 8.2 43.9 13.7
Avg spacing, Lh 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3 25.3
Avail storg, La 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avg distance 299 87 39 395 328 473 240 121 745 209
Avg ratio, RQ .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
90% distance 485 151 70 625 528 736 395 208 1112 348
90% ratio, RQp .00 .00 .00 '.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
BENUM-COYNE 10/17/02
YELM AVE & SR-507 10:19:45
2006 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
SIGNA12000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.10.10] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance
Sq 44 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1
+ I + + I I i
I + I + + i i ++++1
/I\ I 1<+ + 1 1 <++++1
I I I v I ****I I
I I I i++++ v 1 I
North I E* I * *>I I****> I
I I * I I - 1++++ I
I * I I I V I
G/C=0.112 I G/C=0.244 I G/C=0.157 1 G/C=0.354 1
I G= 13.4" I G= 29.3" 1 G= 18.8" 1 G= 42.5" 1
1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" l Y+R= 4.0" 1
1 OFF= 0.0% I OFF=14.5% I OFF=42.3% 1 OFF=61.3% 1
C=120 sec G=104.0 sec = 86.7% Y=16.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
MVMT TOTALS SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Int
Param:Units RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
AdjVol: vph 218 108 100 66 482 278 275 135 199 185 662 219 2927
Wid/Ln:ft/# 0/0 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1 0/0 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1
g/C Rqd@C:% 0 33 26 25 37 31 0 36 29 29 44 29
g/C Used: % 0 24 11 35 35 16 0 24 11 35 35 16
SV @E: vph 0 395 169 561 660 251 0 395 169 561 660 251 4072
Svc Lvl:LOS D D C+ D+ F F F C E E+ E
Deg Sat:v/c 0.00 0.80 0.50 0.12 0.73 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.79 0.84
HCM Del:s/v 0.0 53.2 52.2 26.2 37.9105.6 0.0 90.5118.5 28.7 74.5 63.1 68.7
Tot Del:min 0 72 22 7 76 122 0 155 98 22 206 58 838
# Stops:veh 0 77 24 11 105 69 0 102 49 34 165 53 689
Queue 1:veh 0 19 6 3 25 21 0 29 16 8 44 14 44
Queue 1: ft 0 485 151 70 625 528 0 736 395 208 1112 348 1112
APPR TOTALS Int
Param:Units SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Total
AdjVol: vph 426 826 609 1066 2927
Svc Lvl:LOS D E+ F E+ E
Deg Sat:v/c 0.73 0.77 1.00 0.84 0.84
HCM Del:s/v 52.9 59.7 99.6 64.2 68.7
Tot Del:min 94 205 253 286 838
# Stops:veh 101 185 151 252 689
Queue l:veh 19 25 29 44 44
Queue 1: ft 485 625 736 1112 1112
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Intersection
Agency/Co. Jurisdiction
Date Performed 1011712002 Analysis Year 2002 EXISTING
al sis Time Period PM PK HR
roject Description
East/West Street: RAILWAY North/South Street: RHOTON
Intersection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 159 74 6 123 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.84 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 182 85 6 146 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 2 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
onfiguration TR LT
U stream Si nal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 44 0 11 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.76 0.90 0.76 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 57 0 14 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0
Percent Grade 0 0
Flared Approach N N
torage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
nes 0 0 0 0 0 0
nfiguration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
roach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
ne Configuration LT LR
vph) 6 71
m)(vph) 1297 648
0.00 0.11
queue length 0.01 0.37
[5'%'
Control Delay 7.8 11.2
LOS A 8
Approach Delay - - 11.2
pproach LOS - - B
t/CS:000- Copyright C 2000 Umvcrsity or Florida All Rights Rmcmcd Vinson 4 lb
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Intersection
Agency/Co. Jurisdiction
Date Performed 10/17/2002 Analysis Year 2006 WITHOUT PROJECT
jAnalXsis Time Period PM PK HR
Project Description
ast/West Street: RAILWAY North/South Street: RHOTON
Intersection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 0.25
ehicie Volumes and Adjustments
a'o -Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 202 93 7 222 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90
ourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 232 106 7 246 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 2 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
onfiguration TR LT
stream Si nal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 70 0 12 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.76 0.90 0.76 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 92 0 15 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0
Percent Grade N 0 0
Flared Approach N N
torage 0 0
T Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
nfiguration LR
Dela Queue Length, and Level of Service
proach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
ne Configuration LT LR
(vph) 7 107
(m) (vph) 1221 521
Ic 0.01 0.21
5% queue length 0.02 0.76
Control Delay 8.0 13.7
OS A B
pproach Delay - - 13.7
Vpproach LOS - - B
HCS:00 Copyright C 2000 University of Flonda. All Rights Rcscrvcd vcm" a 1 h
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Intersection
Agency/Co. Jurisdiction
Date Performed 10/17/2002 Analysis Year 2006 WITH PROJECT
Analysis Time Period PM PK HR
Project Description
East/West Street: RAILWAY orth/South Street: RHOTON
Intersection Orientation: North-South [Study Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 251 93 7 249 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HF,R 0 288 106 7 276 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 2 -
Median Type Undivided
T Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
onfiguration TR LT
U stream Si nal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 70 0 12 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.76 0.90 0.76 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 92 0 15 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0
Percent Grade 0 0
Flared Approach N N
forage 0 0
T Channeliized 0 0
nes 0 0 0 0 0 0
nfiguration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
(vph) 7 107
(m) (vph) 1165 466
lc 0.01 0.23
5% queue length 0.02 0.88
Control Delay 8.1 15.0+
LOS A C
pproach Delay - - 15.0+
Lproach LOS - - C
HCS=000N Copyright C :000 Univcrsiry or Florida, All Rights Rc cncd Vcrs,un 4 1 h
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Intersection
Agency/Co. Jurisdiction
Date Performed 10/17/2002 Analysis Year 2002 EXISTING
al sis Time Period PM PK HR
Project Descri lion
East/West Street: N.P. RD North/South Street: RHOTON
Intersection Orientation: North-South [Study Period hrs : 0.25
ehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
olume 0 53 87 4 83 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.73 0.73 0.84 0.84 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 72 119 4 98 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 2 _
edian Type Undivided
nnelized 0 0
RT Cha
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
nfiguration TR LT
o
stream Signal 0 0
U
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 76 0 4 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.71 0.90 0.71 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 107 0 5 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0
Percent Grade 0 0
Flared Approach N N
0 0
torage
T Channelized 0 0
anes 0 0 0 0 0 0
nfiguration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
proach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
ne Configuration LT LR
(vph) 4 112
(m) (vph) 1383 754
lc 0.00 0.15
5% queue length 0.01 0.52
ontroi Delay 7.6 10.6
OS A B
pproach Delay - - 10.6
pproach LOS - - B
HCS2000- Copyright c 2000 Univcrsity or Florida All Rights Rcs rvcd Vcrsm 4 1 h
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
alyst Intersection
Agency/Co. Jurisdiction
Date Performed 10/17/2002 Analysis Year 2006 WITHOUT PROJECT
Analysis Time Period PM PK HR
Project Description
East/West Street: N.P. RD North/South Street: RHOTON
Intersection Orientation: North-South [Study Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 71 110 5 135 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.73 0.73 0.84 0.84 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 97 150 5 160 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 2 - -
Median Type Undivided
T Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
onfiguration TR LT
U stream Si nal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 128 0 5 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.71 0.90 0.71 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 180 0 7 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0
Percent Grade 0 0
Flared Approach N N
torage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
anes 0 0 0 0 0 0
nfiguration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
proach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
v (vph) 5 187
(m) (vph) 1319 658
lc 0.00 0.28
5% queue length 0.01 1.17
ontrol Delay 7.7 12.6
OS A B
Approach Delay - - 12.6
pproach LOS - - B
HCS:000t4 Copyright C 2000 Univcrsity of Florida. All Rights Rcsmcd Vm. im 4 1 h
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Intersection
Agency/Co. Jurisdiction
Date Performed 1011712002 Analysis Year 2006 WITH PROJECT
al sis Time Period PM PK HR
Pro'ect Descn lion
East/West Street: N. P. RD orth/South Street: RHOTON
Intersection Orientation: North-South [Study Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 71 159 5 135 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.73 0.73 0.84 0.84 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 97 217 5 160 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 2
Median Type Undivided
T Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
onfiguration TR LT
U stream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
L T R L T R
FPeak-Hour ement 7 8 9 10 11 12
volume 159 0 5 0 0 0
Factor, PHF 0.71 0.90 0.71 0.90 0.90 0.90
dy Flow Rate, HFR 223 0 7 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0
Percent Grade 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
proach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
15% vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
ne Configuration LT LR
vph) 5 230
(m) (vph) 1246 627
0.00 0.37
queue length 0.01 1.68
Control Delay 7.9 14.0
LOS A B
Approach Delay - - 14.0
pproach LOS - - B
HCS1000- Copyright c :ooo univmity or Flonda. All Rights Rcsmcd ~''crSwn a ib
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst intersection
Agency/Co. Jurisdiction
Date Performed 1011712002 Analysis Year 2002 EXISTING
Analysis Time Period PM PK HR
Project Description
East/West Street: N. P. RD orth/South Street: WILKENSON
Intersection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 181 93 7 202 88
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 196 0 0 219 95
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 - - 2 - -
Median Type Undivided
T Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
onfiguration LT TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 0 0 0 92 0 8
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.69
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 133 0 11
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 2 0 2
Percent Grade 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
(vph) 0 144
(m) (vph) 1246 570
/c 0.00 0.25
5% queue length 0.00 1.00
Control Delay 7.9 13.4
LOS A B
Approach Delay - - 13.4
pproach LOS - - 8
HCS2000- Copynght C 2000 Univmsity of Flondn. All Rights Resmed uvvon 4 Ib
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Intersection
Agency/Co. Jurisdiction
ate Performed 1011712002 Analysis Year 2006 WITH PROJECT
al sis Time Period PM PK HR
Pro'ect Description
East/West Street: N.P. RD North/South Street WILKENSON
Intersection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 225 93 7 239 167
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 244 0 D 259 181
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 2 - -
Median Type Undivided
[t, Channelized 0 0
es 0 1 0 0 1 0
nfiguration LT TR
stream Si nal 0 0
nor Street Westbound Eastbound
vement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
lume 0 0 0 165 0 9
ak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.69
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 239 0 13
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 2 0 2
Percent Grade 0 0
Flared Approach N N
torage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
nes 0 0 0 0 0 0
onfiguration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
proach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
(vph) 0 252
(m) (vph) 1131 476
lc 0.00 0.53
5% queue length 0.00 3.04
Control Delay 8.2 20.8
LOS A C
pproach Delay - - 20.8
proach LOS - - C
HCS:000M Copynght C 2000 Univaraity or Florida. All Rights Ramcd Vcn.on 4 1 h
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Intersection
Agency/Co. Jurisdiction
Date Performed 1011712002 Analysis Year 2006 WITH PROJECT
al sis Time Period PM PK HR
Project Description
East/West Street: N ENTR orth/South Street: WILKENSON
Intersection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 320 14 0 367 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 355 15 0 407 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
U stream Signal 0 0
rMinor Street Westbound Eastbound
ement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
ume 8 0 0 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade 0 0
torage 0 0
lonfiguration ared Approach N N
T Channelized 0 0
anes 0 0 0 0 0 0
LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
(vph) 0 8
(m) (vph) 1200 372
lc 0.00 0.02
5% queue length 0.00 0.07
Control Delay 8.0 14.9
LOS A 8
Approach Delay - - 14.9
pproach LOS - - B
HCS:0001 Copynght C .1000 University or Florida, All Rights Resmcd Vmmn 4 1 b
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
Analyst Intersection
Agency/Co. Jurisdiction
Date Performed 1011712002 Analysis Year 2006 WITH PROJECT
lAnalysis Time Period PM PK HR
Project Description
East/West Street: S ENTR North/South Street: W/LKENSON
Intersection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs : 0.25
Fehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Mov ment 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume 0 334 56 0 375 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HfR 0 371 62 0 416 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - . - 0 - -
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
onfiguration TR LT
U stream Si nal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 31 0 0 0 0 0
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Grade 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
(vph) 0 34
(m) (vph) 1137 348
/c 0.00 0.10
5% queue length 0.00 0.32
Control Delay 28.21 16.5
LOS C
pproach Dela16.5
Vpproach LOS - - C
HMO" Copyright C 20W Unwmity of Florida. All Rights Racncd ~'cr mn Ih
symantec_ symantec spa
united states 32: view cart I nevrorder I order status I checkout I shop h
global stores Invoice
products:
» all pr_du_.t, Order Number: 2061773888
j ,t virus pr~t_zzti_n
int=-rnetsevurity Order Date: 21-FEB-03
pr_bleni s_i ing
_nrnLin i-ati,_.ns Billing Address: Shipping Address:
A m3cint, h Grant Beck Same as Billing Address
trial~•rare 105 Yelm Avenue West
mall business Yelm, WA 98597
- United States
licensing
customerservice Stock Quantity Product Name Platform Unit Extende
Number Price Price
subscription services 10021188 ]=INorton Antivirus 2003 z- $199.95 $19
Windows
upgrade center 5-Pack eera+d200axp
Coupon Code : Not Available
about syma rrtec store Sub Total $19
A privacy p.--.Ii--y
Taxes $1
5e:.urity
a sjnant~ st_re Shipping
p spoim,,watch center Total $22
newsletter Thank you for your purchase!
If you requested that your order be shipped to you and would like more information on the shippin
product search and receiving details please click here:
When will I receive my package?
,8a.
If you requested a downloadable version of your product, and would like more information on how
access the downloaded product, please click here:
other online partners I've finished downloading; where do I find the product?
amazon.co 1 f. `RETURFt
Mot-60'r
~IT.Solutons F~dr~8usiness;:
&o City of Yelm
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 947
Yelm, WA 98597
(360) 458-3244
To: Stephen Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner
From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development f
Date: July 31, 2003 l~
Subj: Revised Staff Report
BenumlCoyne Subdivision and Shoreline Permit, SUB-02-8329-YL
Applicant: Robert Coyne and Robert Benum
Benum Enterprises
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
Agent: Terry Brink
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson, & Daheim, LLP
1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2200
P.O. Box 1157
Tacoma, WA 98401-1157
Engineer: James Crippen, P.E.
2601 South 35th Street, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
Background: After the preparation of the staff report dated June 17, 2003, and before
the originally scheduled public hearing on this matter, the applicants and Community
Development staff held a series of meetings in order develop a revised site plan that
staff could support in relation to the proposed 5101507 Loop and met the applicants
goals for the development.
In consideration of the accommodation demonstrated by the applicants with respect to
the proposed 510/507, the City is issuing this Revised Staff Report as a supplement to
the original Staff Report dated June 17, 2003. The original Staff Report shall remain
operative and have vitality except: (i) when any provision(s) included in the Revised
Staff Report conflict with it, in which event, the Revised Staff Report shall prevail; and
(ii) with respect to the following provisions included in the original Staff Report that are
hereby expressly deleted:
a. The fourth Finding on page 7; Raft bm*AW
Cow Na.=
FAMO N"
b. The fifth Finding on page 7;
c. The sole Conclusion on page 8;
d. The proposed alternative conditions of approval 6.A. on page 8; and
e. The proposed condition 15.A. on page 14.
Revisions to Site Plan: In order to maintain the size of the proposed lots, the revised
site plan includes 104 lots rather than the originally proposed 108 and this is only
accomplished by utilizing the open space areas normally required by the code.
The revised site plan contains the following changes from the original proposal:
To meet the open space requirements of the Code, the applicant's have utilized
the City owned railroad right of way and will construct a pedestrian trail along the
property frontage. This trail has been planned for by the City and is a 10 foot
asphalt walkway with a fence separating the trail from the railroad tracks.
Because the tracks are not yet utilized by the City, the applicant will not be
required to construct the separation fence.
Landscaping requirements along the railroad right of way and the power canal
are waived, as these natural features accomplish the same goal of separating
adjacent land uses as the required landscaping. The original proposal included a
6 foot board fence along these two boundaries, which is also waived because it
was part of the landscaping requirements.
The road section within the subdivision is modified to eliminate one lane of on-
street parking with landscape islands on the other side of the street to clearly
define the remaining single parking lane.
Flag lots and lots with narrow frontages on cul-de-sacs will utilize shared
driveways. Homes on some flag lots will have the garages oriented to the side of
the property and will be located behind the face of the building.
The applicant's engineer has determined on a preliminary basis that the water
system does not need to be looped to provide fire flow if the line is upsized to a
12 inch line from the point of connection to the subdivision. Within the
subdivision, the main size will be smaller and will vary in diameter.
The City of Yelm will reconstruct or waive the reconstruction of City and County
roads disturbed during the installation of the water and sewer lines.
The applicants will be entitled to a latecomers agreement for the installation of
water and sewer lines pursuant to Chapter 13.12 YMC entitled "Assessment
Reimbursement Contracts (Latecomers Agreements)".
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Hearing Examiner approve the amended subdivision with the
following changes to the conditions proposed in the June 17, 2003, staff report.
New Condition 1.A. Setbacks shall be as shown on the revised site plan dated July 17,
2003.
New Condition 3.A. The applicant shall construct a 10 foot wide asphalt pedestrian trail
as identified in the Yelm Rail with Trail proposal for acquisition of
the railroad right of way, provided that a fence shall not be
constructed along the subdivision frontage within the City of Yelm
railroad right of way. This shall satisfy the open space
requirements of Chapter 14.12 YMC by providing usable public
open space.
New Condition 5.E. The neighborhood collector road standard shall be modified for all
roads within the subdivision to include:
A 5 foot (5) sidewalk;
A six foot (6) planting strip;
A one and one half foot (1 rolled concrete curb;
Two eleven foot (11) asphalt travel lanes;
A nine foot (9') parking lane with period landscape planters to
clearly delineate the parking area;
A one and one half foot (1 rolled concrete curb;
A six foot (6') planting strip.
A road section prepared by the Applicant's engineer is included in the revised site plan
dated July 17, 2003, which represents the specifications acceptable to the City of Yelm.
New Condition 51. Shared driveways will be allowed for the following lots:
21 and 22 52, 53, and 54 72 and 73
23 and 24 55 and 56 80 and 81
25 and 26 57 and 58 82 and 83
27 and 28 62 and 63 84 and 85
35, 36, 37, and 38 65 and 66 87 and 88
39 and 40 68 and 69 89 and 90
41 and 42 70 and 71 91 and 92
Replacement of Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes in relevant
fourth finding on part the following policy regarding right-of-way:
page 7 of original
staff report: To retain existing right-of-way and to identify,
acquire, and preserve rights-of-way
Replacement of Although the revised site plan does not result in the retention of
conclusion on page existing right-of-way, or the identifying, acquiring and
8 of original staff preservation of a right-of-way, it, together with revised Condition
report: 6.A. below, affords the City additional time in the development
process to accelerate its efforts to obtain sufficient funding to
begin condemnation of the desired right-of-way for the proposed
510/507 corridor by delaying the issuance of building permits on
the lots situated within said proposed corridor.
Replacement No building permit shall issue for any of the lots listed below, all of
Condition 6.A. which are situated in Phase II of the subdivision and within the
proposed 5101507 corridor, until building permits have been issued
for every other lot located outside the corridor: 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84,
85, 86 and 87. Once building permits are issued on all other lots
than those listed above, the applicant may apply for building
permits on any and all of the lots listed above without regard to the
sequence or number of lots.
New Condition 8.C. The City of Yelm will coordinate and be responsible for the
reconstruction of N.P. Road and Wilkensen Road after installation
of the water line by the applicant. Civil plan review and approval
shall include the timing of installation to coordinate with the City's
road maintenance program and condition of the backfilled utility
trench. The processing of the applicants' final plat approval shall
not be delayed due to the timing of the City's satisfaction of this
condition.
New Condition 9.C.
The City of Yelm will coordinate and be responsible for the
reconstruction of N.P. Road and Wilkensen Road after installation
of the sewer line by the applicant. Civil plan review and approval
shall include the timing of installation to coordinate with the City's
road maintenance program and condition of the backfilled utility
trench. The processing of the applicants' final plat approval shall
not be delayed due to the timing of the City's satisfaction of this
condition.
Replacement The applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan to
Condition 15.A. include the perimeter of the project site, planter strips, open space,
and stormwater facilities. The landscaping requirements for the
northern and eastern boundaries of the property adjacent to the
Centralia power canal and the City's railroad right of way are
waived, including the previously planned fencing. Landscaping
within remaining common open space areas, tracts A and B, shall
be Type VII, or lawn, at the sole discretion of the Applicant.
Based on the Analysis and Findings, and the Conditions of Approval above, staff
recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve SUB-02-8329-YL.
6660^CL4 (90~ y6 soMb6 wo'°1b (90Z) NI
6pb96 t09Z 0
6tbL^ ~ Yt6C 4t"OS ~
~~o( OOZ aF! S -`I ~
~4 ~~fU118UU1~lU~ t~,,
9999.Syg( d 11J p ,
' 0 0£ 61n Z
a-atlxtl3ltl, a38Oa
Id>d aNxoo
ryoftv.~,~~oatN ~ 431d1aOW
lvld A~dMWI'13bd
NlVINnOW
Ada gg -aslH iS to i N
ON J81U ~ ~ 6 ~ `u c~Z` cwi- 4 ° F
'J38 ONE a
r r 3 s a v ' All ~z
S Pug=
o-N m E UwS ~ J v°?lii up-~iy It it o
a o a 3 r3 6 K `d ~ ~ Z Vi K c'6jN 4
' Q Z Q3 E ~a oau3°uhi~a m o ° s
p pvs Q LLJi<nnnn$QNN c OONYCSZu~Y h F.' t~l~ uJ~
W t N Y Y
~ ~ y` U~ ? . 5 a $ ~ ~ g 3 ~ aj W U' JL -hl Z F
q' C+a t+I LY £a'S 24 r 7~. Z n: sa c.)pp'- tD 10 %~tls
coo
93
U Y r` w
U m V'~~ N tou8 aj7~~OFJNF n Y
/YOSN~~7tM ro 3~ .f, c crn~ W C uJ 4 ~~F ~
w /W~ mm
tilt ,rte Ou. ,\r,y % o UU~ J gZ~LaZ N Y
~Z 3p V W 6M V V Iya W W'' ° LQ.Y Owm
$ p $4° V" w ° gS 3 `s N Wwo G oYama g~
Z~ ,a ZU?YJ K 3~N Q'Wia~ N Kw$~3
.da, ND10!/~ M w y d Q_ pqq !tom- 77777,,~ 11~~
tiip~t t1! N x(62 ~WryJ N wLL
Z L ` J vow4y wazg uwi 0 4~~ 9 ~ a~
(.J ~Yw ~r~om pu b%v ZpaW~W upi Np~y
p
.Jj Nz I I iu
L 1 Z. b~ W NajSJ
g~+otiw ~3z~ Zo
Ngp t 1583%0-21
N hZ~ uiwr~-p. d`c'ti d Nrs~w3 pup ~
d W ? Zw~' r''' 'N8q4X1yy 4 my
MOW o ~
C N m ~ 4
'U `{WO ~a'n p'?u~.~a,:4LLZ<Ti pa j~ ¢
=a 6 ? ,wo1'. s W-!a9. It:~ ~ao°ewp W °VYSw
3 m mow ,W~ 200'-Sw m 3YZ1~ N wKWW, t50;
W rq2 O 0°~ B j KN O GI- JO
!TQ~ \So `r'wcz. oWO~o~xiU° &o°w"N m~r~w
a
~?'t~n.1YY y0012-~R°p pb'."CLJ N(cyyyZyZ OZy7~z
V~ a • / ~ J a~wk 4~0~q ZZ mW~O0~0 Z. ~a06lJp, Y=N 4474W~iw
i6~. ( ° gZ No F~CYr ~w rnc`~w0~ r? §Gih
I+W \ V I ` 1~ NY~ N~F4~Y :pV i~ ~ N
W r
M « w
y ' Z
x to
0
/ i3 9
(yf" ~ w ) lit
L3• 7-
woo d
W <
OG cn a / sx _ g4
woo
V ~
low
ul woo U)
a goo
Li Q ti ,1 2 ` Q.
W m
Soso
W 11~~~ a = b w „ ~ ° ,air ~ ~
W U
a S
o . ' Sn 7ri ,hh ei ,o9r ~ 09 ,09 00/ ~ ~ ? ~ _
U. Q ,oor J ..ei ~EJ`d0 NOSH
4 ~ A,N01~~-^ A4 O
N°ISNnW'1.WS33d0lS
lf~, Z
w~
9v4oczeoL9-w'aro LL
O ~ d OG
' ?Qv ~ Z U
z ON
h oc Wi
v o z
m o
U. z °N OG
Z06 ~Nx NV
qs3 N . 7
OWR
a
Exhibit I
Site Plan and Application Packet
AUG-01-2003 15:35 CITY OF Y~-A-COMM DEV 360 458 3144 F#124 P.006/006
T J^'aa f E rrorFaa•.naav sp3~ ...'.eed«e ~~~`•':~v+~wii -r~ i,x~I
pal
iLtlO Kp~~r~ r'd'
c„ D ey , rrnea Lv1d Aw"IIII lixw clwilc$ow 9
ass NORJQ uw nouaeooanan^x Cc 3SRJNns NIVtNnow
wn=
Yid c~ a r g
~l ~ 2 e
alai 16
+~a
ti w O 3~ N lilt
a~y Q SIDON.! 3 w- €
ea rr MY ~ x a~ « ~ ,J Sb~ H ~ H1,111,11,111 "If I 8 ~ J a'
W oz .6 w
N~
cc:
.1 U a lip IV "'~l p a pSejr
91, Rol it .0, 1
ii I Him
FA i
Ila
BINH,
n s Jr / i , -
0 X~~~ y
a x 4/4 f ~i mod' K
. r `Q+ \ I e#
Q Z C r" ` A 3
1~ V Pik 1 s' #
y e i µ r
af"
E ¢ LL z d
w / v 19 ON ~y
a z D
a W Ef
V
0O 14 U
N
~ e t~j Oaf
J -
TOTAL P.006
2532726439 AUG.01'2003 15:27 RECEIVED FROM: 3604583144 #0703-006
-RECEIVED
NOV 0 4 2002
of THE Pr CITY OF YELM OFFICIAL USE ONLY
a PO BOX 479 Fee
Yelm WA 98597 Date Received
458-3244 By
YELM
APPLICATION FOR File No.
WASHINGTON
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Fee: $500.00 (In addition, any professional service
charges per Resolution No. 358.)
TO THE APPLICANT: This is an application for substantial development as authorized by the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971. It is suggested that you check with appropriate local, state, or federal officials to
determine whether your project falls within any other permit systems.
NAME OF APPLICANT: Robert L. Coyne
MAILINGADDRESS:_ C/O Benum Enterprises, P.O. Box 73130, Puyallup, WA 98373
RELATION OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY (Specify Relationship)
IN Owner ? Purchaser ? Lessee ? Other
NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER, IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT Same as applicant.
GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (Please list section to the nearest quarter section, township
andrange) East of Wilkenson Road west of the railroad south of the
Centralia Power Canal. SW Qtr Sec 7, NW Qtr Sec 20, Twn 17N, Rng 2E
NAME OF WATER AREA AND/OR WETLANDS WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED
Centralia Power Canal
CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS Vacant and unimproved.
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY (Please be specific) The applicant proposes to subdivide a
28.02 acre ownership into 108 lots for single-family residential use The
subdivision will be served by City of Yelm water and sewer systems and
F u lc streets
To be completed by local official.) Nature of the existing shoreline. (Describe type of shoreline, such as marine,
stream, lake, lagoon, marsh, bog, swamp, flood plain, floodway, delta; type of beach, such as accretion, erosion,
high bank, low bank, or dike; material such as sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, riprap; and extent and type of
bulkheading, if any) :
C:\OFFICE\PLANDEPT.CCWPPS\SHORLINE.APP
(To be completed by local official.) In the event that any of the proposed buildings or structures will exceed a
height of thirty-five feet above the average grade level, indicate the approximate location of and number of
residential units, existing and potential, that will have an obstructed view.
(To be completed by local official) If the application involves a conditional use or variance, set forth in full that
portion of the master program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or, in the case of a
variance, from which the variance is being sought.
PROJECT DIAGRAMS: Draw all site plans and maps to scale, clearly indicating scale on lower right-hand comer
and attach them to the application.
(A) SITE PLAN. Include on the plan:
(1) Site boundary.
(2) Property dimensions in vicinity of project...
(3) Ordinary high-water mark.
(4) Typical cross section or cross sections showing:
(1) Existing ground elevations.
(II) Proposed ground elevation.
(III) Height of existing structures.
(IV) Height of proposed structures.
(5) Where appropriate, proposed land contours using five-foot intervals in water area and ten-foot
intervals on areas landward of ordinary high-water mark, if development involves grading, cutting, filling
or other alteration of land contours.
(6) Show dimensions and locations of existing structures which will be maintained.
(7) Show dimensions and locations of proposed structures.
(8) Identify source, composition, and volume of fill material.
(9) Identify composition and volume of any extracted materials, and identify proposed area.
(10) Location of proposed utilities, such as sewer, septic tanks and drain fields, water, gas, electricity.
(11) If the development proposes septic tanks, does proposed development comply with local health
and state regulations?
(12) Shoreline designation according to master program.
(13) Show which areas are shorelines and which are shorelines of statewide significance.
(B) VICINITY MAP.
(1) Indicate site location using natural points of reference (roads, state highways, prominent land marks,
etc.)
(2) If the development involves the removal of any soils by dredging or otherwise, please identify the,
proposed disposal site on the map. If the disposal site is beyond the confines of the vicinity map,
provide another vicinity map showing the precise location of the disposal site and its distance €o the
nearest city or town.
(3) Give a brief narrative description of the general nature of the improvements and land use within one
thousand feet in all directions from development site. (i.e., residential to the north, commercial to the
south, etc.)
C:\OFFICE\P LAN DEPT.CC\APPS\S HO RLINE. AP P
3 R
OF THE CITY OF YELM OFFICIAL USE ONLY
PO BOX 479 Feed
Yelm WA 98597 Date Received f' 1n
360-458-3244 By -Ir-
File No.
YELM APPLICATION FOR
WASHINGTON
Preliminary Plat
Fee: $750.00 plus $25.00 per lot
(in addition, any professional service charges
per Resolution #358
A preliminary plat is a request to subdivide property into five or more lots for the purpose of residential,
commercial, or industrial development. A preliminary plat is reviewed by the City's staff, Planning
Commission and City Council for conformance with City subdivision standards and other regulations.
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing after notifying neighbors and other agencies. The
plat cannot be approved unless appropriate provisions have been made for public facilities, such as
roads, sewer and water. Preliminary review will usually take about 90 days. If preliminary approval is
granted, a final surveyed plat must be presented within five (5) years with appropriate arrangements for
all improvements.
NAME OF PROJECT Benum and Coyne Property
APPLICANT Robert L. Coyne
Mailing Address c/o Benum Enterprises P.O. Box 73130
City, State and Zip Puyallup, WA 98373
Telephone (253) 845-5555
OWNER Same as applicant
Mailing Address
City, State and Zip
Telephone
ENGINEER/ARCHITECT/OTHER Apex Engineering PLLC Attn: James If. Crippen, P. E
al fng A ress 2601 South 35th Street, Suite 200
City, State and Zip Tacoma WA 98409
Telephone (253) 473-4494
SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat
application in order to subdivide a 28.02 acre-ownership into 108 lots for
single-family residential use The subdivision will be served by City of
Yelm water and sewer systems and public streets
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
General Location East of Wilkenson Road west of railroad. and south of the
Centralia Power Canal
Site Address N /A Land Area (acres) _ 2R_n2_+4-
Section 17. 20 Township 17N Range 2E. w.M.
Assessor's Tax Parcel Number 64301200100 and 22717330100
Full legal description of subject property (attach separate sheet if necessary)
See attached.
I affirm that all answers, statements and information contained In and submitted with this application
are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also affirm that I am the owner of the subject
site or am duly authorized by the owner to act with respect to this application. Further, I grant
permission from the owner to any and all employees and representatives of the City of Yelm and other
government gencies to enter upon and inspect said property as reasonably necessary to process
this app l' I agree to p~yjpfl fee the city which apply to this application.
Signed Date
CITY OF YELM PAGE 1
dsb:loffice\plandept.cc~appslpreplat.app
C e
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
ATTACH EXTRA PAGES IF NECESSARY
1. Do the subdivision's lot sizes, proposed use, etc., conform with the zoning of the property?
Please explain. Yes. Existing zoning is R-4 residential. The proposed
subdivision complies in every respect.
2. Are any provisions proposed to minimize conflicts with neighboring land uses? Describe. Yes,
Open space tracts will be provided along the easterly boundary of the
project and neighborhood collector design standards will be employed
along the Wilkenson Road frontage.
3. Is the site within 300 feet of any "critical areas" such as wetlands or streams? The
Centralia Power Canal borders the site on the north.
4. What provisions will be made for water supply? The City's water system will be
extended to provide service to all lots and tracts within the
subdivision.
5. What provisions will be made for sewage? _ The City's STEP sewer system will be
extended to serve the subdivision. All lots will have individual
septic and pump tanks.
6. What provisions will be made for storm water and/or flood control? Stormwater will be
collected and directed in a pipe system to Tract C for appropriate_ _
treatment and infiltration.
7. What provisions will be made for streets, access and/or buses? Subdivision streets
will be public per Local Access Residential Standard 4-7.
8. What provisions, if any, will be made for open space and/or recreation? 13.2 percent of
the site will be set aside in open space tracts for off road foot
_paths.
9. What provisions will be made for schools and schoolchildren? The developer will enter
into a mitigation agreement with the Yelm School District, Sidewalks
and street lights will be provided along the Wilkenson Street
frontage. Sidewalks and lighted intersections will be provided within
the subdivision.
ATTACHMENTS:
* Environmental Checklist (including $150.00 fee.)
* Transportation Impact Analysis (if applicable.)
* List of Property Owners within 300 feet (include Assessors Tax Parcel numbers and map.)
* 8 Y2 X 11 vicinity map showing nearby property, streets, land uses, streams and other features.
* Map showing location and size of water mains, sewer, storm water facilities and other utilities
and points of connection to existing systems.
* Preliminary Storm water Report and conceptual drawing.
* Copy of any covenants or restrictions that will apply.
* Grading plan for cuts and fills over 100 cubic yards.
* Ten copies of preliminary plat drawing(s), per YMC Section 16.12.030, not larger than 18"X24".
See attached checklist for required features and information.
* A reduced size copy of the plat not larger than 11 "X17".
* Tree and Vegetation Preservation Plan, per section 14.16.110.
CITY OF YELM PAGE 2
ds\c:\officelplandept.cc\apps\preplat.app
CHECKLIST
PLAN NER)JSNLY
Checked byJ:--- Date I a L 2
Submitted Messina
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (Submit one copy of each document)
1. A vicinity map, 8'/2" x 11".
2. A map showing the location, size and elevation of all water mains, storm water
facilities, sewers and other utilities at points of probable connection.
3. A preliminary drawing for water supply stating the source and general distribution
system layout; for sewage and wastewater collection and treatment; and for storm water yam.
collection, release, drainage and treatment. I
4. A copy of covenants or other restrictions applying to or proposed to encumber or be
imposed upon the site.
5. A grading plan for any cuts and/or fills collectively exceeding one hundred cubic yards,
exclusive of cuts and fills solely for streets or utilities. Such plan shall include the extent
and nature of proposed cuts and fills and Information on the character of the soil and
underlying geology.
6. A description of any proposal for flood control facilities or Improvements. T
7. A description of any other proposed improvements such as pathways or recreation
facilities.
PLAT MAP (Submit 12 folded blue-line prints - rolled not accepted)
1. The plat datum, north arrow, date and scale at one inch equals either fifty feet, one
hundred feet, two hundred feet, or, for large lot subdivisions only, four hundred feet.
2. The boundary lines of the property to be divided._
3. The boundaries of existing adjacent or internal lots, blocks and streets shown with
dotted lines.
4. Current and proposed zoning of the site to be platted and of the surrounding land for X
a distance of three hundred feet.
5. The location and direction of all existing and proposed watercourses, lakes and
streams and the location of all areas subject to flooding.
6. The location of other natural features such as rock outcroppings and marshes.
7. The boundaries of any natural resource lands or critical areas as defined by the city.
8. Existing and proposed uses of each lot, including location of all existing structures.
9. Boundaries and proposed use of lands to be reserved for the common use of property
owners within the subdivision or of other private organizations.
10. Location and type of existing and proposed street lighting. _ X
11. Location of any wells and underground storage tanks within two hundred feet
of the proposed subdivision.
12. Location of any trees and natural features and whether they are to be preserved. X -
13. Current and proposed zoning boundaries.
14. The location and size of all existing sewers, water mains, culverts and other public or X
private underground Inst~ations within and adjacent to the subdivision.
15. Location, widths angi n__mee f all existing and proposed streets, sidewalks, railroads,
power lines, telephone lines within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision. lJo n ---t f
16. The grade and curve radii of curves of existing and proposed streets within the plat
boundary and within three hundred feet of the subdivision.
17. The layout and dimensions of existing and proposed street and. alley rights-of-way,
utility and access easements and lots and blocks. x
18. The location of other significant features such as city limits, section lines and section
comers.
ti'y Existing and proposed contours of the proposed subdivision for a distance of fifty feet
beyond the boundaries of the proposed subdivision at two-foot contours for slopes less a~
than five percent and five-foot contours for steeper slopes.
Existing and proposed survey and elevation monuments.
21. The boundaries and purpose of parcels of land intended to be dedicated or temporarily
reserved for public use, or to be reserved for common use of property owners or residents
of the subdivision, along with any conditions or limitations of such dedications or reservation
clearly Indicated. (Ord. 436 (part), 1992.)
DRAFTING STANDARDS
1. Clearly and legibly drawn in permanent black ink. (Original only.)
2. Scale shall be between one Inch equals fifty feet to four hundred feet; the appropriate
scale to be determined by the Public Works Director; lettering must be a minimum of tiY
3/32", high perimeter of the plat must be depicted with heavy lines.
3. 18 X 24 inch sheets. +C
4. Marginal line (3" left margin margin on the remaining sides.) nC
5. Index required for more than two sheets. a
6. The plat title, date, scale, quarter-quarter section and north arrow shall be shown on
each appropriate sheet of the final plat.
7. All signatures must be original in permanent black ink.
8. Owners name must be printed beneath signature line. ~X
CITY OF YELM PAGE 3
dslc:bftice\plandept.cclappslpreplat. app
October 15, 2002
File #27002/1
BENUM AND COYNE PROPERTY
PRELEMI NARY PLAT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL A:
THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W.M. LYING SOUTHERLY OF
THE 100-FOOT WIDE CENTRALIA POWER CANAL AND LYING NORTHWESTERLY
OF THE BURLINGTON NO RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WEST 30 FEET FOR COUNTY ROAD KNOWN AS
WILKENSON ROAD.
PARCEL B:
LOT 1, BLOCK 12, MCKENNA IRRIGATED TRACTS, AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF
PLATS, PAGE 43.
IN THE COUNTY OF THURSTON, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
1/27002/docs-rpts/docsjc 101502
Exhibit II
Notice of Application
,ag TH2 1 CITY OF YELM
PO Box 479
Yelm WA 98597
360-458-3835
YELM
WASHINGTON
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
Mailed on: February 3, 2003
PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION: Benum/Coyne Subdivision
Northeast corner of Wilkenson Road SE, and Canal Road
LAND USE CASE: SUB-02-8329-YL
An application submitted by Robert L. Coyne, and Benum Enterprises, P.O. Box 73130, Puyallup, WA
98373, for the above-referenced project was received by the City of Yelm on November 4, 2002. The
City has determined the application to be complete on November 22, 2002. The application and any
related documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the City of Yelm, 105
Yelm Avenue W., Yelm WA. For additional information please contact Grant Beck, Community
Development Department, at (360) 458-3835.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposal is to subdivide approximately 28 acres into 108 single-
family residential lots with roadway, utilities and stormwater facilities. A shoreline substantial
development permit is also required for development within 200 feet of the Centralia Power Canal.
ENVIRONMENTAL and OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION: An
Environmental Checklist, Traffic Impact Analysis, and a preliminary Storm Drainage Analysis and Report
were also submitted. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance published on February 7, 2003, and is
included with this notice.
Additional Information or Project Studies Requested by the City: No additional information has been
requested at this time.
No preliminary determination of consistency with City development regulations has been made.
At minimum, this project will be subject to the following plans and regulations: City of Yelm
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Title (17), Critical Areas Ordinance (14.08), Storm Water Drainage Design
and Erosion Control Manual (DOE), Uniform Building Code, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Title
(14), Road Design Standards, Platting and Subdivision Title (16), and the Shoreline Master Program.
The City of Yelm invites your comments early in the review of this proposal. Comments should be
directed to Grant Beck, Community Development Department, P.O. Box 479, Yelm WA 98597, 360-458-
3835.
THE 15-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS AT 5:00 PM ON FEBRUARY 24, 2003.
This notice has been provided to appropriate local and state agencies, and property owners within 300 feet
of the project site. These recipients, and any others who submit a written request to be placed on the
mailing list, will also receive the following items when available or if applicable: Environmental Threshold
Determination, Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Final Decision. If the proposed project requires a
City Council decision, it will be mailed to all those who participate in the public hearing and to anyone else
requesting the decision in writing. Opportunities for SEPA appeal occur within twenty one (21) days after
the date the environmental determination is issued. City Council decision can be appealed through
Superior Court. Appeals of site plan review decisions may be filed within 14 days of Notice of Final
Decision.
Exhibit Ill
Revised Determination of Non-Significance and
Comments
SEPA NO: 8329
REVISED
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Proponent: Robert L. Coyne
Benum Enterprises
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
Description of Proposal: Subdivide 28.02 acres into 108 residential lots in two phases. The project.
includes the construction of stormwater facilities, interior streets, and street
improvements to Wilkenson Road.
Location of the Proposal: The project site is located on the east side Wilkenson Road, bounded on the
north by the Centralia Power Canal, and on the east by the YelmlRoy Prairie
Line Railroad.
Section/Township/Range: .Sections 17 and 20, Township 17 North, Range 2 West, W.M.
Threshold Determination: The City of Yelm as lead agency for this action has determined that this
proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the
environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be
required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review
of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
Conditions/Mitigating Measures: SEE ATTACHED
Lead agency: City of Yelm
Responsible Official: Grant Beck, Community Development Director
Date of Issue: February 7, 2003
Date of R May 23, 2003
Com t D dline: > N/A
Gran eck, C munity Development Director
This revised Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance (MDNS) is issued pursuant to Washington Administrative
Code 197-11-340(2). The City of Yelm will not act on this proposal prior to 5:00 p.m., June 6, 2003.
You may appeal this determination to the Hearing Examiner, at above address, by submitting a written appeal no
later than 5:00 p.m., June 6 , 2003. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Grant
Beck, Community Development Director, to learn more about the procedures for SEPA appeals. This MDNS is
not a permit and does not by itself constitute project approval. The applicant must comply with all applicable
requirements of the City of Yelm prior to receiving construction permits which may include but are not limited to
the City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Title (17), Critical Areas Ordinance (14.08), Storm water Drainage
Design and Erosion Control Manual (DOE), Uniform Building Code, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Title
(14), Road Design Standards, Platting and Subdivision Title (16), and the Shoreline Master Program.
DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE
Copies to: All agencies/citizens on SEPA mailing list May 28, 2003
Dept. of Ecology, May 28, 2003.
ATTACHMENT
SEPA CASE NUMBER 8329
Findings of Fact
1. This Mitigated Determination of Non Significance is based on the project as proposed and the impacts
and potential mitigation measures reflected in the following environmental documents:
• Environmental Checklist (dated November 1, 2002, prepared by Apex Engineering)
• Traffic Impact Analysis (dated October 18, 2002, prepared by Heath & Associates)
• Preliminary Storm Drainage and Erosion Control Report (dated October 28, 2002, prepared by Apex
Engineering)
2. The traffic impact analysis submitted as part of the subdivision application indicates that the project will
generate 1034 vehicles per day of average weekday traffic, with a PM peak of 109 vehicles per hour.
The project would not decrease the level of service at all but one of the intersections studied, including
the following intersections:
State Routes 507 and 510 (Yelm Avenue and First Street)
9hoton Road and N.P: Road
N.P. Road and Wilkenson Road
The two entrances into the subdivision and Wilkenson Road
The level of service at Railway Road and First Street would decrease from LOS B to LOS C.
The traffic impact analysis recommends that payment of the Transportation Facility Charge as required
pursuant to Chapter 15.40 Yelm Municipal Code will mitigate traffic impacts identified in the report.
3. Canal Road currently intersects Wilkerson Road at an angle of approximately 50 degrees, which does not
provide safe sight distance for vehicles entering Wilkerson Road from Canal Road. An additional 1034
weekday trips added to Wilkerson Road, almost all of which will be traveling southbound past the
intersection with Canal Road, is a significant impact to traffic safety which can be mitigated through the
realignment of the Canal Road intersection.
4. The Yelm School District has adopted a school mitigation requirement based on the demand that new
residential units create for additional school services and facilities. Additional demands on the school
system will be mitigated through the requirement that the developer enter into a mitigation agreement with
the District.
Conclusions of Law and Mitigation Measures
1. The proposal will have a significant impact on the transportation system of the City of Yelm which will be
mitigated through the imposition of the Transportation Facility Charge as required in Chapter 15.40 Yelm
Municipal Code. The proponent shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new residential p.m.
peak hour trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based on
1.01 new peak hour trips per residential unit. The proponent will be responsible for a TFC of $757.50 per
dwelling unit which is payable at time of building permit.
2. Prior to final subdivision approval, the developer shall realign Canal Road with Wilkerson to meet City
Standards for intersections, provided that the cost of improvement does not exceed the Transportation
Facility Charge in condition 1 above and no additional right-of-way is required for the realignment. The
TFC's for the project required pursuant to Mitigation Measure No. 1 above shall be waived, in their
entirety, in the event that the for the cost of realignment described in this Mitigation Measure 2 is effected
by the proponent.
3. The proposal will have a significant impact on the Yelm School District which will be mitigated through the
negotiation of a school mitigation agreement with the Yelm School District. Prior to final subdivision
approval, the proponent shall submit to the City of Yelm a signed school mitigation agreement between
the developer and the Yelm School District.
FEB 0 7 1003
4 YELM COMMUNITY SCHOOL;
Where all students can learn and grow
AvA&
Erling Birkland
Director of Facilities
February 5, 2003
Mr. Grant Beck
Community Development Director
City of Yelm
PO Box 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
RE: SUB-02-8329-YL
Dear Mr. Grant:
Yelm Community Schools requires Mitigation Agreements for all sub-divisions. Please
include the Mitigation provision as part of the SEPA requirements.
Should you have any questions please call me at 458-6128.
Sincerely,
E and
Facilities Director
Yelm Community Schools
YPI M COMMUNITY SCHOOLS IS ANT POUAI OPPOR~'UNITY EMPLOYER AND FOI I OWSTI11 E IX REOUIREWENTS
404 Yelm Avenue Wcst, P. O. Box 476, Yelm, Washington 95597, (360) 4,98-6128, FAX (36o) 458-6434
k
tP
Y
STATE OF WASHINGTON F
EB 2 20013
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.O. Box 47775 s Olympia, lVashinaton 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300
February 19, 2003
Mr. Grant Beck Your address
Community Development Director - - IS in the
City of Yeltrs _ - q
PO Box 479 _ watershed
Yelm, WA 98597
Dear Mr. Beck:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the
proposed Preliminary Plat, Benum and Coyne Property project, located on the east side of Wilkenson
Road, bounded on the north by Centralia Power Canal, on the east by the Yelm/Roy Prairie Line
Railroad, as proposed by Robert L. Coyne (contact: Benum Enterprises, Inc.). We reviewed the
environmental checklist and have the following comments:
The owner of a construction site which disturbs five acres or more of total land area, and which has or
will have a discharge of storm water to a surface water or to a storm sewer, must apply for coverage under
Ecology's Baseline General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities.
Owners of sites where less than five acres of total land area will be disturbed must also apply if the
construction activity is part of a larger contiguous plan of development or sale in which more than five
acres will eventually be disturbed. Discharge of stonn water from such sites without a pen-nit is a
violation of federal and state law and the owner will be subject to enforcement action by the Department
of Ecology or through third party lawsuits.
For construction of subdivisions, the five acre threshold which triggers the NPDES permit requirement
applies to land that is disturbed by the land owner, land owner's agent, or by an entity which has obtained
a use agreement (e.g., lease, easement) from the land owner. Include acreage which is disturbed (e.g.,
graded) prior to its sale to independent contractor(s).
A stormwater permit application for, referred to as a Notice of Intent, can be obtained by calling
Ecology's Stormwater Request Line at (360) 407-7156, or Linda Matlock at (360) 407-6437. Applicants
are encouraged to submit completed forms and publish public notice more than 38 days prior to the
planned start of construction to avoid delays to the project.
The applicant is required to keep a detailed maintenance and inspection log concerning construction best
management practices (BMPs) for the control of construction-related sediment and erosion. These Bt\1Ps
shall be designed to meet the standards of the 2001 Stormwater Management Nlanual for Western
Washington. published by Washington State Department of Ecology in August, 2001.
Mr. Grant Beck
Page 2
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please call Ms. Kerry Carroll
with the Water Quality Program at (360) 407-6294.
Sincerely,
Jeri Berube
Administrative Coordinator
Southwest Regional Office
JB:le(03-0606)
cc: Benum Enterprises, Inc., Contact for applicant
Kerry Carroll, SWRO/WQ
Linda Matlock, HQ/WQ
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Cathy Wolfe
o District One
- Diane Oberquell
District Two
Robert N. Macleod
THURSTON COUNTY District Three
SINCE 1852 •
ROADS & TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Lester Olson
February 14, 2003 Director
Grant Beck
Community Planning Director
City of Yelm
PO Box 479
Yelm, WA 98597
REFERENCE: Benum/Cyne Subdivision, SUB-02-8329-YL
Dear Mr. Beck:
Recently within the same mailing I received the notice of application and MDNS for the above referenced
project. The notice of application mentions a traffic study was prepared for this project in addition it appears
the subdivision is located near the city/county line. I am curious whether the analysis evaluated any county
roadway facilities? Not being familiar with the traffic patterns in that particular area I am not sure if that would
have been necessary, but Thurston County certainly would have appreciated an opportunity to review the study
prior to issuance of the MDNS.
Thurston County Roads & Transportation Services does not intend to appeal the MDNS, but we do request the
opportunity to participate in the review of future land use applications, primarily those that need traffic analysis
to be submitted. I trust this letter will suffice as a request to be placed on a routing list for future land use
applications and their associated traffic studies. If this letter is not adequate please notify me and I will
complete the necessary paperwork. Future routings can be directed to the following:
Thurston County Roads & Transportation Services
Development Review Division
Attn: Scott Davis, P.E.
2000 Lakeridge Dr SW, Bldg 1
Olympia, WA 98502-6045
If you have any questions you can reach me at 360-357-2492 or by email at davissa(aco.thurston.wa.us.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Davis, P.E.
Development Review Manager
SI):ctJK:'devre%ISIIARLD MISC',Yelm routine request.doc lax
Niilding --1, 2000 LAcriilke Prive '-AV, (1Ivitil,ui, %V, Jim,W..n (~?-}5 ( IoO) 35-1-2491 Fax ( 3(1O) 154,29;`) J?, - I,d ~t.„
Memorandum
February 19, 2003
To: Grant Beck, Community Development Director, City of Yelm
From: Marc Alan Jones, Senior Planner, Intercity Transit
Subject; Comments on Benum/Coyne Subdivision Application
Copy. Dennis Bloom, Karla Hubbell, Dave Schwagler, Randy Brush, Rick
Yarber (all Intercity Transit)
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Benum/Coyne Subdivision application, a
proposal to develop 28 acres along Wilkenson Road into 108 single-family residences.
Intercity Transit wishes to submit the following comments regarding the inclusion of
public transit amenities as part of the project.
Current Services by the Proposed Development
The project site is located along Intercity Transit's Route 93. We presently do not have
bus stops along Wilkenson Road at the project site, due to a lack of both residential
density and retail business. Our nearest transit stop is located north of the project site,
on Wilkenson at Port Orford Boulevard.
However, the development of the Benum/Coyne Subdivision would create sufficient
residential density to make the addition of a transit stop desirable. In addition, we are
supportive of the city's mitigation measure that requires the realignment of Canal Road
with Wilkerson to meet City Standards for intersections.
Requested Improvements
Intercity Transit requests that the City include the following conditions for this project:
February 20, 2003
Page 2
1. Develop an accessible transit stop, including a bus stop pad.
We request that one bus stop pad be installed to the north (far side) of an access road for
the subdivision. The site map indicates two such access roads. A solid, level depth of 8'
from the edge of the roadway is necessary to make transit access fully accessible under
ADA guidelines. This pad should also be 6' wide.
2. Easement for Bus Stop Pad
We request the City require the applicant to dedicate the bus stop pad as City right-of-
way.
3. Realignment of Canal Road with Wilkerson Road SE
The Intercity Transit Route 93 requires buses to travel out-bound along Canal Road and
to make a left turn onto Wilkerson Road SE in order to travel north. Given the angle of
the intersection at Canal Road and Wilkenson the ability to safely position a bus to
make the left hand turn does raise concerns with how vehicles can maneuver given the
increase in traffic volumes projected for the development. We feel that the City's
request for mitigation of the intersection to meet City Standards for intersections is
justified given the proximity of both the development to the intersection and the
proximity of the southern access road into the development site itself.
Further Assistance or Contacts with Intercity Transit
Should you have questions I can be reached at (360) 705-5834 or call Dennis Bloom,
Planning Manager at (360) 705-5832. If the City or the applicant have questions about
pad specifications please contact I.T.'s Facilities Supervisor, Dave Schwagler, at (360)
705-5858.
Thank you again for your help and consideration.
Exhibit IV
Public Hearing Notice
tHF p~
q~
kK 7,1
City of I M
a r+
105 Yelm Avenue West
Y E LM P. O. Box 479
WASHIN13TON Yelm, Washington 98597
(360) 458-3244
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGAND SPECIAL MEETING
YELM HEARING EXAMINER
DATE: Friday, June 27, 2003, 9:00 a.m.
PLACE: City Hall Council Chambers, 105 Yelm Ave W., Yelm WA
PURPOSE: Public Hearing to receive comments on a 108 lot residential subdivision,
Case #SU B-02-8329-YL .
APPLICANT: Robert L. Coyne
Benum Enterprises
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
LOCATION: The project site is located on the east side Wilkenson Road, bounded on
the north by the Centralia Power Canal, and on the east by the YelmlRoy
Prairie Line Railroad.
The Yelm Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to receive comments on a proposed 108-
lot residential subdivision, including a shoreline substantial development permit. The Hearing
Examiner will make a decision on the matter within 10 days after the hearing.
Testimony may be given at the hearing or through any written comments on the proposal,
received by the close of the public hearing on June 27, 2003. Such written comments may be
submitted to the City of Yelm at the address shown above, or mailed to the City of Yelm
Community Development Department, PO Box 479, Yelm WA 98597.
Any related documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the City
of Yelm, 105 Yelm Ave W., Yelm, WA. For additional information, please contact Grant Beck at
(360) 458-3835.
The City of Yelm provides reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. If you need
special accommodations to attend or participate in this hearing, please call the City Clerk,
Agnes Bennick, at (360) 458-8404, at least 4 days before the meeting.
ATTEST:
City of Yelm
\\,L 11-4 ed
Agnd's Bennick, City Clerk
DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE
Published in the Nisqually Valley News: Friday, June 13, 2003.
Mailed to Adjacent Property Owners and Posted in Public Places: June 3, 2003.
The City of Yelin is an Eaisnl Ovvortunity Provider
Exhibit V
Shea Group Technical Memorandum - Canal
Road
¦ T h e Shea Group 360-459-3609.360.459-0154 fax
a AMM8tnx company 8830 Tallon Lane, Suite B, Lacey, WA 98516 - PO Box 3427, Lacey WA 98509.3427
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: May 13, 2003
To: Grant Beck, Community Development Director
From: Cathie Carlson
Subject: Benum-Coyne Plat - Canal RoadMilkenson Road Intersection
Project Number: 244-1781-015 (12)
Project Name: Benum-Coyne Analysis
A. Summary
A preliminary plat application has been submitted by Robert Coyne and Benum Enterprises for a 108-lot
single-family subdivision. An estimated 1034 daily trips will be generated by this development. The
purpose of this report is to analyze the project impacts to the intersection of Wilkinson Road/Canal Road
and to develop potential mitigation measures that will reduce or eliminate impacts to the intersection.
B. Purpose and Study Area
The proposed project site is a triangular-shaped property bordered on the west by Wilkenson Road, on
the southeast by the Burlington Northern Railroad, and on the north by the Centralia Power Canal.
According to the traffic impact analysis prepared by Heath & Associates dated October 2002, 109 new
PM peak hour trips and 1034 new daily trips generated by the project will travel through the intersection at
NP Road/Wilkenson Road and at Canal Road/Wilkenson Road.
New development is required to mitigate impacts caused by new traffic generated by the proposal. This
memo has been prepared to discuss intersection improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts from
the proposal.
C. Existing Conditions
The project area is currently vacant property. Wilkenson Road and Canal Road are both two-lane
roadways with approximate 10-foot wide lanes and minimal shoulders. In the project vicinity, the speed
limit is 35 mph. The Wilkenson Road/Canal Road intersection is located approximately 275 feet north of
the Wilkenson/NP Road intersection. Current traffic counts indicate that approximately 570 vehicles
travel through these intersections during the PM peak hour.
Figure 1 attached illustrates the Canal Road/Wilkenson Road and NP Road/Wilkenson Road
intersections. Canal Road currently intersects Wilkenson Road at an angle of approximately 40 degrees.
According to AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, street intersections that
operate under stop control should intersect at right angles wherever practical, and should not intersect at
an angle less than 60 degrees. Roads that intersect at acute angles tend to limit visibility, particularly for
drivers of trucks. The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection should have an unobstructed view
of the entire intersection and sufficient lengths of the intersecting roadway to permit the driver to
anticipate and avoid potential collisions.
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 4101
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 2 of 3
Accident information provided by the City of Yelm Police Department indicates that they responded to a
non-injury accident at Wilkenson and NP Road in 2002. Thurston County Sheriffs Department, who
would likely have responded to other accidents, does not maintain crash records.
D. Travel Forecast and Projections
The traffic impact analysis estimates 2006 PM Peak Hour volumes at this intersection, including traffic
from identified pipeline projects, to be approximately 700 vehicles. When traffic generated by the
proposed project is added, the PM Peak Hour volumes increase to slightly more than 800 trips.
E. Intersection Improvement
The Canal Road/Wilkenson Road intersection does not meet AASHTO minimum guidelines for adequate
sight distance. Design of a re-aligned intersection to provide minimum sight distance must also take into
account the amount of right-of-way that would have to'be acquired for the improvement. At this
intersection, a modern roundabout could be accommodated within existing right-of-way. Re-alignment of
Canal Road to intersect with Wilkenson Road at a 90-degree angle would require purchase of a
considerable amount of property currently under private ownership. The roundabout would be designed
with three legs: the portion of Wilkenson Road north of Canal Road, the portion of Wilkenson south of
Canal Road, and Canal Road. A second option for design of the roundabout would include the southern
entrance to the subdivision as the fourth leg of the roundabout.
Roundabouts are a form of intersection design and control that accommodate traffic flow in one direction
around a central island. The facility operates with yield control at the entry points and gives priority to
vehicles within the roundabout (circulating flow). Because traffic yields rather than stops, roundabouts
generally give higher capacity per lane due to the omission of lost time at signalized intersections. The
geometry of the facility (small turning radius) also forces drivers to slow down.
Roundabouts also provide motorists a safe means to make U-turns. The center island is wide enough for
a vehicle to make a 360-degree turn. This U-turn function creates the opportunity for landscaped
medians to be placed on other portions of the street.
Pedestrian and bicycle safety is also promoted in roundabout design. A "splitter island" at each entrance
provides a refuge for foot traffic, thus increasing safety. Pedestrian crosswalks are also placed at the
entrance to the roundabout, where vehicles decrease to their lowest speed. Lower car speeds help
reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian-vehicle accidents. Upon approaching a roundabout,
bicyclists have the option to use an "exit ramp" that branches from the roadway to the parallel sidewalk or
use a bypass where provided. Cyclists can also choose to cycle through the roundabout as would any
other vehicle.
Roundabouts are designed to have adequate lane width to allow passage of larger vehicles such as
buses, trucks and emergency vehicles. They can also be constructed with a "mountable" apron
surrounding the central island which can be driven on by emergency responders or other large vehicles.
F. Findings of Fact
1. The Canal Road/Wilkenson Road intersection cannot safely accommodate additional traffic
volumes that would be generated by the proposed project.
2. New development is required to mitigate impacts caused by new traffic that the proposal would
generate.
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 3199
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 3 of 3
3. The traffic impact analysis prepared for the Benum-Coyne Plat does not address safety concerns
at the intersection, nor the fact that it doesn't meet AASHTO minimum standards for sight
distance.
G. Potential Mitigation Measures
Construction of a roundabout at the intersection would be an efficient use of right-of-way, and would
improve vehicle flow, reduce intersection delay, and reduce accidents by reducing speeds. Provisions for
bicycles and pedestrians would be included in the design.
o:\cad\1781 \contracts\0 1 5\1 Zintersection.mem
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 3/99
v 4 ~Ir ic~
3
~O 40.
f w
~ n
S.
. co
O ~R
r
00, Nom.: o n/~
Lr~
r°
0011.4
~j ,t
k d
~~y ~ • m O
f 0~ x O ~~~}5 « Q t t
ot)
c) Y
1 P~~
'
¦ The Shea Group CURRENT INTERSECTION FIGURE NO.
ALIGNMENT
Exhibit VI
Shea Group Memorandum - Y3 Corridor
¦ T h e Shea Group 360.459.3609.360.459-0154 fax
a Parametrix company 8830 Tallon Lane, Suite B, Lacey, WA 98516 - PO Box 3427, Lacey WA 98509.3427
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 13, 2003
To: Grant Beck, Community Development Director
City of Yelm
From: Perry Shea, P.E
Subject: Y3 Corridor/Coyne Benum Proposed Subdivision
Project Number: 244-1781-015 (12/01)
A. Summary
The City of Yelm received a preliminary plat application from Robert Coyne and Benum Enterprises on
November 4, 2002. The proposed project is to subdivide, in two phases, approximately 28 acres into 108
single family residential lots. The purpose of this report is to analyze project related impacts to the Y-3
Transportation Corridor and to develop potential mitigation measures that will reduce or eliminate impacts
to the corridor.
B. Y-3 Transportation Corridor Background
By the late 1980's traffic on Yelm Avenue had become so congested, the Yelm City Council declared a
transportation emergency and began seeking ways to identify potential solutions to its transportation
problems. The limited capacity of Yelm Avenue and First Street, the city's only route for regional and local
traffic passing through town had led to failing levels of service (LOS) during peak hours, and created long
delays and unsafe conditions.
The city adopted a LOS standard for its arterial and collector roadways including Yelm Avenue. LOS is
used to describe the operating conditions of a roadway or intersection and is evaluated on a range
between A and F, LOS A representing free-flow conditions and LOS F constituting stop-and-go
congestion. The City adopted LOS D as its standard for peak traffic periods on Yelm Avenue and all
commercial and industrial areas and LOS C for residential streets. Currently, several segments of Yelm
Avenue and intersecting roadways operate at a poor LOS E and F during morning and evening peak
periods.
Widening the existing roadways was a feasible alternative to improve the LOS on Yelm Avenue. Traffic
studies indicated that by 2020 any traffic flow benefits achieved by widening Yelm Avenue SR 510 and
507 would be diminished and the congestion problems would not be improved over today's conditions. In
addition, the Council was committed to protecting and enhancing the historic character of the downtown
area and preventing it from becoming a strip development along the state highways without identifying
character or continuity. Many communities in Pierce and Thurston counties have been changed forever
by such a highway, and the Council did not want that to be Yelm's destiny. In order to secure funding to
resolve the transportation problem, the city developed a Transportation Plan in 1991/1992, which
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 4101
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 2 of 13
identified new roadway facilities to provide relief to Yelm Avenue, as well as other needed improvements.
These improvements were designated Y1 through Y12. The Transportation Plan was updated in 1995
and 1997 reflecting minor modifications to the 1992 plan (Figure 1).
During this time land development continued to occur, primarily in the eastern and southern areas of the
community, limiting possible locations for a new corridor. The City felt it was important to begin the
process of identifying an alignment for the Y2 route. In 1993, the City prepared a grant application and
submitted it to the Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) for Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funding to prepare a corridor study for the Y2 facility. The City obtained the ISTEA
funding, and secured additional funds to augment the City's contribution to the project. A Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of city, county, state and federal agency staff representatives and
citizens from the community was formed, and began meeting in February 1997.
During the course of the Y2 Corridor Study, it became apparent that Y2 alone would not reduce the
congestion levels on Yelm Avenue to meet the city's LOS standard, and that addressing the project
identified in the Transportation Plan as Y3 (Canal Road North Loop) was also necessary. This facility
would provide a northern route and was deemed an essential element of the solution to traffic congestion
problems on Yelm Avenue and First Streets. In December of 1997, the TRPC approved moving forward
with the project under a combined Y2/Y3 corridor study, and the TAC began the task of identifying
potential routes.
The Public Involvement Program for the Y2/Y3 Corridor included outreach, information, and community
involvement components that spanned two years and provided five public open houses, five newsletters,
and three questionnaire/surveys to inform the public about the issues and options. Each open house was
well attended, drawing between 100 to 150 people. Over 1200 newsletters were sent out at each mailing.
In addition to the specific Y2/Y3 Corridor outreach programs, WSDOT held several open houses and
conducted opinion surveys in the preparation of Route Development Plans (RDPs) for SR 507 and SR
510. Meetings concerning the segments of the highways through Yelm were conducted; surveys were
sent to highway users. The data from these surveys was used to help gauge public support for various
scenarios along SR 507 and SR 510 through Yelm. Survey summaries are bound in the RDP
documents.
A Y2/Y3 corridor environmental public hearing was conducted on October 20, 1999 at Yelm High School.
On February 1, 2000, the Federal Highway Administration issued a FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT for the Yelm Y21Y3 Transportation Corridor.
C. Issues, Analysis and Rationale
1. Purpose of the Y21Y3 Transportation Corridor
The purpose of this project is to satisfy the policies, goals, and objectives of the City of Yelm and
Thurston County Joint Comprehensive Plan by providing appropriate and functional transportation
facilities to reduce congestion, improve freight mobility, safety, and improve traffic circulation through the
City of Yelm on SR 507 and SR 510.
Objectives of the Y2/Y3 corridor are:
• Provide a limited-access regional corridor to reduce current congestion on SR 507/SR 510 (First
Street, and Yelm Avenue), the only existing continuous east-west corridor through the City of Yelm.
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 3/99
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 3 of 13
• Provide a facility with design speeds of 80 kph (50 mph) and with intersections spaced 0.4 - 0.8 km
(1/4 to'/2 miles) apart.
• Allow for interconnection of existing streets to accommodate travel in and around the core area of the
City.
• Provide a transportation system that provides efficient mobility of freight to all industrial and
commercial areas of the City.
• Provide a safe, efficient, and cost effective transportation circulation system for the movement of
freight, services, and people to and through the City of Yelm without relying on Yelm Avenue to make
those connections.
• Provide a transportation system that would be consistent with the WSDOT Route Development Plans
(RDP) for SR 507 and SR 510, which recommend alternate corridors to circulate around the
downtown core area of the City of Yelm.
• Minimize,impacts on schools, parks, and recreational facilities along the existing corridor.
2. Need for the Y21Y3Transportation Corridor
SR 510 accommodates the predominant traffic flow between the Olympia/Lacey area and Yelm then
eastward, towards SR 7 near Spanaway. SR 507 is included in the Puget Sound Regional Council's
Metropolitan Transportation Plan as a route of regional significance. This regional significance is due to
the SR 510/SR 507 corridor serving as the alternative north-south corridor for Interstate 5 (1-5) bypassing
Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base. Accidents or extreme congestion occurring on 1-5 result in
congestion on SR 510/SR 507 (locally referred to as Yelm Avenue), causing traffic through the City of
Yelm to reach intolerable levels. This, along with an estimated tripling of population within the City's UGA
by year 2020, will create traffic congestion at near gridlock levels.
3. Regional Transportation Plan
The Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) transportation model was used to identify future travel
conditions in Yelm. In the 1992 Yelm Transportation Plan, Y1, Y2 and Y3 segments were identified as
the primary corridor to reduce the transportation impacts on existing SR 510/SR 507 through Yelm.
However, due to environmental constraints and land-use plans proposed for the Thurston Highlands
Planned Community, the Y1 section was dropped from consideration in the City of Yelm 1997
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update.
The Y1 corridor is now referred to as the 93`d Avenue/Thurston Highlands Connector, and is intended to
serve the planned community as an arterial interlocal access and not a regional facility as initially
projected in the 1992 plan. The updated plan recommends Y2 and Y3 (north and south loop alternatives)
as the complementary segments needed to support commercial, industrial, and residential growth in the
city while providing an easier means of travel in and around the core area (Figure 2). A vital component
of the plan includes the location of the routes near the edge of the UGA as elements of a high-capacity
limited access system.
4. WSDOT Route Development Plan
WSDOT has developed RDP's for both SR 507 and SR 510. The plans outline future development of
these highways and include improvement strategies for existing roadways intended to avoid projected
transportation deficiencies along these two corridors. The RDP recommendation for SR 507 supports
Y2/Y3 as limited access facilities needed to achieve an acceptable LOS without adding through-lanes to
the existing Yelm Avenue corridor. The SR 510 RDP makes reference to the Y2/Y3 Corridor Study, and
recommends incorporating the outcome of the Corridor Study into the long-range plans for SR 510.
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 3199
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 4 of 13
5. Demand
Traffic volumes within the City of Yelm have been steadily increasing at a rate of approximately four to
five percent per year. In the city's existing Comprehensive Plan, population in the UGA is anticipated to
triple from the 1992 base year population of approximately 3,890 to approximately 12,000 in 2020.
Between 1992 and 2020, daily traffic volumes on Yelm Avenue are expected to more than double, and on
SR 507 entering Yelm on First Street from the south, average daily traffic volumes are predicted to triple.
Figures 3 and 4 show the existing base-year and 2020 traffic conditions for the Yelm area.
Figure 5 illustrates the number of traffic lanes for SR 510/SR 507 and Yelm Avenue that would be
required to accommodate the 2020 traffic levels without the Y3 improvement. As illustrated, each route
would need to be five lanes to facilitate the movement of traffic through the city.
Currently traffic delays encourage drivers to seek alternate routes to avoid the intersection of First Street
and Yelm Avenue. However, due to lack of continuous east-west alternate through-streets, traffic from
the local neighborhoods still must use Yelm Avenue for destinations either east or west of the downtown
core area. Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 show the year 2020 traffic volumes, LOS, and number of lanes
needed to accommodate traffic with the Y2 corridor only, with the Y3 corridor only, and with both Y2 and
Y3 corridors. Projected traffic levels and roadway operations require the construction of both Y2 and Y3
to significantly reduce gridlock conditions on Yelm Avenue and to meet the traffic service levels adopted
by the City, TRPC and WSDOT.
6. System Linkage
Improvements are needed in the linkage of both the local and regional transportation systems. Because
no other east-west route exists, traffic must use Yelm Avenue in order to circulate within the city and
travel outside the core area. Capacity restraints and poor circulation in the regional system become
evident as all traffic traveling through Yelm is required to converge at the intersection of SR 510/SR 507
(Yelm Avenue and First).
7. Capacity
Currently, congestion on SR 510 and SR 507 through Yelm causes significant delays and contributes to
traffic safety problems on Yelm Avenue. The current LOS is E, which includes substantial restriction and
delays in traffic movement. In 2020, Yelm Avenue would be LOS F, or stop-and-go traffic conditions with
extreme delays (Figure 6). The Washington State Transportation Commission's System Plan Service
Objectives indicate that efforts should be made to "mitigate congestion when peak level of service falls
below LOS D." In addition, the City of Yelm has adopted the LOS D standard for its primary arterials,
including the SR 507 and SR 510 corridors.
8. Safety
The SR 510 corridor and the SR 507 section on Yelm Avenue experience substantially higher-than-
average accident rates. The average accident rate for other minor rural arterials in the WSDOT Olympic
Region is 1.8 accidents per million vehicles. SR 510 has an accident rate of 2.4 per million vehicles, and
the section of SR 507 on Yelm Avenue, from First Street eastward, has an accident rate of 3.7 per million
vehicles, which is more than double the Olympic Region average. A majority of the accidents are caused
by angle collisions at intersections and unlimited left turn movements into businesses and onto cross
streets.
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 3199
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 5 of 13
9. Economic Development
The Yelm Comprehensive Plan outlines long term growth for commercial and industrial businesses along
the SR 510 corridor and north of Yelm Avenue along First Street. An efficient transportation system and
access to these locations is necessary to ensure their optimum use and development.
10. Freight Mobility
SR 510 and SR 507 are the only arterials for trucks transporting goods to and through Yelm.
Approximately four percent of the vehicles on SR 507 and six percent of those on SR 510 are trucks that
must merge at the intersection of Yelm Avenue and First Street. When combined, approximately nine
percent of the vehicles on Yelm Avenue in the downtown area and to the east are trucks. Currently,
trucks must either drive onto the sidewalks or move into the opposing lane when turning because of
narrow roadway widths and small intersection turning radii. Approximately 60% of the trucks traveling
through Yelm are enroute to other destinations, and they are delayed by traffic congestion in the
downtown area.
11. Corridor Alternatives
To thoroughly address the traffic problems on SR 507 and SR 510, it is necessary to include the southern
and northern portion of the loop known as Y2 and Y3. Neither Y2 nor Y3 alone can reduce current and
future traffic congestion on Yelm Avenue, and therefore they are inter-dependent.
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of residents along the corridor and a variety of federal,
state and local agency representatives was established to guide the development and evaluation of
alternatives.
Development of preliminary alternatives followed the same course for Y3 as that used for Y2. The TAC,
supplemented with citizen representatives from the Y3 corridor area, was presented with a study area
map. This study area was based on guidelines established in the project purpose and need. The TAC
was to identify routes within that study area, but could also consider routes outside the area, if they were
consistent with project objectives. The TAC worked in three small groups, and applied the same siting
criteria as used for Y2 to develop preliminary routes. The design team took those recommendations and
consolidated them into four preliminary alignments.
An intensive public involvement program was conducted with residents in the Y3 Study Area. This
program took place over the summer of 1998 and included individual meetings with each potentially
impacted property owner. Many people questioned why the existing 507/510 state routes could not be
widened, thus eliminating the need for a new corridor for Y3. Others suggested running the route along
the Centralia Power canal, because it was already a physical corridor. This input was incorporated into
the preliminary route identification for Y3, and the resulting alternatives A, B, C-1, C-2, and D were
presented at the public Open House on November 10, 1998 (Figure 11).
The TAC checked the preliminary routes against project objectives once again. Alternatives A, B and C
met the objectives, but alternative D (widening the existing SR 510/SR 507) did not. Even though
Alternative D did not meet purpose and need, public comments suggested the design team look at the
implication of widening the existing highways in greater detail. For this reason, widening of the existing
roadways was included in preliminary evaluation process along with Alternatives A through C.
The same evaluation criteria and weighting factors were applied to each of the alternatives. The
alternative assigned the lowest rating was the one having the least environmental and property impacts,
while still providing maximum regional and local transportation benefit. Any criteria rated over three were
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 3199
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 6 of 13
addressed and the alternative adjusted where possible to further minimize impacts. This created a hybrid
of Alternatives B and C, and become the Preferred Alternative for the Y3 portion of the corridor.
Alternative A - The easterly terminus would be just west of the railroad viaduct near the junction
of Old McKenna Road and SR 507. The route would run northeasterly to a connection with the
Centralia Power Canal, then follow the Canal right-of-way to Mountain View Road. It would then
leave the canal to follow the transmission line right-of-way and intersect with SR 510 in the
vicinity of Southworth Elementary School.
Alternative B - The easterly terminus would be the same as Alternative A. From the intersection
with SR 507, it would proceed north to cross 103`d Avenue SE and Canal Road then curve to the
northwest to cross Wilkenson Road. From Wilkenson, Alternative B would follow Canal Road
west,to Crystal Springs Road then continue west to Killion Road and Mountain View Road where
it would curve to the northwest to intersect SR 510 at Mud Run Road.
Alternative C includes two variations in the, mid-portion of the route, known as Alternatives C-1
and C-2. The easterly terminus for both alternatives would be just east of Grove Road on SR 507.
The route extends to the north along the property lines to 103`dAvenue SE. Between 103rd
Avenue SE and Rhoton Road, Alternatives C1 and C2 would diverge to follow different
alignments.
Alternative C1 - At 103`d Avenue SE, Alternative C-1 would extend northerly to Canal Road and
then follow the Canal Road right-of-way to Railway Road. From Railway Road, the route would
continue in a northwesterly direction and cross the industrial-zoned land. It would then curve in a
westerly direction to Rhoton Road and connect to Alternative C2.
Alternative C2 - From 103`dAvenue SE, Alternative C-2 would extend parallel with and south of
Canal Road, and cross Grove Road through the industrial area at Railway Road. From Railway
Road, the route would continue in a northwesterly direction to its merger with Alternative C1 at
Rhoton Road.
From Rhoton Road, Alternative C would be located parallel with and north of the Kingsview and
Queensview communities between Rhoton and Crystal Springs Roads. From Crystal Springs
Road, the route would cross Yelm Creek and Cullens Road in a westerly direction. From Cullens
Road, it would go northwesterly through undeveloped parcels to Mountain View Road, then follow
property lines to intersect SR 510 between 89th and 86th Avenues.
Alternative D would widen SR 510 to five lanes from Mud Run Road to First Street, the eastern
terminus of SR 510. SR 507 would also be widened to five lanes from First Street to the City's
east Urban Growth Boundary near the railroad viaduct.
No Build - Under the No Build alternative, no capacity improvements would be constructed along
the existing corridor. Improvements would be limited to intersection alterations to increase
turning movement safety and possible implementation of the other Y improvement projects
included in the Yelm Transportation Plan.
12. Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Concurrency
The City of Yelm Transportation Plan is incorporated as the Transportation Plan Element of the City of
Yelm Comprehensive Plan and YelmlThurston County Joint Plan. The Transportation Plan is based on
four goals that guided the development of transportation policy and projects within the City. Those goals
are:
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 3/99
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 7 of 13
• A transportation system compatible with neighboring cities, Thurston County, Washington State,
and other transportation providers.
• A well-maintained transportation system providing safe and cost-effective movement of people
and goods.
• A transportation system with minimal environmental impact and energy consumption providing for
a high quality of life to be enjoyed by the citizens.
• Responsible funding, including public and private sector participation, of needed transportation
system improvements.
The Transportation Plan states:
Policies in a comprehensive plan provide a framework for future transportation planning and
decision-making. Use of these policies will guide decisions that affect transportation in the City of
Yelm and its Urban Growth Area. These policies will be employed by decision-makers for
different purposes:
• By the City Council and Planning Commission to implement transportation policies
through appropriations, standards, programs and project review.
• By developers and businesses to assess project feasibility, to make investment decisions
and to design their projects.
Additional sections of the plan that are relevant to the proposed project include:
a) Objective of the Transportation Plan
The objective of the Transportation Plan is to provide a cost-effective network to
accommodate travel in and around the core area. To accomplish this objective, Yelm will
actively pursue a mitigation/impact fee strategy that will promote alternative routes and
alternative methods of transportation rather than merely building ever larger streets.
b) Levels of Service/Concurrency
The City of Yelm is bisected by two state highways (SR 507 and SR 510) in the urban
core, which operate at or near failed levels of service, when measured on the A-F scale
used by Thurston Regional Planning Council for intersections and turning movements.
It is the policy of Yelm to disburse rather than to concentrate traffic through the urban
core to promote a free flow of traffic throughout the community.
It is the policy of Yelm to adopt levels of service for concurrency and planning purposes,
which will promote development of transportation alternatives, both routes and methods
of transport, rather than continue to enlarge the existing arterials.
In the urban core LOS F is recognized as an acceptable level of service where mitigation
to create traffic diversions, bypasses, and alternate routes and modes of transportation
are authorized and being planned, funded, and implemented.
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 3/99
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 8 of 13
The transportation element section of the Washington State GMA reads: "Local
jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if
the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below
standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless
transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development
are made concurrent with development."(RCW 36.70A.070)
C) Right-of-Way Policy
To retain existing rights-of-way and to identify, acquire, and preserve rights-of-way, the
City intends to use the recommendations from the Transportation Plan to identify current
and future transportation system needs. The City will identify specific transportation
corridors and alignments and locate and protect needed rights-of-way as soon as
possible. Some methods that will be used to acquire and preserve rights-of-way include:
• Requiring dedication of rights-of-way as a condition for development when the
need for such rights-of-way is linked to the development;
• Requesting donations of rights-of-way to the public;
• Purchasing rights-of-way by paying fair market value; and
• Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.
The City also seeks to protect rights-of-way from encroachment by any structure,
substantial landscaping, or other obstruction to preserve the integrity of a comprehensive
plan recommendation. Protection methods that may be used include a minimum setback
requirement for property improvements to preserve sufficient right-of-way to allow for
expansion of roadways; and development of specific guidelines regarding the installation
and maintenance of any landscaping within the public right-of-way.
13. Economic Considerations of the Developer .
There are several viable options that allow the project proponent to develop the property while preserving
the Y3 right-of-way.
Density comparison: The applicant's proposed site plan is based on parcel size data of 28.02
acres, as shown on Thurston County Assessor records. However, after importing the parcel
information into a computerized drawing program that has the ability to calculate area, the parcel
size is somewhat smaller at approximately 25.89 acres.
It is not unusual for discrepancies to occur between the assessor records and the actual parcel
size and it is typically corrected by obtaining a survey during the final platting process. Based on
the actual survey, the density is then adjusted prior to final plat approval.
For the purpose of this analysis it is important to work with the same base information (parcel
size) to accurately analyze density impacts of the Y3 corridor to the proposed project. Assuming
a project site of 25.89 acres at four (4) units per acre the maximum density permitted is 104 lots,
rather than 108 as proposed by the applicant.
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 3/98
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 9 of 13
Two alternative site plans have been developed to demonstrate the viability of designing the
project to preserve the Y3 corridor while retaining similar densities (Figure 12 & 13).
With Alternative 'A' there is a reduction of achievable density by 14 units. However, general
design comparisons between the proposed site plan and Alternative 'A' indicates that Alternative
'A' has an overall reduction in infrastructure improvements and development costs.
Alternative 'B' achieves a density of 102 units, compared to the maximum of 104 units as allowed
by zoning code. The design of Alternative 'B' is intended to maximize the use of the site while
retaining a cost effective opportunity for the City to purchase the corridor right-of-way without
creating a financial burden for the developer. By utilizing an east/west phasing plan the owner
could develop the site in densities, per phase, similar to his proposal, while preserving the Y3
corridor until the developer is ready to proceed with Phase 2. When the developer is ready to
proceed with Phase 2, the City would have the opportunity to purchase the right-of-way without
affecting the integrity of both plat phases.
East/West orientation: Currently the project is proposed to be phased in a north/south
configuration that does not recognize the future road corridor. By redesigning the plat to orient
east/west parallel to the Y3 corridor the project will be consistent with the planned alignment and
function more efficiently by completely separating the phases. Both alternative site plans, Figures
12 and 13, successfully incorporate an east/west phasing plan.
The preservation of the Y3 corridor within the project will result in a reduction of approximately five acres
of developable area. However, by utilizing a variety of techniques such as transferring a portion of the
allowed density from the corridor to the developable area, reorienting the plat phasing to an east/west
orientation, and placing the stormwater facilities in the corridor, a similar lot count can be achieved. The
lot sizes in the alternatives are similar to the applicant's proposal and would not affect the overall per lot
market value. Reductions in the cost of infrastructure per lot based on reduced roadway length should
help compensate for some of the loss in value due to a reduced lot count. Additionally, the project phases
are completely separate under the east/west orientation and could be developed independent of one
another. This arrangement will allow the developer to more easily sell one or both phases if so desired.
D. Conclusion and Effects of the Proposal
The need and specific alignment of the Y3 Transportation Corridor has been well documented and
established through a thorough community, comprehensive planning and environmental process that
began in the late 1980's and continued until the Y2/Y3 corridor was adopted by the Yelm City Council in
2000. The project, as proposed by the applicant does not acknowledge or account for the area that has
been identified and planned for by the City of Yelm, WSDOT, Thurston County and TRPC as the Y3
Transportation Corridor. The proposed project is designed in two phases bisecting the site in a
north/south direction. The Y3 corridor runs east/west through the northern half of the property. The
proposed layout creates a number of issues and impacts.
• The street layouts for Phase 1 and 2 do not function independently of each other. In addition to
creating a situation where the City is required to buy a number of homes, rather than
undeveloped land, to construct the Y3 facility, this layout requires the City to purchase excessive
lots and homes to re-construct the subdivision's internal road system.
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 3/99
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 10 of 13
• Without accommodating for the Y3 alignment as adopted by the City, the project proponent has
not identified a viable alternative to eliminate failing levels of service on Yelm Avenue/SR 510 and
SR 507.
• Without accommodating for the Y3 alignment as adopted by the City, the project proponent has
not addressed a viable alternative that would reduce the substantially higher-than-average
accident rates along the SR 510 corridor and the SR 507 section on Yelm Avenue. The average
accident rate for other minor rural arterials in the WSDOT Olympic Region is 1.8 accidents per
million vehicles. SR 510 has an accident rate of 2.4 per million vehicles, and the section of SR
507 on Yelm Avenue, from First Street eastward, has an accident rate of 3.7 per million vehicles,
which is more than double the Olympic Region average.
• To thoroughly address the traffic problems on SR 507 and SR 510, it is necessary to include the
southern and northern portion of the loop known as Y2 and Y3. Neither Y2 nor Y3 alone can
reduce current and future traffic congestion-on Yelm Avenue, and therefore they are inter-
dependent. Without providing for the Y3 alignment as adopted by the City, the project proponent
has not addressed an alternative alignment for the Y3 Corridor and/or how that impacts the
alignment of the Y2 corridor.
• Currently SR 510 and SR 507 are the only arterials for trucks transporting goods to and through
Yelm. Approximately nine percent of the vehicles on Yelm Avenue in the downtown area and to
the east are trucks. Currently, trucks must either drive onto the sidewalks or move into the
opposing lane when turning because of narrow roadway widths and small intersection turning
radii. Approximately 60% of the trucks traveling through Yelm are enroute to other destinations.
Without provisions for a viable alternative to the Y3 alignment, the project proponent has not
identified and evaluated alternative truck route(s) that will sufficiently reduce the amount of truck
traffic through downtown Yelm.
• Because no other east-west route exists, traffic must use Yelm Avenue in order to circulate within
the city and travel outside the core area. Without the Y3 alignment as adopted by the City, the
project proponent has not identified improvements needed in the transportation system to provide
linkages to both the local and regional transportation system that adequately addresses capacity
restraints and poor circulation within the region.
• In the urban core LOS F is recognized as an acceptable level of service where mitigation to
create traffic diversions, bypasses, and alternate routes and modes of transportation are
authorized and being planned, funded, and implemented. Without provisions to retain the
corridor alignment through the project site, LOS F can no longer be acceptable within the urban
core until such time an acceptable alternative corridor has been identified and adopted by the City
of Yelm, Thurston County, WSDOT and TRPC.
E. Findings of Fact
1. Yelm is a small compact community most directly affected by two state highways which bisect the
community.
2. The two state highways are used by local residents for transportation throughout the city and for
access to commercial and residential areas throughout the community.
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership M9
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 11 of 13
3. In lieu of widening existing streets, the City has elected to create certain alternatives, Y-1, Y-2, Y-
3, which will avoid the need to significantly widen existing streets, and particularly Yelm Avenue.
4. New developments do in fact burden the city's central streets, and unless the bypass alternatives
are accomplished, the City would have to require developers to pay the cost of the internal street
widening.
5. The city plans show, and the City finds, that adequate facilities will be accomplished better and in
a timely fashion by bypass facilities as a substitute for the widening of existing facilities. As a
result, the City finds that the regional plans in fact benefit projects in all areas on the City and will
accomplish the goal of providing adequate facilities to City standards within a reasonable time to
serve the demands created by the proposed project.
6. The Y3 corridor, serving as a loop road to downtown Yelm, is of regional significance due to the
SR 510/SR 507 corridor serving as the alternative north-south corridor for Interstate 5 (1-5)
bypassing Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base.
7. Accidents or extreme congestion occurring on 1-5 result in congestion on SR 510/SR 507 (locally
referred to as Yelm Avenue), causing traffic through the City of Yelm to reach intolerable levels.
This, along with an estimated tripling of population within the City's UGA by year 2020, will create
traffic congestion at near gridlock levels unless adequate provisions are made for alternative
routes.
8. Through an extensive public process the City has identified the Y2/Y3 corridor as the alternative
route.
9. As proposed this project eliminates, at a minimum, Y3 as an alternative and jeopardizes the
alignment of Y2.
10. The proposed 507/510 Alternative Route is identified to bisect the subject property. The
Alternative Route is a proposed replacement for State Routes 507 and 510 through the City of
Yelm, creating a route for regional traffic to avoid the City core and local access traffic.
11. The Alternative Route has been identified, an Environmental Assessment has been prepared,
and a Finding of No Significant Impact has been issued.
12. A public process was used to identify the proposed route and the Comprehensive Plan was
updated to adopt the route as part of the transportation system in the City.
13. Yelm is currently attempting to obtain funding for preliminary engineering and right-of-way
acquisition.
14. The applicant's proposed site plan is based on parcel size data of 28.02 acres, as shown on
Thurston County Assessor records. However, after importing the parcel information into a
computerized drawing program that has the ability to calculate area, the parcel size is somewhat
smaller at approximately 25.89 acres. Maximum density in the Low Density Residential, R-4
District, for 25.89 acres is 104 single family residential units.
15. The creation of residential lots within the proposed right-of-way of the Y3 Alternative Route is a
significant adverse impact. Pursuant to Section 197-11-330-(1)(c) WAC, these impacts can be
mitigated through the subdivision review process and the application of existing policies and
regulations.
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership "9
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 12 of 13
16. Requiring the applicant to design the phasing of the plat to preserve the alternative route until the
City can allocate funds to purchase the property does not cause a hardship on the applicant and
serves the public interest.
F. Potential Mitigation Measures
The following conditions of approval would mitigate impacts to the Y3 Corridor.
1. The applicant shall design the plat so that the phase line runs through the site from east to west.
Phase 1 shall be fully contained and functional south of the Y3 corridor. Phase 2 shall be
completely independent of Phase 1, fully contained and functional north of the Y3 corridor.
Figure 12 illustrates acceptable Phasing.
2. To facilitate,the retention of the Y3 right-of-way and reduce economic impacts to the property
owner, stormwater facilities shall be located within the Y3 Corridor.
3. The applicant may transfer the allowed density from the corridor area to Phase I and Phase II of
the plat as illustrated in Figure 12 or 13. The final survey will be utilized to calculate maximum
density of the site including the Y3 right-of-way area. The applicant may transfer the density from
the Y-3 right-of-way to Phase I & II up to the maximum density allowed for a pre-developed site.
4. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) for each residential unit shall be credited towards the
acquisition of the Y3 right-of-way. An Appraiser shall determine the fair market value of the
property not compensated for through transfer of density, location of stormwater facilities and
other negotiated agreements between the developer and the City. The TFC credits will begin
with the first building permit and shall continue through consecutive building permits until such
time the developer has been compensated for the agreed upon acquisition price for the portion of
the Y3 right-of-way that was not compensated for through transfer of density, location of
stormwater facilities and other negotiated agreements between the developer and the City. Upon
full credit of the acquisition price, the subsequent building permits will be charged the current
TFC.
5. The applicant shall enter into a Developers Agreement with the City identifying the development
concessions received by the developer (transfer of density, stormwater facilities, etc.) and terms
of the future acquisition of the Y3 right-of-way.
6. The City and the developer shall agree upon reduced building setbacks for lots that include the
gas line easement.
G. Attachments
Figure 1: 20 Year Transportation Plan
Figure 2: Project Location
Figure 3: Existing Traffic Volumes Base Roadway Network
Figure 4: Existing and Year 2020 LOS on Base Roadway Network
Figure 5 2020 Traffic Volumes and Needed Traffic Lanes Base Roadway Network
Figure 6: Existing and Year 2020 LOS on Base Road Network
Figure 7: 2020 Traffic Volumes and Needed Traffic Lanes With Y2
Figure 8: 2020 Traffic Volumes and Needed Traffic Lanes With Y3
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership 3199
Grant Beck
May 13, 2003
Page 13 of 13
Figure 9: 2020 Traffic Volumes and Needed Traffic Lanes With Y2 and Y3
Figure 10: 2020 LOS With Y2/Y3
Figure 11: Y2/Y3 Alternatives
Figure 12: Alternative Site Plan Design `A'
Figure 13: Alternative Site Plan Design `B'
o:\1781\contracts\015\09\deliver\report\051303 coyne benum plat staff report.doc
Quality Service Through Employee Ownership "9
PRIORITY' RECOMMENDATIONS
18 Y1 93RD AVE/THURSTON HIGHLANDS CONNECTOR Y11 110th AVE SE CREEK CROSSING
S Y2 SR507/TO GROVE ROAD CONNECTOR I EDWARDS STREET IMPROVEMENTS
7 Y3 CANAL ROAD NORTH LOOP 3 YELM AVE/BALD HILLS RD. SIGNAL
49,11 Y4 COATESSTEVENS103rd CONNECTOR I CREEK ST IMPROVEMENTS
EDWARDS STREET IMPROVEMENTS 8 MOSMAN STREET IMPROVEMENTS
8,14 Y5 YELM AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS to SECOND STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Y7 SW ACCESS f2 RAILROAD STREET NW IMPROVEMENTS
9 YS MOSMAN SOLBERG ST CONNECTOR 8 UPGRADE 13 RHOTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Y9 BALD HILLS ROAD 15 YELM AYE W/KILUON RD 'REALIGNMENT
Y10 VANCIL ROAD CONNECTION to YELM AVE W/93RD AVE REALIGNMENT
17 RAILROAD STREET SW IMPROVEMENTS
f8 CITY WIDE ROADWAY RESURFACING
• PRIORITY FROM 8 YEAR TRANSPORTATION
IMPROYBHNNT PROGRAM (1997-2002)
•
Oft A
igg
I I DBfh AYE
¦w¦¦ ¦A¦rr¦ ~RRNlA PD1FR LANK
NOT TO ¢ b LieGN GROWN
SC4 Ixt- i 9 Y3 BauNDARY
f
r t 3
¦ Y5 , 4E 5'y
¦ EE ~
.res.e..m~.~..enr. eenk Y7
¦
y
i 1•?
Y'l
Y7 Y8 M6Y
f Fp1
¦
¦ f.....
¦ tu7'wr+~•uu'~+v4+a~uuvuvur+wnur ~ 'q: •163d A YE 5$.
Mb Aw- SE
i g 377
¦ j
Y2
0h~ ~?=fir¦.= 71 YlRJUl1¦,l11R411JMIRIR~¦¦¦¦r.¦ ¦..i..r1 ...L.rr
~lfnfh~~ f13L1l11 @l 104th ME SE ~
¦ Y10
¦ - - - - - 94ORT TERM URBAN
GEND Y11 GROWTH BOUNDARY
¦
LONG TERW URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
SHORT TERN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY `
PLANNED IMPROIAUMTS
UNDETERMINED ROADWAY ALK"tENT
Figure 1
20 Year Transportation Plan
1997 Update
I4 NUS
~p
'Sr
b A'VL
A { RA11h Poe CANAL
Rl
e~ Avg Y3 c
93rd A~ ~ $ 4`e4' ~p~
s
`Yl to
W YlAY S
brp IOQtY' o
elm
o
Noj TO Sc l-
jEr
CT
pAiNUS
T5 PfROjF-7cT
NUS
<P CORRIDOR 7EFl
MI*
i
uFeAS GRQW'rH $our4vARY F~9ure
2
~~~ND _ LONG TERM
r-- i r a/y, ~RfZ14~
I
P
t~•
t
t .
NOT To SCALE
JAI
powm
96-
t~
1 ~
40.
K'& slo
QQ ~ ~ tai
Sl,
1 ~``sy Rt? 4
mod
r ~F 10.Srd h ~'t .
t f
r v Q t051h ~Y`' ~ 1~ J
• ' ~J
..-1 aWt4DARY
LEGEND- URBAN GROWTH
'tftAmo 'VOLUMES
~gUre 3
Ex~s~e ,~oadwa~l Ne
gas
\t
NOT 70 SCALE
is ' •
s~0~^ ----________-fi-l----
S: i! r • k IWIM I
,off
1 c Spy ~'~a SR S07
E; F(F)
i
SE
, p
i
t
gptiNDARY
GROWV
GIN D LONG 'V$A 1JR yEAR 2020
EAST1t4G YF ()F TRAF~1C 51 Figure 4
x;)( WiTM ADV-OON 02.0 `„C
(x)~ t~ eat ~ t
EX~stin9 aRoadway New
on gas
NOT TO SCALE
'To
COMMA Polo
S `
~ ~ -te XWAY ao. 5z
,03rd A
O~ I av
,I It ° r~R 507
r
1 r
WE 5£
~0
BOUNDARY
LEG S ND LONG 7EO URBAN GROWTM
t ~
3 LANES
4/5 DES
s LANES Figure 5
^ " (2420)
FUTURE YHARO ,ypLUME
t 000 DAJLY 'MAM -1-raflic far
~
Ivmes and eeded NefiN
2p20 Tra lc Vo Base Rfladwa`!
NQT TO SCALE
S14 ~~'M1M~'Y•.- _
_ _ .
lahaN,~1ifF _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _Y
y~ .mow.` _ _ _ ' - -
r
Wh AVE A PCJMeA
~ Av4.. ~ S70 I 3
D; F F
Y Ys
t0.Yd AVE. c
1 ~ ~ 1s~~ ~~O SR 501
Rr-
l Y~ A B
1
S~N(?ARY
~
` ~owr}+ •fAR 2020
TERM
LEGEND Lot4o
~S71N G `F-AF• TRA C SIGNAL F~9~~g 6
x; X VA A alp try
tX>' N~ewa`I New
Exis~~n9 and
on Base Road
NOT TO SGALE
10
A '
1
Cfl~'1RAUA ppMfli CtN+1.
hw.
A
`mo'w i S
yDoth yYAY S.E.
k O
l fl ~
i'g yp51h A'h• t `~O`
own I
~yL+ i /
BOUNDARY
URBAN ~D
f LEGEND LONG TOW
3 LANES
..i 4/5 LANES -7
Mr'w- 5 LANES
YEO (20
FUTURE HG
DpiLY TRUE
20 (a.11,
ly-' umes and Neede ~Uith
2~ \j°\
1
1
t
t
t
%
?a, NOT TO SCALE
A. i
S • yam'
~O UD KAI,Rq:
88th A
88th A - - @1
89th AVE
CEN7R~A
I fW CANAL
2 N : °z /
93rd AY£. s~ j 33 to 67 _
, S ; Y I J 3 F- • ~
t 1cJ i iFC t' ~2
i y 4i
j ~ < i Q•~y ~ c~ G
ARRAY ft~,~$ E,r o
9r,~' S ~l~io =
10bth WAY
I ,~c^s p ~ '3
t7~100
o 103rd AVE°~E
I ,z
I / I I } 105th
O z ?9r
- --=i- 507
J
m
S !
} L
f -`L(?' 109th ASE. SE '
X I
LEGEND
- - - LONG TERM URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
3 LANES J
4/5 LANES
5 LANES
® FUTURE YEAR (2020)
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
Figure 8
Ak . 2020 Traffic Volumes and Needed Traffic Lanes
With Y3
t
NOT TO SCALE
Y3
so ttur~;
~'a?--- ='`:4 =
1 rorux Crw-
fit. Sf .•WAY ao. 5 i '''^.St~,~~ ' ~
f:5
kf y ~ _ tp6th WAY 5.~~
c~,~`, • Sf toxa ~ ~ ~
t 3
t 1 1
jif SS t Wo t gas I
'lot
Y2
f Bpt}NOARY
~ URBAN CROW'M
f L..EGENQ LONG
3 LANES
4/5 DES
5 LANES yEAR (2020) F?uCe 9
® FUTURE~AFFIL VOLUME
oA«Y r
ded -Cra{~ic ~a
volumes and Nee ~(ith `f 2 and
2p2~ -~ra~~c
1
NOT TO SCALE
CIO %1N'•F~" h;<
~ SAVE
IA POKR C+WM• AYE- ~ •rt~
45 S
2 ~Y w~v rm. s'
2
VAY
10'Jd AYE' ~
T7S r Q~~."
}
[ AYE E3
r r f
r
C '
tt t {•sa
t i
f WV BWNDARY
LEGEND ~ URBAN qz0
S UNDER SIGNAL CONS
AL A~ ODD
INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC c,•,~GNA
' UNSIGNAU~ Figure 10
MT TME
2 2020 I,o
WithYZ
- -
R
i
1
i
NOT TO SCALE r
I
t
80 AI(.
I i
AK Rf ! i- t~~1 tlrfl t d I
i~ 41
LEGEND MM WAY Iqj
f.r~
MM, AC SE
g A
~J ALT I SR 507
ALT A ;
~?1~~ `hw NIL vl A_w- 3E
'ALT 4
i , ALT
p ` .
f KT ' Ns
.rf
f, ~ TtON A1E Y
a ^ f/
3 t
3 ! ALr f,
W& A1[ g
ALT tl _a 1
/ ago'
Figure 11
Y2N3 Alternatives
Exhibit VII
Map of Impacted Lots
N
O
2
r ~
U-
cn
° O
N
d Q
V O N J
z °o QS'" Nd a CL
O d O O M \10M O r-1 tw, Q
C) cd Z
U C7
~
Qo
00 Or_
00
C/) r-7 m
$,4 P4
06
a~
a Cd i
CKI
-d 4-4 rj) CIA
r4 -4 C/)
o o 4-{ Q w p Q w
N <a o
~ Cl) M a
5 w. ' ~ ~i Z U 3
?Y , ? O
Q-~ V
Z ~
ia1
x m II
C/1 w I
1
w C/)
v,
191
zb~
r i s ti o s/ _ F-~ v° r
'1 C')
\ bid C~ O c
N L/) • 4 M 9 P
00 `4 ,~•`NN \ ` • f/] r-1 u E u o o g
f~N ~o
1 ¢ \ \
ONS
j( iY j j f Q a~~ \ r hvO\ f C f .
R-6
N 1 f yY_\°jo J\ i-+ . r+ ' N
03
F 1 1 Ln 'd N
03
j j ur f o- f/ yY \ z k
Eir
f f, . / ; (3~t f "t..,. + e f fry ~ 9 T \ \ \ ~ rI o
f co
ccr4l
10
a
p.~\\ 1, i• ,q.`` i J .£B N o~ r"2 CN l .C8 \Ol;e\' `V"a
F/Fr 1. / jf _ QihN ,fib ,ll09 .095 .S9 ~o l I .6S .09 r 1p ~a..:\ O
/
h-
9L ,09 .09 .09^._.. 1 I •OS .100 5 \r.`s:,.~ ~Z
J
C7 d. m CSC n t~'
/ h`r ,£6 u a/ f o r N } j r- o N §
r` / s pp o c~ i \
N Y e1 to 4~ LL~ O 1 ! os
JJr/
r 0 6 v 4L .09 09 .09 .09 .09 ^ 09 ; 09 ~ .04 . Lfi 1
! + _
N O'S
w o
1?~1 t_
~J a
oa
{ ~ t 1
! j U7 Al 0
E
z
j 4
O
1 3SYBOd01 'S3ovn SO/Zt/t
z
t W
N '--4
(D
U C/)
LO V r--+ J
`p
z N -4
a~ cr' -C4 M 00 o w
d
N ° E- v'
o kr)
LLI
LLJ
cd
a
CCd
. 4 cn
Ora
~741 ca v Q..{
00 CIA Q cnw
Q O
Fa
' w J
4p
•H a
N a`'. a u
~ ~ ZU 3
J
m PL-4 °
o
P, a ~ 1
Z r
co l
w ~ o
M
tt
0 ` ~1
I ~S
O ~ \
O
t t t t 1 \ m
~ \ C7
O p1~t
p o n
ri ~ E 0 y Q
jf
C-4 q) S
CId
7 ~Y~, t ~ ~ { ~1 r R
i i + ~'rs .°o~ Ir p~ ~ ~ \ ~y~;4; .-d ~ f~ g s
PL-A
" 1.... 1 ' 3 S/ °O? f f ~ N n c~.t 1~0 \ i ti ~ ~ F•r'~
4~ C,
S~i
51
N'
N ? y~" T r 1 r \ Cd
r
y~ 1 T- ti
i i {fJ tf h~ °s ~i~ N 1 / yy opt' Q1 ° \
r CU 'OS .saN o. y N ~ ft C~p 2s d' CO •ss \ \ ,
f r 1` f .d °8 yry J yy yh .sue \ < / \ a °
Qz
j yry C7 / lJ y tD yh N ` \ \ ~:Yt j 4 a
t ~l M too ` rs °
(i T J j J ,soe y ~ ! ~ ~j ti~b _ ~ « .r~ \ N.,
I i •o
r l ; n•-~ J J ; tL)
tot'j
t" ,..j J h~ • s{ ~ s yti (0
y! fjJ r' p N I r I ~j b cfl ~j too tool
'`"}y !1 1 J y •gs ~ •s° ro°~ / ~ yh N ~ ?e' ~ ~o ~ N' ~ ~ - ~~,r
i~ li J' ~ C7 ~ ti°~.. N f C'7 0, { ~ t .oot I - 1° r ,--'`.•~~~1 \
J!' y .re o OD
;r t J, i N •Og 00 • f6 1 C`)~ - X81 ~t_...._'.`~-~" `a..
66
t , , r N ry
.
,LCt
C-1 96
U
j7j
f `
i 1 ? /
1 L
r t j'r f' t
l r ~ 'r?'
5
i z a
i
0
,S3 f0/S
3Sr80d01 31"
F
O Q)
'N U
(t3 0.
m 5 E
~B E J w o mU N o
0
ql'' m V co N ao >
N rn 4 a~ 00
t Q~ pp CD CL z rn m 0 o Q v m p rn oo ,n
'
r 0 C) N E a~i 2 U~Ln~ ~v ~~vQ cami (n _j E Ea Lr-o 0) E
:3 0
Sbd V C !3 0 > E o
U O • ¦ o I~-0)W 0Cinf:r co
E %
a
C
O
m
/ C7
LO
LO
l
/ (.0
J co
cfl N •
! LO
O
LO
00
CY)
~ . N
~ ¦ ,off
d C)
co
O • O CO
N
• ¦ OO co
~ N
co co NO
N
CD • •
:0 LO
O 00 T
N C) 00
C) T N
LO CY)
ti • N
N
C\j
i'
66So-fit (407) -Xvd toot-at (got)
4999'4Y91b57a4 61,1L-6ow oo16N4t"M rowoaot (VI
-41ST 4im5 1097
007 Olin
9L94611M-dnTwAnd O
OML Q
saslada3u+anrlH eora ~Bujr"UIBU3 `
Z - ! G o 3NA00•11a380a 1NSM I
3a "-T- 1 G ~ A.L2l3dOtid 3NA03 aNV Wf1N38 Ka
N"M 3 321d N
fi~~na'b'siY 1va Noud~s3a ONA3N 1VldAINNIWil
cr~3nardS 3 tui
:~yN vas /vim r~7 N 53ivd/~ .d~vNVw l ~aroad i~
N
F-
qq
s 9 •n
l H°x,1 ~ n ~y~ ~ y~
Y.. a q
g p .
Z 2 8 1 > o~I~r ~~aNO~
1n a o tp 0 Jib
" R. RaD
oar NosN3,t7/nr r= 3 ~ $ o ~ y ~ ~ m r
IBM
W/ w co w k' 2 , y (ma y
D CL
`c '+i S >.1-x ~Q( ° 6 = tC 1- 1~ avO~rLLO'aY H
~d ~ 0 1--~ F ¢ ~ ~ ~S - o ~ U U ~ W lil {4_ W 2 ~
Od' NOl ONd' MN 4a$3~ ~~•~f'11 L~act a 1KK 11ft ..i K~Qgg ~ySJ~rh
U _
~x Z1
Q w / / /SE z o
W ~y
rn y
Mal
o
G \ - \O~m1! J 'n 'rp~
1 Z - z co
I'Za~ IM0
ccr- In ill
Li ~ Z ~ w 'rat ~ ~ 06.
W CD 0. OCV Y
C) 0
/ V ~ = \ fit' ``e" mob. \ 51 V N \ \-p
z 0 0 IOU I lj~
law
LL
\A
Q
W LL
-
t
Z W. U " '~.as ss oI ~r ab ,"7 a~ 1A g \
W
~4 - ~ r ~y ~
W Q \ m a~9 . 1 ~ ~ .09 as .ov ,09 s o9 ~ ~ J N4
~ o N og o9 09 or ~ .09 .09 .09 .09 a ~ a 1 ~ ~ • • '
ooi
a ,OOr tar $ a$ M~ a8~at~ u$ a.$ ao4 0,8 v 3Vib ;.~~+R~
~---_E1V021 NOSN3~1lIM~~~- _ - '
F.¦ \ft~o8ZWj.9Yi•lroAMWONA1BanMil"1;33"' -1* ~ ~fG• Z ~b
P~ W = z \
I* p w \
U (.9 N w
o GP , Z F .
$ + C~ Z U ~
Z U. ~ c ~ to
9 Z od U
HUM a ON Z
~a Qw
e w ° cn W
U~ Z z
~o
_ z
VICINITY MAP
BENUM & COYNE PROPERTY
4
A pSQUA LLY
CAA444 o PINES
Q P,o W ~ ~i ~p
~U Ste. YA
E- ON
8~~ ply ~
SCALE: 1" = 1,320'
UTILITY CONNECTION LOCATIONS
BENUM & COYNE PROPERTY
SC/~LE' N 7 S.
- W ; - -a -
a: AlVgt 9 W A st ~r
NW VIEW OR Uj VIEW CT .r4'1SC~(_Ir=
o _ 9~ s T ~igt'1' PI!'\IE S
W
X1200 CRYSTAL_ Z
CT Y
v 22NO T G~NW RHOT T C4~gC
13 is 930&m, oo NW EW i NW QUAIL LeADOWS CT 18 C
I %0
24 19 C7
WIN ARE LN ~ Z .
3 NW XtNGS LN jla yyppp
C7 CT _
It, Cr y
soo
,y~,ca y4 sT c, z , eO ~9i
- --G E%-9
't 40 t4b z -29 Q y~~, q~L~ R-30 F -
C> RAILWAY GQ3 CO Uj I
spy ~ r ~
a~ MIDDLE y~13 O t ~5 S U R~ ~j~QQ o LU
~c. A~ \ ~F9o s 6 ' 100TH '9p
~Q y~ e{c, ~qy \j ? 1001-q WAY SE
W fORT
cc CAFM
p F \ s~v~vs s
LSQUMLY P y ty F'k~,g`~ ~'Po o9FF a $LEIW F
ej* COMSE iw >
~r -
H AVE----- 1r
E 1038 T SE s19 20 i ly C7 103RD ST SE
507 5 PAMI R i 28.6 'tt o h y 299
~ 99ti
FS 2-1 ` NE ALGIERS LN try pG OG
ndTU evG 104TH AVE SE 507
O Benum & Coyne Property - 28 + acres
OO Sanitary Sewer STEP System - City of Yelm
O Water Main, 8" - City of Yelm
® Natural Gas - PSE
OO O.H. Power - PSE; O.H. & UG Telephone - Yelm Telephone