Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Project Rev & Correspondence
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF YELM REPORT AND DECISION CASE NO.: BENUM/COYNE SUBDIVISION SHORELINE PERMIT SUB-02-8329-YL APPLICANTS: Robert Coyne and Robert Benum Benum Enterprises P.O. Box 73130 Puyallup, WA 98373 AGENT: Terry Brink Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Dahiem, LLP 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 200 P.O. Box 1157 Tacoma, WA 98401-1 1 57 ENGINEER: James Crippen, P.E. 2601 South 35th Street, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98409 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicants are proposing to subdivide approximately 28.02 acres into 104 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. SUMMARY OF DECISION: Request granted, subject to conditions. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing Planning and Community Development StafF Report and examining available information on file with the application, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the request as follows: The hearing was opened on August 4, 2003, at 9:03 a. m. -1- Parties wishing to testify were sworn in by the Examiner. The following exhibits were submitted and made a part of the record as follows: EXHIBIT "1" - Planning and Community Development Staff Report and Attachments EXHIBIT " 2" - Revised Site Plan dated July 31, 2003 EXHIBIT " 3" - Modified Site Plan EXHIBIT "4" - Letter Memorandum (bound spiral notebook from Terry Brink) EXHIBIT "5" - Supplemental Memorandum from Teny Brink GRANT BECK appeared, presented the Community Development Staff Report, and testified regarding the modified conditions and plat layout. The Centralia power Canal abuts the north property line and a railroad right-of-way the east property line. The preliminary plat includes lots within a proposed transportation corridor. The MDNS requires a realignment of the Canal Road/Wilkensen Road intersection, and to do so, the applicant will need additional right-of-way. Water and sewer are located about 2,000 linear feet away and the City wilt not require a looped system as the applicant will install a 12 inch main to the site as opposed to an eight inch main. Residential development is consistent with the City's shoreline master program. The City traffic consultant prepared two alternative plans which will protect the road corridor. One left the area in open space, but the other authorizes building permits to be issued last on those lots so the City can obtain funding to purchase that portion of the plat for right-0f-way. The City wants to preserve the right-of-way in a manner that allows the applicant to further its own goals. They agreed upon the revised site plan. The applicant had to reduce the lot sizes and it initially appeared it would lose several lots. However, the City allowed use of the railroad right-of- way for open space, and the applicant agreed to construct a pedestrian path along said right-of-way. The applicant will build a trail across the plat frontage, but will not construct a fence. The plat once again proposes 104 lots, some of which will use joint access driveways. The City waived the landscape requirements to assist in obtaining right-of-way and also modified road standards allowing one parking strip as opposed to two. The City will cooperate with the developer on sewer and water provision. Concerning Condition 6A, for lots within the corridor, the City will not issue building permits until all other lots have received permits. Such will allow the City time to purchase the right-of-way. Appearing was TERRY BRINK, attorney at law on behalf of the request, who testified that this hearing is held now as a result of the continuance of the July 11, 2003, hearing. Both parties requested the continuance to resolve outstanding issues to include the transportation corridor. On July 2, 2003, they met with the City and focused on the issues, -2- and then met again on July 11, 2003, and accomplished more regarding the resolution of the corridor. The meeting resulted in a modified staff report. They now have new conditions, replaced conditions, and deleted conditions. However, a lot of information in the staff report was not deleted. He introduced Exhibit "4n, his letter memorandum and referred to pages 9-20 for his corridor argument. He does not agree with the original City staff report as the City lacks the authority to require them to do anything if the City has no funding or engineering for a road project. The applicant's agreement as outlined by Mr. Beck is consensual. The City is also not obligated to accept a fee in lieu of open space, waive landscaping, modify parking requirements, authorize shared access driveways, and restore roads after completion of utility constnuction. The R-4 zone classification authorizes densities at four dwelling units per acre, and the 104 lots on 28.02 acres calculates to 3.71 dwelling units per acre. They are now surveying the site, and if the parcel measures more than 28.02 acres, they will not request an increase in density. However, if they have less property, they will reduce the number of lots to comply with the four dwelling units per acre. They will provide 61,028 square feet of open space and are satisfied by the fee or construction in lieu thereof. They will enter a voluntary agreement with the school district pursuant to RCW 82.02.020 and have previously talked with the district. Concerning Conditions 1 and 2, they will pay the transportation charge or realign Canal Road. They are required to do the later rather than the former if they obtain a credit for the transportation fee and the amount of right-of--way. If they have insufficient right-of-way, the City can acquire the necessary property. They will meet all setbacks per code. They propose three open space tracts, two of which will be landscaped areas maintained by the homeowners association and the third a storm drainage facility. Exhibit "C" is the conceptual plan and Exhibit "E" addresses the shoreline substantial development permit. If they extend a 12 inch main to the parcel and reduce the water line to eight inches on site, they can provide adequate fire flow. The plat meets all requirements of RCW 58.17.110 and all laws. He introduced Exhibit "5", his supplemental memorandum. Appearing was JIM CRIPPEN, on behalf of the applicant, who testified that they will use a storm drainage retention system as the soils consist of sandy loam and perc very well. They will collect the drainage at the low point and grade the roads to that area. They will use catch basins and pipes and will construct the drainage system to the requirements of the DOE manual. No one spoke further in this matter and so the Examiner took the request under advisement and the hearing was concluded at 9:43 a. m. NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the City of Yelm Community Development Department -3- FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION: FINDINGS: 1. The Hearing Examiner has admitted documentary evidence into the record, viewed the property, heard testimony, and taken this matter under advisement. 2. Appropriate notice was provided. 3. 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 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. 4. The applicant has a possessory ownership interest in an unimproved, triangular shaped parcel of property within the City of Yelm. Wilkensen Road abuts the western side of the parcel and the Centralia Power Canal abuts the northern side. The southeastern side of the parcel abuts the Yelm/Roy Prairie Line Railroad. Unincorporated Thurston County abuts the northern side of the canal and the southeastern side of the railroad opposite the site. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to allow subdivision of the site into 104 single family residential lots. 5. The site plan shows the plat divided into two, independent, unconnected phases. Phase 2 in the northern portion of the site adjacent to the canal consists of lots 55- 104. Access to Phase 2 is provided by an internal plat road accessing from Wilkensen Road SE at the northwest corner of the parcel adjacent to the canal. Said internal road extends southeast to the eastern portion of the site, and four cul- de-sac roads extend south periodically along said road. Phase 1 consists of lots 1- 54 and has two accesses onto Wilkensen Road which allow for a looped road system and cul-de-sac. Canal Road SE and Wilkensen Road SE intersect at a sharp angle immediately south of the southern access for Phase 1. An Olympic Pipeline Company 30 foot wide easement extends through the plat in a northeast/southwest direction, entering the plat near the intersection of N.P. Road SE and Canal Road and exiting the parcel at the northeastern corner. The plat map shows an open space tract located between the railroad and the Olympic Pipeline easements, and a second open space tract located adjacent to the canal between the western property line of lot 104 and the right-of-way of the internal plat road. 6. The Centralia Power Canal conducts water diverted from the Nisqually River to a hydroelectric generating facility located west of the City of Yelm. Pursuant to the -4- State Shoreline Management Act, the power canal meets the definition of "Shoreline of the State". The Thurston County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) designates the area within 200 feet of the canal as Urban Shoreline Environment. The applicant's proposal for a single family residential subdivision complies with uses contemplated for the Urban Environment. 7. A visit to the site establishes that the parcel is located in a rural area of the City, but parcels to the west across Wilkensen Road SE are located within either an industria{ zoning district or an R-4 residential district and will likely develop in accordance therewith. The railroad will eventually serve said industrial area. The property appears level and ranges in elevation from 336 feet at the southwest corner to 320 feet at the Tract C storm drainage facility adjacent to the canal. 8. The City and the applicant resolved the most serious issue affecting plat approval. The parties agreed to a method of preserving a transportation corridor for a future SR-510/SR-507 loop which will provide a bypass around the City for travelers on both routes. The City has identified the route, prepared an environmental assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and issued a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The City Council updated the Yelm Comprehensive Plan in 2000 and adopted the preferred alternative corridor, and the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Program identifies the loop. However, the project remains unfunded. The applicant and the City have agreed on a revised preliminary plat (Exhibit "3")which eliminates road connections between the two phases of the plat (which would cross the corridor) and have also agreed that the applicant will not ask for building permits for any lots within the corridor until permits have issued for all other lots in the plat. Such will allow the City the opportunity to acquire funds to purchase the corridor. Upon acquisition of the corridor, cul-de-sacs currently shown therein will be eliminated. 9. The original site plan maintained most of the parcel between the Olympic Pipeline Company easement and the railroad right-of-way as open space. Said area plus the storm water facilities measured 133,688 square feet, far greater than the required 61,027 square feet fora 104 unit subdivision. Because of the changes to the plat necessitated by the preservation of right-of-way, the applicant now proposes single family residential lots in most of the open space area and has reduced the amount of open space below that required fora 104 lot subdivision. To meet the open space requirements of the code, the City has authorized the applicant to utilize the City railroad right-of--way to construct a pedestrian trail along the property frontage. The City plans to construct a trail in said location which will consist of a ten foot asphalt walkway along with a fence separating the trail from the railroad tracks. The applicant will not construct the separation fence as the City does not presently utilize the railroad. The City has also agreed to waive the landscaping requirements along the railroad and canal as such features accomplish the same goal of separating adjacent land uses. The City also waived the original -5- proposal of a six foot tall, board fence along said boundaries. The plat makes appropriate provision for open spaces, parks and recreation, and playgrounds. 10. The applicable R-4 zoning district has neither a minimum nor maximum lot size requirement, but authorizes a maximum density of not more than four dwelling units per gross acre (Section 17.12.020(A}(1) of the Yelm Municipal Code). Furthermore, Section 17.12.050 of the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC) limits building coverage to 50% of the lot size and development coverage to 75%. The applicant is presently conducting a survey of the parcel, but has committed to a maximum of 104 lots and a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre regardless of the size of the parcel. The preliminary plat proposes a minimum lot area of 5,500 square feet and an average lot area of 8,646 square feet. The City finds that the proposed lot sizes will allow structures to meet all required setbacks and other bulk regulations of the R4 zone classification. 11. Parcels abutting the northern and southeastern property lines are located within unincorporated Thurston County and zoned for lower density residential uses. The Centralia Power Canal and the railroad right-of-way provide substantial buffering between the project and its proposed lot sizes from uses and lot size requirements in Thurston County. 12. As previously found, the three sided parcel abuts Wilkensen Road on the west, the canal on the north, and the railroad right-of--way on the southeast. Thus, Wilkensen Road provides the only vehicular access to the property. The 1992 Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes policies and regulations requiring the continuation of streets to adjoining properties and subdivisions. However, the canal and railroad prevent extensions of the plat roads to adjacent parcels. 13. Heath and Associates, a qualified traffic engineering firm, prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) which found that a 108 lot subdivision would generate 1,034 vehicle trips per day with a p.m. peak volume of 109 vehicles. All such vehicles will access onto Wilkensen Road, and the TIA estimates that virtually all traffic will travel southbound through the intersection of Wilkensen Road/Canal Road. Canal Road currently intersects Wilkensen Road at an angle of approximately 50 degrees. Such does not provide safe entering and stopping sight distance for vehicles entering Wilkensen Road from Canal Road. The addition of 1,034 weekday trips will exacerbate safety issues for drivers on Canal Road. A mitigating measure in the MDNS requires the applicant to realign said intersection and eliminate the safety concern. The applicant will construct said improvements in lieu of paying the transportation facility charge of $757.50 per unit. 14. The applicant will also improve Wilkensen Road to Neighborhood Collector standards which require 16 foot drive lanes, vertical curb, seven foot planter strip with trees 35 feet on center, street lighting, and a five foot wide sidewalk. The City -6- has agreed to modify the internal plat road standards by eliminating one lane of on- street parking, and requiring landscape islands on the other side of the street to clearly define the remaining single parking lane. The City has also authorized flag lots and lots with narrow frontages on cul-de-sacs to utilize shared driveways. The plat makes appropriate provision for streets, roads, alleys, and other public ways. 15. The applicant has submitted a preliminary storm water report which estimates the impervious surface, infiltration rates for runoff, and conceptual design for treatment and storage. The applicant proposes to grade the roads such that water will flow to the north to the storm drainage facility adjacent to the canal. The applicant will construct all storm water facilities in accordance with the current stone water manual adopted by the City Council. Said standards include best management practices during construction. The plat makes appropriate provision for drainage ways. 16. As previously found, the applicant wilt provide both domestic water and fire flow to the site by extending an existing water main in N.P. Road SE approximately 1,200 feet to the plat boundary. The applicant will upsize the line to 12 inches from the point of connection to the subdivision boundary and extend eight inch lines throughout the plat. Such will eliminate the necessity of a looped system. The nearest existing sewer line is located at the intersection of N.P. Road and Rhoton Road approximately 3,500 feet to the south of the project. The applicant will construct a sewer line from said intersection to the subdivision to provide sanitary sewer service. The City has agreed to reconstruct public roads disturbed during the installation of the water and sewer lines and also provide a Latecomers Agreement pursuant to Chapter 13.12 YMC. Thurston County Fire District No. 2 will provide fire supression service, and the applicant will install fire hydrants which meet minimum City standards. The preliminary plat makes appropriate for water supplies, sanitary waste, and fire protection. 17. A mitigating measure in the MDNS requires the applicant to enter a voluntary agreement with the Yelm School District to offset the impacts to the district of school aged children residing in the plat. Compliance with said agreement will ensure that the plat makes appropriate provision for schools and school grounds. 18. As previously found, the applicant will construct a sidewalk on the east side of Wilkensen Road across the plat frontage and a sidewalk on one side of internal plat roads. The plat makes appropriate provision for sidewalks and safe walking conditions. 19. The applicant has also requested a shoreline substantial development permit as the plat abuts the Centralia Power Canal which is subject to the Thurston County SMP. Applicable provisions of the SMP state that residential development should not exceed 35 feet above grade, that storm drainage facilities should prevent direct -7- entry of surface water runoff into receiving waters, that subdivisions provide general public access to and along shorelines historically used by the public for recreation, and that local development regulations establish setback, lot area, and density requirements. The R-4 zoning district limits structural height to 35 feet, and the storm drainage plan shows no direct entry of surface water runoff into the canal. Furthermore, the public has not historically used the canal bank for recreational purposes. The proposed subdivision complies with the regulations of the SMP and therefore satisfies the requirements for a substantial development permit. CONCLUSIONS: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented by this request. 2. The applicant has established that the proposed preliminary plat makes appropriate provision for the public health, safety, and general welfare for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary waste, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, sidewalks, and other features assuring safe walking conditions. 3. The applicant has shown that public facilities impacted by the subdivision will remain adequate and available to serve the new lots currently proposed. 4. The project is located within an approved sewer service area which has the capacity to serve all lots within the subdivision assuming construction of a new sewer line from the intersection of Groton Road and N.P. Road. 5. Assuming compliance with conditions of approval and mitigating measures set forth in the MDNS, the preliminary plat will conform with the Yelm-Thurston County Joint Comprehensive Plan, the City zoning code, the City subdivision code, the Shoreline Management Act and Master Program for Thurston County, and the City of Yelm Development Guidelines. 6. The proposed preliminary plat will serve the public use and interest by providing an attractive location for a low density, single family residential subdivision located in an area of the City proposed for substantial growth and with substantial recreational opportunities to include a trail and water canal. Therefore, the proposed preliminary plat of Mountain Sunrise should be approved subject to the following conditions: Setbacks shall be as shown on the revised site plan dated July 17, 2003. 2. 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 -8- 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 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". 6. Frontage improvements shall include a bus pad constructed to Intercity Transit's standards. 7. 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 'h `) 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 '/s') 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. 8. Shared driveways will be allowed for the following lots: -9- 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 9. No building permit shall issue for any of the lots listed below, all of which are situated in Phase I I of the subdivision and within the proposed 501 /507 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. 10. 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 $1,5001ERU (subject to change) inside city limits. This fee is payable at time of building permit issuance. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 -lo- 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. All roof drain runoff shall be infiltrated on each lot. Infiltration shall be accomplished utilizing individual drywells. 18. The applicant shall submit a storm water operation and maintenance plan at the Community Development Department for approval prior to final plat approval. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. The applicant shall submit fire flow calculations for all existing and proposed hydrants. All hydrants must meet minimum City standards, including flow requirements. 22. Per the City of Yelm's Development Guidelines, street lighting and interior street lighting will be required. Alighting design plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. 23. Prior to the submission final plat application, the applicant will provide the -11- 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 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. 26. The decision set forth herein is based upon representations made and exhibits, including plans and proposals submitted at the hearing conducted by the hearing examiner. Any substantial change(s) or deviation(s) in such plans, proposals, or conditions of approval imposed shall be subject to the approval of the hearing examiner and may require further and additional hearings. 27. The authorization granted herein is subject to all applicable federal, state, -12- and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Compliance with such laws, regulations, and ordinances is a condition precedent to the approvals granted and is a continuing requirement of such approvals. By accepting this/these approvals, the applicant represents that the development and activities allowed will comply with such laws, regulations, and ordinances. If, during the term of the approval granted, the development and activities permitted do not comply with such laws, regulations, or ordinances, the applicant agrees to promptly bring such development or activities into compliance. DECISION: The request for preliminary plat approval of Mountain Sunrise (Exhibit "3") is hereby granted subject to the conditions contained in the conclusions above. ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2003. P K. CAUSSEAUX, JR. Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED this 25th day of August, 2003, to the following: APPLICANTS: Robert Coyne and Robert Benum Benum Enterprises P.O. Box 73130 Puyallup, WA 98373 AGENT: Terry Brink Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Dahiem, LLP 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 200 P.O. Box 1157 Tacoma, WA 98401-1 1 57 ENGINEER: James Crippen, P.E. 2601 South 35th Street, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98409 City of Yelm c/o Tami Merriman 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 -13- CASE NO: BENUM/COYNE SUBDIVISION SHORELINE PERMIT SUB-02-8329-YL NOTICE 1. RECONSIDERATION: Any interested party or agency of record, oral or written, that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner may make a written request for reconsideration by the hearing examiner. Said request shall set forth specific errors relating to: A. Erroneous procedures; B. Errors of law objected to at the public hearing by the person requesting reconsideration; C. Incomplete record; D. An error in interpreting the comprehensive plan or other relevant material; or E. Newly discovered material evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing. The term "new evidence" shall mean only evidence discovered after the hearing held by the hearing examiner and shall not include evidence which was available or which could reasonably have been available and simply not presented at the hearing for whatever reason. The request must be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on September 5, 2003 (10 days from mailing) with the Community Development Department 105 Yelm Avenue West, Yelm, WA 98597. This request shall set forth the bases for reconsideration as limited by the above. The hearing examiner shall review said request in light of the record and take such -14- 4 further action as he deems proper. The hearing examiner may request further information which shall be provided within 10 days of the request. 2. APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION: The final decision by the Examiner may be appealed to the city council, by any aggrieved person or agency of record, oral or written that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner, except threshold determinations (YMC 15.49.160) in accordance with Section 2.26.150 of the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC). NOTE: In an effort to avoid confusion at the time of filing a request for reconsideration, please attach this page to the request for reconsideration. -15- ~F THE A~Q~ a~ ~_ Ci o Yelln M ty 105 Yelm Avenue West YELM P.O. Box 479 WASHINGTON Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING YELM HEARING EXAMINER DATE: Monday, August 4,2003, 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 #SUB-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 Wilkerson Road, bounded on the north by the Centralia Power Canal, and on the east by the Yelm~Roy 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 Bernick, at (360) 458-8404, at least 4 days before the meeting. ATTEST: City of Yelm ,. Agnes ennick, City Clerk DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published in the Nisqually Valley News: Friday, July 25, 2003. Mailed to Adjacent Property Owners and Posted in Public Places: July 15, 2003. The City of Yelm is an Equal Opportunity Provider City of Yelm Gx~ 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 947 Yelm, WA 98597 (360) 458-3244 To: Stephen Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner t' From: Grant Beck, Direc#or of Community Development Date: July 31, 2003 Subj: Revised S#aff 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 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 #o 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 trait 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 wilt 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)n. Recornrnendatiion: 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 S.E. The neighborhood collector road standard shall be modified for aA roads wi#hin 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 clear{y 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 $9 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 510507 corridor, until building permits have been issued ;y for every other lot located outside the corridor: 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, y~ 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 84, 81, 82, 83, 84, ,y~ 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 S.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 backfitied 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 fine 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 stonnwater 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 8, 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. ~ 00/ =/r/ 31V08 s.~' ~®~L/j~G ryo~Lb.~i~'i000V 1Hd I ss9s-s49(es2)r ~Q_ ~ G 31V4 ,~ 1 '-"1 EL£98'tlM'd(illtlAOd ' ' ~~ ~ OtLGL XOH O d ° N ~~ ~ VS391Ndtl31N3 WfIN380/O . '" ` 9l 8 ~ 1 G/ 338 ~3~'~ ''~, '.3NA00 1121380L1 1N3~'IJ 03WJ31i~ - ~ 3 `° - ~ z y~~na~b~siy ~'~ ~ 3 ~ ' ~ ldld Jl21fONIWI'1321d a31dIdOW N°1830 y~3`~ v'~3^a'dsa ova Noudl~s3oNO «~~ ~ ~ 3SRINf1S NIV~1Nf10W a N IadntvNO(s /v~ddr~.~ •H S3fvD/+ Ia3ovNVw lo3rodd o 3-uti 1J~ J a z°a 3 m ~'$• 13~ t C ~ ? N O ~ C d' 0~ ~ m O 0. ti~ ~ N y ~ . ~° a l~P a ~ W~ 'a ~ °~' ~, JaW _ OCTO U ~~ Q Q1 ° ~ W ~ 3 ~ ~~ Z Q t ~ ~ ~ o rP~P~ >: s ~ ~ 3 m ~ ~ ~ ~g6 ~ ~o"e8 s` N m q --Y4 -_ ~ Q ~a .a s N m~ ~ 8 m m $v ~ ~z c--ou, (n ~ oys~ E y waw mm ~ ~z3 W~/ W I 3~~E ~ c o ~~Z~o '.'Ya' LL ~ ~ I$QO rm.t ~ ~ ,C9 W LLLL1~F~ o~ d1 ~WW ~ ~ ~ N3 Q ~ ~ ~. I- ~Q W~~ ~~(7 ..~ Od' //Ol OHd' MN ~ a c = Q ~ 5 ~ -~ ~ ~ x ~ c .. U U a Z CO °nza .. LL (! ~ rw~'a m o ° J KKK=O. °d (~ W w a~g w m c4 ~ w~~u °~~ ~~ Z ~ J a ~rcz°O ~~ a ~~ ~ -_ ~m ~~,t3 O~ ~ ~/~E. N ~' i~ / U ~\Qj ~IQ 6 ~'w G ~ \ ~~. ~/~ N V/ ~~~ \ ~~~ Z ~i~ w. \ W P;~~ o ~,W, ~ ~'Z ~ W ~y~~ \ ~~ ~°~u n$$ l ~ Q J~NhL Z - ~J ~'S' ?j ~Yr ~ ~ W W -~ I z ' ~N w y / ~ ~ ~ \~. J y. ti> O (n z / ` ~ - d W 'e ~ ii W / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ y s' ~ v Q ~ y ~a ~ v ~ 1.00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ^~'t ` ~ ti ^,~ \ ; ~ ~ m 2 I \ ~' 1 ~~ 8// ~ V ~ \\y//f l ~ `~ .~~ Coro ~ ~ ~v ~~$ a ,a~ \ / rU~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,' a --F a ~' / ~~, /O pl ~y N o ~ y ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ v~ t\~ H h J ~~ . ~, -S 4 ~/ lnl '~ / M I 09i ~- Ltl ~ ? S M a ~: Q ~ ~£`'~`. \\ h~ ~ .-~I ~ J`4 ~ - H 5 X551 \ ~ / p S ~ ~ SSt -~ - - -~ - - - --~~!OF/O_ NOSN3 ~IMr- _ ` e ~'N'd'V AL 0 0 $ _ I o ~ N4 0 N 19Lf1N1 WS33dOl bQp ~! map ~ ~Z~ r~ C7 ~ °~_ Z~ U ~ V1 ~ `~o° ~ ~ ~ px u1y~~ aWz Z V O F O r~ ~g Oz ~~3~ $ ~ ~ ~ LLN ~W p s ~ ~ o0 ~ ~ z~ ~ U ~ ~3~i° U ' o z 66S0-tLb (902) Xtl! 4646-t L4 (90Z) 6LbL-60496 uo16u14coM 'owoaol OOZ aii^9 '41St 411105 1092 ~ (~J ° ~6ui~aaui6u~ O o ~'~ ~a w~ - ~~ W m N It M=N N 2tV ~ rQLL ~ QLL ~ ~oOO ~v~' OO a,r r ~~~ _($a~ W c33 ~Laa W ZO ~Z $6O "'a0~ 2 WW NU'CS N `~~!p ~j a5 >i~ W Ww^g~a ~ ~~~tttl!W ~~~W ~ N O ^tq r° ~ ~K y r~ 08 ~ ~ ~b}~}N~~ !t!/qw~' R'-~zo ~~>5C+°z ro K'p1OUu J N.o Ut~Wp~ L N}iy ~fn Q~e9A~~ u~ ~~O¢¢~ 6Vaw~~ ~ •f^^ ~N~ZN ~1'Y3~gN~ OrK U~ 0_aLL~~ N V/ ~~ u Y II o~y.. n n ~ ~~~~~z ~Z~UW~ ~ Y ~&~~~ q`~ZZ&~~~ NH~(7dN aW OUO~ U ...LLfnLLLL' N LL(nLLN ~~p~~p oo~aQZ..~ F ZZ ~0~~ /yQ~ ~ ~ LQ ~~1Za-1N~~ yN~NNxUN UyWp W O ~ O II I II 'L~ZpLL ~~LL_a €O ZJM W~my~ Q a' a dZ ~~ FO F-Urn~gOtr ~ ~ ~ F" Q ~~ ~~wo~m~~~ ~~~ou Q y N N ~ZC~~ a~es ~ a~~~oz~¢z v~~n~~~l ~ } 2Y Z}WW1- W W);mW F-NI-W 1L (Y (~NI-} !o OUpFO ~Z~ oaoQ w=zo 0 ozagm `+013 NZUZ NQ ~u.~H wOaK w0 WNWLLOm ~LL~o waz-~ CiiQa c91-wa~ vl >ulf~a-' oa°n w ww ~ u 10 u~i aw0 ~ z0-' OWe O~D~a ~~ O(~'1VLL ~JLL~F ~ W WK~ ~~~ ~ ~N~ zW a~° WOW m WowLL~ apw N1"~oa w LL 1-w w~1-wz lQ ~3aoz WOZ~ O-O ~g Wa 1y0U a0 UO p ~Um LLm LLUW N~ Oaa~ ZaWWU ~ WmN W NQO NW07~'-0'O. J~aI~ 1N TFWW w ~] aH K Z W O~ OppO N N W Z ~W N O S amK Z z~55 KI-N}p~NN bd'Zw W Om!- a > WWOawQ N=7 hW~~K~U Wi :~a~ W ~~aT~Z m0 UaFpQ~ zm~ LL~ooooa`U~'L-u ~~pO",~ ~~zQmKKao w yLLaZUOz 7LLy. O20ZNd ~N ~LLO~~a OOU 4y 7d. ~ Oz?~ OgO1-U OI-1-axm Odd Xw aUp Q ~ wwa~ LLF~ wui 4LL °aLLO °irc~€om~ zd om -'=° `` m1~'ns~~ ~a0 Q~orcor;°w_w~LLZ3y w i°'3°~ ~mwwo pp,, ~ U d}O NUZSZW OSOLL~~WUj UNr-O v) KWmOO F.. ~- ~u Q~F z~Vl"'~m0000 ~2LL F°d}pou~7~a~dz-' O ~OONLL NO IIIZ W~ )K a~JUCVi mO _J =p,w 3 Q ~ z~~ wj kO aw~ zzww~Q0o~~~1`li rn u~~Z<m V m ~uZ~4 ~ a jN 0OZ ~m~ N O ~ l~ /Ny 4L W ~ ~ 1Ualy- d'WN 1~ z¢ OZOLL'.WD=p FV1'l=J WSW OW 01., OJ ~¢ ~ h N ~ a ~LL 1-QZ~ aUW S z Oy F-- a Z aZ~OJ6O m aWSE O ({ ?~ ~ O a K ~- fq f/LLy~ ~~Q ~wu: aO ~Q Ni » 3LL~VJLL1- ZLLH~OW tllFa OtU W~O((~~2 W FS-OWONaJ}aOVUa1-~K~ wLLw~ U- w WZO12C1~> t2--UfmN OZ 00 LLm ~N p.OmO 1- U~w>22 ~U'OI-W ~O >aa~ 2 Z ~ V 2'Lp o ~~~ ~~ ~~y~~ Z O,y •~d J ,`~~~` ~ ZOO R sm°~.. ~ M M~ ~ ~~~ nNi ~~~ M . ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ x ,. ~ Oai 'fix y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j • Yr ~ ~ ~~~- ~: ~~~ Q'-OP ~ ~ ,~~P~~' . U C~ G • • Z s~' ~~, ~ oo oF a~ o~ Z O Z N ~~J~~ ~ V Q ~ O J ~ ~ Z . ~ JZ n 3 °- vauwr H 9~ h ,. o>µ~ sIR. nrmc uK ~ -= ,~~ P.W010IAK L RAMIp 3M0 ~ VWIY ~' USYOII ~m .~ ~ ~= ~ ~ 1~~ j ~\~. i ~~~-~ INS -"1 z~j1t S >~ 01 O Z Zw O~ N = F- ~ U ~ ~ ~ °tS Z Q ?. U Z €~ ~~ W ~ wa LL 3 U~ W ~ c~0 QZ Z~ JO ~ aW ~ °°~~ ~~w g ~~~~ ~ _~~ 4 ~ab~ € ~ eaa: a~ a ~~s~ No~~ \6 O~ \2 •; , ,. -. ;~ ' r .., ._`=;~3 11:19 2535398061 BENIJM ENT PAGE 01/03 - ~: .~ ~: ~ ~~: ~ Fxomc ~, ~~~ o :~~ F'AX MESSAQE ~Ilaloi . (~~cx#~g t~~s covet shut) :~ .- {- - ~f yon coo riot ~~~v~ ail pages,..p~ega~ ~lI ~~ ied~tC~ , - . Y i (~3~~5 ~.?~s ~ ~ Cam= (~~ y~T~Ov91 PO_ AOX 73 ~ 3Q - ~PU'~i4~F~:u~, '~ '73 _~ =.__: ~ 9 2535398061 BENIJM ENT PAGE 02/03 r r i -----~ ~ !v i ,~ .~a, .~c°~ -- __%~?~3 11:19 2535398061 BENUM ENT PAGE 03/03 3CJ sc~te {~~..~..~jp!_.. 07/15/03 09:29 FAX .253 473 0599 APEX ENGINEERIfVG ~ 001 T0: Mr. Grant Beck TRANSMITTAL Community Development Director Cit of Yelm DATE: Jul 15, 2003 REGARDING: Benum and Coyne Subdivision FILEIfASK: 2700213 COMMENTS: Dear Grant: ~~ Engineerinq~ FAX NUMBER: 360 458-3144 PHONE NUMBER: TOTF-L F'AGES: Following our conversation of last Friday, Benum and Coyne have authorized Apex Engineering to proceed with a boundary survey of their ownership. We wauid certainly appreciate your assistance in helping us research and locate the following items: 1. It appears from our interpretation of zoning maps that the Ci1:y limits in the area of the Benum and Coyne project appear to follow the south side of the power canal and the southeast line of the railroad. Can you please provide a legs! description that was used in the most recent annexation in this area to confirm our interpretation of the location of the City limit line? 2. li would be very helpful to have a copy of the railroad right-oi-way drawings. These are typically drawn by the railroad company years ago at 1" = 400' scale. Sometimes there are legal descriptions attached to them, so if there are legals available, that would be helpful in addition to the right-of-way map. 3. We would appreciate any section corner information that you ha~de on the following: the southwest corner of S 17 T17N, R2E, the west one quarter corner of S17, the south one quarter corner of S17, the north one quarter carnet of S17 and the west one quarter comer of S20 T17N R2E. 4. Any legal descriptions or right-of-way deeds that you would have for Wilkison Road right-of-way through the southwest one-quarter of S17 and the northwest one-quarter of S20. Thank you, Grant, for your assistance in this matter. Our goal is to begin the field work on the boundary survey Monday, July 21, 2003 with the goal of having a precisely calculated boundary ownership area ready for the hearing on August 4, 2003. Please call meat (253} 473-4494 if we need to discuss any of these iterns further. COPY T0: FAX: SENDER: James H. Cri en, P.E. 2601 South 35th, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98409 {253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599 apex@apexengineering.net PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY IF NOT RECf=INFO PROPERLY ~~~~ ~'1 ~ , ~~ • ~~ ~~~ 07/11/03 07:17 FA% 253 473 0599 APE% ENGINEERING TRANSMITTAL T0: Mr. Teny Brink Gordon Thomas Honeywell DATE: July 10, 2003 FAX NUMBER: REGARDING: Benum and Coyne Project, Yelm PHONE NUMBER: 620-6565 [1001 ~x Engineering FILEITASK: 2700212 TOTAL PAGES: WE ARE TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING: ^ For approvaVreview/comment DATE: DESCRIPTION: ^ For your use COMMENTS: Dear Terry: Finding Number 3 under the water section on Page 9 of the Staff Report states that 'The City of Yelm Comprehensive Water Plan calls fora 10-inch PVC line to connect the line on NP Road and the line on Wilkinson Road ~ Our preliminary calculations, based on the flow and pressure data provided by the City in Grant Beck's email of July 9, 2003 suggest that a 12-inch line connecting the project site to the existing 10-inch line in NP Road would provide for fireflow at the City's required 1,500 gallon per minute rate at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Line sizes within the Benum and Coyne project will be analyzed later considering interior looping options. We have assumed that the City's water storage capacity is capable of providing the 1,500 gallons per minute for the required 120 minutes, or 190,000 gallons of water, without substantially reducing the residual pressure at the entrance to the treatment plant. COPY T0: Bob Coyne FAX: 926-~F093 ^ Bob Benum 539-5061 ^ SENDER: James H. Crippen, P.E. 2601 South 35th, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473-4494 1=ax: (253) 473-0599 apex@apexengineering.net PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY !F NOT RECEIVED PROPERLY ~F THE p~Q~ ~~ ~_ Ci o Yel fn a r+ ''~ 105 Yelm Avenue West YELM P•O. Box 479 WASHINGTON 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 #SUB-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 Wilkerson Road, bounded on the north by the Centralia Power Canal, and on the east by the Yelm~Roy 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 Bernick, at (360) 458-8404, at least 4 days before the meeting. ATTEST: City of Yelm 1 ~ )1 ~~ ~ iJ, ~ f~ Agn~`s Bernick, 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 Cih~ of Yelrn is an E~unl Opportunity Provider ~, m ~ ~ ~~;~~ ass ~~ 6 df~± o ~ q ~ W °l~ ~ ~ w.aav ~ ~ €S ~~ a a n f ~ y. ~ W ~ 6~ y ~ ~~o o ~ m `; d ~ ~ g '~ $ ~~ N V ~ Z ~ flm ri ~~ z ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~- '~ 6 j ~ g ,, q a V , O O OJ ;~ p ~ ~ ~ od ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~5 W \~ ~~~ C may. ~ g ~ City of Yelm ~~ E M w~w~war~ow 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: June 17, 2003 Subj: Benum~Coyne 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 108 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 Yelm~Roy 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 Yelm~Roy 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 Yelm~Roy 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 Yelm~Roy 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 Yelm~Roy 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.B. 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 residentiaP'. 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-YL Staff Report Page 6 of 15 Finding -The Yelm Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2000 to adopt the preferred alternative location of the 510507 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 510507 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 ofrights-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 fora 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-YL 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.B. 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 Exhibit I Site Plan and Application Packet , a ... ~~ OF THE p~'~ 4 t~ YELM WASHINGTON CITY OF YELM PO Box 479 Yelm WA 98597 360-458-3244 APPLICATION FOR Preliminary Plat Fee: $750.00 plus $25.00 per lot (In addition, any professional service charges ner Resolution #3581 OFFICIAL U3E ON~L,Y~~ Fee ~~~ w Date Received - /~~ ;1,~ ay Fite No. 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 aii 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 En~ineerin~ PLLC Attn: James H. Crippen, P E al Ing A ress 2601 South 35th Street, Suite 200 City, State and Zip .Tacoma, WA 98409 Telephone (253) 473-4494 SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant reaue~:ts approval of a ~,r liminar~,Alat application in order to subdivide a 28.02 acre ownership into 108 lots for single-family residential use. The subdivision will be erved by CitY~_ Yelm water and sewer systems and public streefiG 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) ~R _ n~ +/- 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. 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 appl' I agree t/o p y fee the city which apply to this application. Si ned f~~.s~~`Z~-- ~~ ~ O 9 .~/L~-~ Date ~ i~~ O ?/ CITY OF YELM dsb:bfiice~plandept. cclapps~preplat.app PAGE 1 t ; 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. y~,,_ Open space tracts will be provided along the easterl boundary of the proiect and neighborhood collector desif~n 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 Cit ' s water s stem will be extended to provide service to all lots and tracts within the __suhdiviGinn_ 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 Dumb tanks. 6. What provisions will be made for storm water and/or flood control? Stormwater will be collected and directed in a Wipe 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 school children? The developer will enter into a mitigation agreement with the Ye1m School District idewalks and street lights will be provided along the Wilkenson Street 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'/s 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 dslc:bffice~plandept.cclapps~preplat. app CHECKLIST PLANNER~NLY Checked by Date ! 'Z L 7-cX~ Z Submitted ~(I jSSlnq SUPPORTING DOCUMF TS (Submit one copy of each document) 1. A vicinity map, 8 %:" 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 y~ 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. rJ\ n 5. A grading plan for any cuts and/or fills collectively exceeding one hundred cubic yards, _~ LL_~_~ 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. .mot PLAT MAP (Submit 12 folded blue-line prints -rolled not accepted) J~ 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. x 4. Current and proposed zoning of the site to be platted and of the surrounding land for a distance of three hundred feet. x 5. The location and direction of all existing and proposed watercourses, lakes and streams and the location of all areas subject to flooding. _____l~ 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 mammon use of property ~r owners within the subdivision or of other private organizations. /` 10. location and type of existing and proposed street lighting. ~_ 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 subdiv(sion. X 15. Location, widths an names fall existing and proposed streets, sidewalks, railroads, / power lines, telephone mes within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision. ,~c ©k- ~'~ 16. The grade and curve radii of curves of existing and proposed streets within the plat ~ !~ ~ ~ `'''t f 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. ~ ~( 18. The tocatlon of other significant features such as city limits, section lines and section comers. ~ .- y' ~\ti~1~~~~ Existing and proposed contours of the proposed subd(vision for a distance of fifty feet ~ I ~1 ~ beyond the boundaries of the proposed subdivision at two-foot contours for scopes 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 3/32", high perimeter of the plat must be depicted with heavy lines. a' 3. 18 X 24 inch sheets. 4• Marginal line (3" left margin'r4" margin on the remaining sides.) ~ 5. Index required for more than two sheets. --~-- 6. The plat title, date, scale, quarter-quarter section and north arrow shall be shown on a 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. - ~ -~_ CITY OF YELM dsb:bfficelplandept.cclappslpreplatapp PAGE 3 October 15, 2002 File #27002/1 BENUM AND COYNE PROPERTY PRELINIINARY 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 NORTHERN 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. U27002/docs-rpts/docsJc 101502 ~ECElVEp NOV 0 4 2001 a gayl,P~ pF THE A~l~ YELM APPLICATION FOR 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 MAILING ADDRESS: C/0 Benum Enterprises, P.O. Box 73130, Puyallup, WA 98373 RELATION OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY (Specify Relationship) ~ 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 and range) East of Wilkenson Road west of the railroad south of the Centralia Power Cana SW Qtr Sec NW Qtr Sec 20, Twn 17N, Rng E 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 Xstems and u is streets ~To be completed by focal official.) Nature of the existing shoreline. (Describe type of shoreline, such as marine, scream, 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 6ulkheading, if any) CITY OF YELM PO Box 479 Yelm WA 98597 458-3244 OFFICIAL USE ONLY Fee Date Received sy File No. C:\OFFICE\PLANDEPT.CC\APPS\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 ful- 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: (I) 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 to the nearest city or town. (3) Give a brief nan-ative description of the general nature of the improvements and land use within one thousand feet in all directions from development site. (i.e., n:sidential to the north, commercial to the south, etc.) C:\OF'FICE\PLANDEPT.CC W PPS\SHORLINE.APP VICINITY MAP BENUM & COYNE PROPERTY ~~ dK ~.4vE S~• ~• Q ~_ ~v ~o Q ~ s~ ~~ os tit ~°~ 'c°`~ ~~ ~~~ ~P ~~SQuA uY P1NE$ 5E~ Q ~~~ ~G~ c Ste. ~' ~P ~k SCALE: 1" = 1,320' SCALE •' N 7. S. UTILITY CONNECTION LOCATIONS BENUM & COYNE PROPERTY ~,., ~° ~ ~ NW VIEW DR VIEN z W 6 o z o ,g v Y ~ X1200 ~' U ~~ Nw RHC?1 ~ 13 18 93p0~D WAY ~ GIQ~GSVIEW z z4 ,9 1000 cr ';' ° -~fTN HIRE W 1 ~ 1 Y 3 NW KINGS LN 95TH WOOOLANQ z ~ CT 1 z 0 ~ ~~ ~ c°7~ cT sf v ~ ~ 1 ~' Q s r-~ ~~. ~ 5~ sT ~ z - ---- ~ ~ 3 ~,------40 '~l~ OCf' ~ z ~ ~y,~ t~ ~a ~,~ ~.~ SS ~~ 1 ,~ ~ M/DOCE~~ 00 St ~S ~v ~.T~ ~~ ~s~_ NCSQUALLY~ -vAt~ c~ ~ 1 _ COURSE _ _ JTH AVE ,E Q~ a . 507 5 FS 2-t ` :F tnd ~ P y ~° PARr<vlEw o DR ~ ~ 104TH AVE SE oNl cT IAEADOWS CT 18 1 1 n 1 J `` Llvl ~ ~ ; ~Q. s~ _ -- --- o - -Q--- ~ - - -2s ~ ~ ~ 0 1 y~ RAILWAY GP~ ~ ~ i ~ 1 w"'' ~ r F .90 ¢ i ~ iODT} S Y T }G'J. F i I m \ ~ ? 100TF~ WAY SE ~b' t ~ 4, ~ ~ FORT ~ \ ac S~EYENS ~ 9 $ ~ c9F Q LEM ~ `` ~ - ~~ '~ Z iw -------- W 19 ~ ~9` 103R 7 SE Q19 3t0 i ly ~ M ° 28.6 ~o ° X30 ~ z9 ~- h ~y NE ALGIERS ~' ~ ~ ~ LN ~~~'L l ~V ! l ~ p ~ ~ ~ O Benum & Coyne Property - 28 + acres OO Sanitary Sewer STEP System -City of Yelm OO Water Main, 8" -City of Yelm ® Natural Gas -PSE OO O.H. Power -PSE; O.H. & UG Telephone - Yelm Telephone ~~i~ .~r'js~~(_Ir c~. O S~ ------- ~o ----~9~ - ..1.~ R-30 F PI1~~f-S •~w~~P \. ~tiq ~~~„ ~ C ~` ~ ~~ . S~ 9p SF ~~ 103RD ST SE O 00/ > I ~~ 6850-rLI (40Z) xvi serr-rct (40L) g9gp-g-p(~- BLfL-60Y98 ~iBNWOM •o~~l A„ ~ S-'1 8[406 VM'dlIT11~Md OOZ ~iNS '4iLC NnoS 109E -'1 O- /G ~'~ oeleczoa•o•a ONOBIO c ~ sa4iaea3LNawnNaeoro ~BIIIJ7~U1~ ~O 9l N ~ 1 G~ ~ 3NA09'11a380tl ~p ~~~ d~~~adsa """`^~O ~ `~~ao ~ J11213d021d 3NA0~ dNV Wf1N39 ~ Ka rr~3na~ds • ~O ova Noumea Norein3d p+~+ ~ ~°~~ 1Kld A2IVNIWIl3?!d ~31~ft.lV'N[)IS /v~d /~'J 'N S3/vD/~ ~131~t/NHW 103f`OlJd ~ ~ 3'WL d' N _ o~ f- g a `~ Q @Z G J W a W a 0 a W Z O 0 Z a z W 3 N ti ~ Z 0 o~ N Z ~ ~ U W ~ ~. ~z Z U W Z F- O ~ ~ ~~ Z = O ~" U ~ W W ~ } ~' ti 3 O _` U Q a a ~~ / ~ / \ I 1 1=~~ W ~ ~~ ~O W /a W '~ a/ Z / U ~~ _ ~ 3 ~~ w•/% 'a~ Z a / / ~ 4 ~ \ ~ ~ ,. ~ Z ~ IV ~,a ~ ~ ~ ~~ \ / ~•~ ~~ / ~I~ 3 i \ ,~~' I `~ 3~, ~ y ~ -~~ ~ y ~. v ~ ~ ,0,8 ~ / O i i Y ~A .2y ~ r A1~ v R ~ OOi l «, `~ F ~r r ~ -I- U~ 5d e. e ~8 ~~ L W~ ~s o~ N o~ a ~° ~ ; ~4 U ryc ~ ~ . •~ ~J > ~a ~~. LL~ 0 ~~~ H~ ~s$ ~~s W ~lC ~~~ .,•l w I'- .. ~,.. Z ~ . H z ~z O~ Z~ O a' U W O V W J Z 6 ~ ~ ~ ri a ~~,~ .s p H ~~ H ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~g~'y ~~~~ o a~ ~ ~, s d~~~m~ N a"a ~g ~ a 5 / / o ~ o~ a ~a~~% S ~~~~ ~} o~ V~~2~ ~~ ~~ 8-L04t40L6'N'iY AlNf W0 NO18afIN1 [1143 3AO16.01 W C~ ~ • ~ Z~ ~ p °~ ~~~ NF.. ~,~. z ~ . ~ ~ o ~~ 8 8 r ~£~ ~ ~ ~ .a ~ ~ ~ ~ .y ~$ ~}~ ,~ }~ ~ ~~: ~ s ~ ~ ~~ ~ s~~ 6~~" --~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~„~ lO~s ~~ .r;,b^n. ~~ ~~LL ~~~ag~~~ ~S~ ~ n ~~R3 ~G A. ~~~~~~~ o~ o ~~~~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~~ ~ ~~~~~ . JI° ~a~ ul Q~~. $ -N • /v" OP P~' /~ GP Uz ZQ ZN NU ~~ ~_ ~ ~ Z~ - I- ~Z J . Z O~ N= U~ ~LL ~ °tS D ~ g~ ~U 0 Z e ~ symantec. '~ UR ItEf~ 5t~t8S ' globaE stores products: * all pr.du~ts virus p r~=,t~ ti _~n -> intarnetseLurity pr_~blem s~sluing v~mmuni~ti_ns ma~.i nt_~h triah~rar? smalE business " licensing customer service °"' subscription services '~ upgrade center about syma ntec store * priva~~y p~~+li~~~ s~~urity syrnant~c store spare watch cerwter symantec sto Invoice Order Number: 2061773888 Order Date: 21-FEB-03 Billing Address: Grant Beck 105 Yelm Avenue West Yelm, WA 98597 United States vievrcart ( newonier I orderslatus I checkout I shoph Shipping Address: Same as Billing Address Stock Quantity Product Name Platform Unit Extende Number Price Price 10021188 ~ Antivirus 2003 >~VYlo ws $199.95 $19 5-Pack ~ Coupon Code :N ot Available Sub Total $19 Taxes $1 Shi ping 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~T and receiving details please click here: When will I receive my package? !~'.r If you requested a downloadable version of your product, and would like more information on how access the downloaded product, please click here: +~other Qn~Erine partners I've finished downloading; where do I find the product? p I~~ 1~r.~ n.~0 ~. #tETU~RN~ w au r arawr ~~~ # ' i SIT Saluti"s,For;Business,_ Exhibit II Notice of Application ~~,©~ ~ ~r~ CITY OF YELM 4 PO Box 479 Yelm WA 98597 360-458-3835 YELM WASHI N OT~N 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 III 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 Yelm~Roy 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 43.21C.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 dlin , ~~ N/A ,, Gran eck, C munity Development Director This`Fevisefi 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) Rhoton 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. F q d~.., s-, s./ FEB 0 7 1003 YELM COMMUNITY SCHOOL; Where all students can learn and g~°ow 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-o2-8329-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, ~~~ and acilities Director Yelm Community Schools YELM COMMUNITY SCHOOLS IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AND FOLLOWS TITLE IX REQUIREMENTS. 404 Yelm Avenue West, P. O. Box 476, Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-6128, FAX (360) 458-6434 J E+ .. Y e(. ]. rJ y yl STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY P.O. Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-777.5 • (360) 407-6300 February 19, 2003 Mr. Grant Beck Community Development Director City of Yelm PO Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 FEB 2 4 200 Your address t ! is in the -- watershed 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 storm water from such sites without a permit 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 BMPs shall be designed to meet the standards of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, published by Washington State Department of Ecology in August, 2001. .. is 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 JBae(03-0606) cc: Benum Enterprises, Inc., Contact for applicant Kerry Carroll, SWRO/WQ Linda Matlock, HQ/WQ COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THURSTON COUNTY Cathy Wolfe District One Diane Oberquell District Two Robert N. Macleod District Three SINCE 1852 ROADS & TRANSPORTATION SERVICES February 14, 2003 Grant Beck Community Planning Director City of Yelm PU Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 REFERENCE: Benum/Cyne Subdivision, SUB-02-8329-YL Dear Mr. Beck: Lester Olson Director 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~~co.thurston.wa.us. Sincerely, ,..._~. Scott A. Davis, P.E. Development Review Manager SD:cdK:\devrev\SHARED\MISC\Yelm routing request.doc Building #1, 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW, Olympia, Washington 98502-6045 (360) 357-2493 Fax (360) 754-2939 xa~.~tea t~par Memorandum February 19, 2003 To: Grant Beck, Community Development Director, City of Ye/m 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 ~~~ THE p~~ a~ 9~ Ci o Yel m M ~ 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 YELMoTON 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 #SUB-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 Yelm~Roy 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 r Agnes 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 Yelm is an Equal Opportunity Provider Exhibit V Shea Group Technical Memorandum -Canal Road ^The Shea Group a Parametrix company 360-459-3609 • 360-459-0154 fax 8830 Talton 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 RoadNVilkenson 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 fora 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 atriangular-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 a~o~ 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 Sheriff's 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 mss 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\015\12\i ntersection.mem Quality Service Through Employee Ownership mss ~~ 0 o 0 ~' .. ~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~9 (~ ~ ~~ > ~ ~ d O ^O s . z ~ ~ o I I I, ~~ , ~ a~ Y ~ ~ 0 0 N rs. ,~ ~ ...,..m _ ~ ~ N ~ ,,,~ ~~, t r I ~ RN' /^ ~~ ~/ / / / v ~ / ~ i ~/ i / i / / / Q '~ ~ \ / i~i ~ ~ ~ ° 4 ~.~ ~~ f ~ i~ ~~ ~~ 5 ~~ 1 ~` 1 ~ ~ ~ Z~ D ~ ~~ r ~n r,-~ ~ o / ~'° /; ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ h ./~' ~ ;~ Q ~ o~ ° ,/ d ~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ } p 0 ~ t d D o ~' O 4 /' O `~ .9~ OP ~ ~~, RP\~~ 4s~ ~ ~ . ;~; ;~ ~ ; . ~: '~~ ~ a C~ ^ The Shea Group CURRENT INTERSECTION FIGURE N0. o Pararretrix company ALIGNMENT ~ng'nee~ nc • ~'annlnc • ~v,ar^ eral • S:rveying Exhibit VI Shea Group Memorandum - Y3 Corridor ^The Shea Group a Parametrix company 360-459.3609 • 360-459-0154 fax 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 a~oi 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 Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor. C. Issues, Analysis and Rationale 1. Purpose of the Y2/Y3 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 alimited-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 mss 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 ('/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 Y2/Y3Transportation 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 (I-5) bypassing Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base. Accidents or extreme congestion occurring on I-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 ahigh-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 mss 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 mss 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 ass 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`d Avenue SE. Between 103`d 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`d Avenue 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 Yelm/Thurston 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 mss Grant Beck May 13, 2003 Page 7 of 13 • A transportation system compatible with neighboring cities, Thurston County, Washington State, and other transportation providers. • Awell-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 acost-effective network to accommodate travel in and around the core area. To accomplish this objective, Yelm will actively pursue amitigation/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 mss 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 ass 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/VVest 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 mss 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 mss 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 (I-5) bypassing Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base. 7. Accidents or extreme congestion occurring on I-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 mss 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 & I I up to the maximum density allowed for apre-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 ~s 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' 0:\1781\contracts\015\09\deliver\report\051303 Coyne benum plat staff report.doc Quality Service Through Employee Ownership ~s PRIORIT2'' RECOMMENDATIONS 1B Yi 93RD AVc/THURSTON HIGHLANDS CONNECTOR ~~ 110th AVE SE CREEK CRQSSWC 6 Y2 SR507/TO GROVE ROAD CONNECTOR f EDWARDS STREET IMPROVEMENTS 7 Y3 CANAL ROAD NORTH LOOP 3 YELM AVE./BALD HILLS RD. SIGNAL 2.9,11 Y4 COAIESSTEVENSt03rd CONNECTOR + CREEK ST IMPROVEMENTS EDWAROS STREET IMPROVEMENTS 8 MOSMAN STREET IMPROVEMENTS B.fI Y5 YELM AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS f0 SECOND STREET IMPROVEMENTS Y7 SW ACCESS 12 RAILROAD STREET NW IMPROVEMENTS 8 YS MOSMAN SOLBERC ST CONNECTOR 8 UPGRADE f3 RHOTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Y9 BALD HILLS ROAD f5 YEtbl AVE W/KIWON RD 'REALJGNMENT Y10 VANCIL ROAD CONNECTION f6 YEt.M AVE W/93RD AVE REAI.K~NMENT f7 RAILROAD STREET SW IMPROVEMENTS f8 CITY WIDE ROADWAY RESURFACING ~ PRIORITY FROM B YEAR TRANSPORTATION `~ S IYPROYSYSM' PROCRAY (1987-2002) ` AC ~i . - I I ~ EBh AVE e-..-® NOT TO SCA~ ^ ^ 1.11lRlHRIHR . ~ ^ ^ YI ^ r^aaoauua~atu^ C B9lfi AVE. s~ 1 a~ulr.a++w++a awarutw ~1~yR~R~*u.ua^ •uua^ ^.~iu~. ~~ ~C ~GEND .~ ._.. ~ _. _.. - rn - -- -- --~ ~LONO 7ERA1 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - - - - - - - SHORT TERM URBAN GROWJH BOUNDARY ~~ PLANN® tMPROVEAtENTS .............. UNDE7ERAlINID ROADWAY ALK~JAfEN7 i ~a+c >Exu URBAN cROWiH BOUNDARY Y sNORT ,Exu URBAN GROWR7 BOUNDARY Figure 1 20 Year Transportation Plan 1997 Update r figure ~ . Project Location Figure Existing Traffic Volumes Base Roadway Network. Figure 4 Existing and Year 2020 LOS on Base Roadway Network v i `i 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~'+~ ~~ 1t ~,,1 `~ • ~~ ~' •. ~~ __ ~~ -. ~, '•Y~t ~~ .. ~$ ~', s'o ~,~ t i BDIh A1E ~ _.... 97rd A4E. ` LEGEND I, 7 ~~~ ~' I' ~ ~I & ~ ?'~ i I~ NOT TO SCALE -- -- LONG TERM URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY -~-~- 31ANES •--------------• 4/5 LANES -------- 5 LANES 1 000 FUTURE YEAR (2020) DAILY TRAFFIC VCXUA/E Figure 5 2020 Traffic Volumes and Needed Traffic Lanes Base Roadway Network `, `. ~., ~~ ~. ~, ,\ ,. ., ~~ s~o Nor ro scALE t ~A6E. _ _____ __ `~ , esmA~ R --____ ~~-___--_ __ ~,.. tS ~IRN.IA POlr;.p CANAL .:1'~~~i4`~ _ ~ 8 --__ ~ ~ ~ .~ .~. 83rd AYE ~ ~`: ~ ~~ ~~ ~ s~o l l Y ~ ~ ~a~ g ~:~,;^ i ~ ate... ~tl t Q~• ,~ t ~~- 1 y~~ a 1051h A1~E SE F~ j ~& Ro• . F' ~ , i i ~~ ~ B•D ___.E _ ~ i LEGEND -- -- -- •--• LONG TERM URBAN GROWiH BOUNDARY X; X EXISTING YEAR; YEAR 2020 (X)I WITH ADDI110N OF 1RAFFlC SIGNAL rigure ti Existing and Year 2020 LOS on Base Roadway Network .. ~~ ~~ ', ', ~.,; `, ~~ `~ ~.. ` ~` ~~ ~ ~ NOT TO SCALE ~,, ','] ~, '- ` NLD (1t111`t~D: ~. E6 A .rig ___ I _ _ - ~ ____ ~ ~ - .. _ tiF- t~ ..~ .. . tY ~. _ _ _ _ ..ii ". ' z5_~' ~:A ~:4;'; t19tFl A7~E. ~ g _ _ I _____ _____-~-'--_ ~{~ `{ i ; ~ CDARAiIA fq~q ~~ b{ _ _ - _ _ _ _ r-r_ _ 1 ~ ~ $ i ~ ~ - 3 c 0.kd AbE. `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 w i ~' ! a y 3 ~ A ~ r ~ ~~ Q~~ ~ ~• ~• ~ ~ ;'. _ ~ } `r'~,, i ~'*,k~ ms's ob _ loots wAr (~ ~ -- ~ got / ~ ~r"~ ~ (~ :! •jt ~ ! ~ ~ i~ f 703rd A 103rd A1E ~ 1$;p) G '~ iE~ 105th AVE SE { ~ • ..,~ t ~'_. ,. -tee 1~'~,~' '•• ~ ~ ~~ ` - - "'n - ` aS.R 507. `,`~.:~` ~ 1~ 1~ 1 I F~ 1 t+ 1 ~ ' ~:~ ~ ..... ~ r..Li1% bLL 3 10Wh A1E SE ~ 1~11~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~' -' ~ :: `>~ -t LEGEND - ~ -.-- -» -- ---• LONG TERM URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY - ~ - 3 LANES •--------------• 4/5 LANES -------- 5 LANES ® FUTURE YEAR (2020) DA1LY TRAFFIC WLUME rigure i 2020 Traffic Volumes and Needed Traffic Lanes With Y2 ,. .:, `; ,,, ,., :~ `;. `\ I • ` '~ `< ` '~ .~..~~ .~ --.. R~ ~ S` l~ ~~' '~\ e 1 ~& `~ -----y' ' ~~ m _~ NOT TO SCALE O~ ~~i ~ ~~ I I te' • ~ - -~ .~. ~. ~ LONG TERM URBAN GROWTH BoununrtT 3 LANES 4/5 LANES 5 LANES FUNRE YEAR (2020) DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME _____ i`.~:. --..._-T_..-- rlgura ~ 2020 Traffic Volumes and Needed Traffic Lanes With Y3 ~~ 1 I 1 t 1 `` ~!. ~ `• 1 ` \ `' ~~~ ^+~ ~ NOT TO SCALE ~. ~k~. '~ ~ ,.~;: ~ ~1RALA Pow ~1 _ _ - - - _ _ - - . ~ & ~ _ i ~ ~ ~ I via ~~. ,` } ~ s 1 ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ R ; ~ ~~ ' __ ,~ k~ _ _ t +oou, wAr s.~~ - - `~~ 105d AYE ~ ~& IDSth A4E SE ~~ f ~ ~ .'~~, ~: ~~ ~g ~ ~~~, 507 ~. • , ` ~ ~'_' ~ _ ~ i ~; , ~a.a~~+cr~~ytr tOWh Alf. SE ttE ~ ' I ` f~ i---- --- .-r ~ Y2 ___t LEGEND ~ T .-- -- --- -- LONG IERAt URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ~ - ~ - ~ - 3 LANES •--------------• 4/5 LANES 11 -------- 5 LANES Q F117URE YEAR (2020) DAILY 7RAfFIC WLUME 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 O c°v ~~ N ~ w o`~ ,-, ~~~ w ~ N U '~ ~ U ~ U U ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ a o ~ ~ ,~ O ~-+ .~ ~ d' O ~--, a U ,~ '~ U U " 3 "d U ' b "d yN,, U '~ U ~ .~ '~ U N 'd U 'd b ~ N b . ~ ~ O ~ . ~ N O ~ ~ •~ ~ ~a w ci!w ~ Via, ~ aw a~ ai ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~~„ ~ U N `'I~'1 Q O ~ c/1 11.1 Q, ~ s,,., ~ N Q O ~ Vl fs-, Q,,, ~~ ~--~ ,~ N p~ ~ .~ w ,s a .~ ; Y~ ..... ,. ~~ ~ `' t' ., ~~~ ,' ~ ~ ``~~`~ \~ ~~ ~ "" F--~ F+i U1 •-~ O ^ ^ ^^~ i~l ~..y O ~ Q, M M ~ C~ - ^^ m Fri ^ a ,~..yy ~I--~ i-r ~ v1 M ~ ~D ~O •--~ •--~ .}~nN ~t OM !~ ^~ W • .y ~~ ~~ ~ U cC3 ~ ~ N c~ ~ ~ ~ 'd ~ //~~ ~"~ 1~ ~ ~-~1 ~ ice/ ~/ ~.,L~ ~ 1"x'1 1"x'1 ~1 Y--i . M o r- z ~ C7 Si LL Z Q J d r m ~~ W Z ~ ~ F ~ aW z ° w ~- J Q ~ ~ W ~ Fa 0 a n. ~ ~w =_~ ~~ N~ as a ZU 3 WQ ~ ~ ~ o a~ i z n w ~ ~ m a aa~ ~z~ ~~~ 0 o c aF~a b o u Vl to-O ~ 0 ~oE ~ ~i~°- m x a° o °' ° Y ~ e~ O o ~° o N Y (~ o n n c a° _._ e ~I 53 a ^ jV /jr i ~ i! l / ~ // L .,.-,., n=~ it f C"~ ~. "? :? .. ~.~~ _, i ' S !/~ \\ \ \\ } ~'_ ~,6~~ zI r7 .! ' /`"\ I LTA i ~~ `ti.~I i ~ ,'; t `" ; ~; ~- t ~ .~' f`1~ ;S s„s 4 '_~ a~ UZ V1~ JO LLU FQ 0 Q O mW' II wa ` UN Z 1- ~~yy 02 7 ~ O ~ LL cin D m i 0 y S rc d z 135tlBOd01 5,337JX f0/82/00 31tl0 ~530tlY11 ~ N M N °~ O '--' W ~ U '~ ~ U N w M ~ rn N ~, o V 7 V 7 O O~ a' M M ~ O~ E-+ ~ 't~ ~ ~ ~" ~U ..~ -b ~ '~ 'd ^d 'tj ~ 'd 'd • ~-+ `~ ^ ~ c~ t~ • r" ~ ,~ ~ A-, E-t ~ A-t oo ~ P-t o Pa ~ A-~ ~t U N ~ N ~ ~ ~~ Z~ Uvi~3 ~+ ~ Q ~w O ~ Q Ui~, O ~ ,~ ~ N .,~t ~ ~ _ z -_ 1 t ~_. t h ~ t, -s _ \ ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~., / ( .Z 1 Zvi \ _, ;, ,' 1' 3, ~ o ^ c ;` ~ F+-1 i ~ d 0 i ~ 0 \ ~..~.~``~ ~ ,,. ~.e ~ i~ 0 ~ ~ ~' 'o N z s' ~ ~ ~~ h ni°o .~~ O ~~ a wri U v, -f-I '-~ ~ ' ^I ~ Q/~..I ~ i--~-I ~ ~ d' t~ I~ ~O '~' d= ~ M M O a a ~ =..III ~ yyyy...l y~~~~~~..... w a y ~ (n~ • [~ O M M ~ i ~ Q V ' M M d .~ ~--~ .,~ U cC ~ ~ t~ti ~- ~.yI U {-1 . i~-1 ~-1 ~~ • O ~ fs ~ w i O ~a~-+ a ~ r t r .° r h { ~.y` tf ~ ~~o ss ~ / J/,dry ~ h9f ~ ..~-..-..~-~~°\°~ t,,~n ~1 Y `~ U ~ ~~ ~ ` / 5ry ~ ~' rye \ ~ \ \ ` 1/r~1~~ O , . ~ ~. r ~ ~1 i ~ 3 I /, 'S~ / q`L T J / °bCV 1 .lS ~ \ ` k\, ~~ / , l` -~ ~ ! 's m ~ ~ r 'ti \~ ~ ,BAN ,ou ? i €( ~ e ~ ~ ,`~` t ;` ,.~ ` ~~ N ; CTG ~ N s ^ '~~, ~,~ _..~ ~ ~ 's \ ~ \ 1 ~ r \ J r ` fr;'^"~ ~ ~~ / N,p~ ~ ~ O _~. ,fin ~ o ~ o~ '' ',~ r ~ `~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ /y// ~ '~ ~ ~ `I ZOt .L8 SOl M ~ ~ ~T~ ~:m X00 ,t9 ,09 .09 ,S9 `~ (~ j~ 'f' ,6S ,09 b O \ d ~/ _ ~, ~ _ pppp ~ 9 ~, t ~ ~ ~ ,~'n Fg a ~ oo •a'N ~' ^° ~' °^ ~ C') M ° o (pt { ~ ` ~ o° T1 m ,~ s ~. ~ •~ n i ,os ,os • m i / r ~ ' ,9L ,09 1 -' i +.,,,$ ' '~ N / ~. L .app / ~'" __-_ j .,.: n ry 77 r ' .~ ___ .r..aF' .. ~ 8L t COL ,09 _09 ,09 _09 ,09 !09 i ,09 ^ ,OS ,OS OS ~... _.. _~~. :: _ . ~_.. _.__.... _.___..._.~.._~__._...~_~ _ _i_.. _~ .____ I l; a; i 1 1 1~ ;'~ z; \_ r ~~ J .! ~. ~'3 . N O .- Z W W ~ Z Q J F- Q (n " W Z ~ ~ ~ N Q W Z ~ w H J Q 0 ~ ~ W ~ ~.•, a o Z as ~ >. w z J a~ ~~ 2U 3 W Q ~ N ~ o a~ i ~ ~ z ~ W w ~ ~m d a +a°8 h ~ ~ ~aEaT v NFO ~~ 0 V ~ U C C pN E °u uY YC v~~mx a°c°~ a n o ,n N 0 ~ no a I I /1'1 y a a ~ \/ o 0 o E ~ ^~ a° N ~m Q~ °i a 03 ~ .-. w> UZ ~o JQ 4U FQ O v, a II w~ _ =N ~ U Z F- oz ~ k o ~ I~ w o m a H G O 2 13sveoaoi s.e3ax ro/zi/ro ~v~ 53~VY11 W U C O ~ ~ _ ~ U N (0 ~ V) C ` O V J ~- N ~ r O ~ .}r J O /Y O ~ ~ ~ ^~^ Y.f~ C >' ~ ~ a m n m w c ~ ~' ~ c U ~ N o N (0 0 O ~ N z ~' ~ ai ~ ~ Q) a°~.o Q O ~ ~ ~ E~~rn ~ ~ U' 'C l0 ~ 'O N = QQ ~' U O p N N t0 ~~ } O m C ~ ` J ~ ~ r T r ~ 7~ O >, Hrn~O O M ~ O~ N UU~.} M O M V O M Exhibit VII Map of Impacted Lots / OF THE p~~ .~, Ci o Yelm a ~in+ ~~ lOS Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 YELM Yelm, Washington 98597 WASHINGTON (360) 458-3244 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YELM HEARING EXAMINER DATE: Monday, June 2, 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 #SUB-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 Yelm~Roy 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 2, 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 ot.,Yelm } {, Agnes Bennick, City Clerk DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published in the Nisqually Valley News: Friday, May 16, 2003. Mailed to Adjacent Property Owners and Posted in Public Places: May 16, 2003. The City of Yelm is an Equal Opportunity Provider 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: XXXX Subj: Benum~Coyne 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 Determination of Non-Significance and Comments Exhibit IV Public Hearing Notice 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 98401-1 1 57 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 108 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 Wilkenson Road, bounded on the north by the Centralia Power Canal and on the east by the Yelm~Roy 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. CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 1 of 10 Description of Property: The subject property is a trianguuar parcel of land approximately 28.02 acres in area, bounded on the north by the Centralia Power Canal, on the southeast by the Yelm~Roy Prarie 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 Yelm~Roy Prarie 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 firs. 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 and SEPA Determination on DATE, and advertised in the local newspaper on DATE. 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. Staff Analysis and Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. Lots 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. CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 2 of 10 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 - Proposed Conditions of Approval - 1.A. 1.B. 2. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: Finding - Properties to the north and southeast 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). Conclusion - 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 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, CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 3 of 10 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 sq. ft. 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 Yelm~Roy 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. Conclusion - This request for a mitigation agreement between the developer and the school district became a mitigation measure of the Environmental Determination. 5. Transportation and Site Access: Finding - The property fronts Wilkenson 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 Wilkersen Road and the second approximately 200 feet south of the Centralia Power Canat. 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 in the requirement of the continuation of streets. In most cases, the developer shall provide for the 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 conditons do not require any future street connections, as the property is bounded by a public street, the Centralia Power Canal, and the Yelm~Roy Prarie Line Railroad. CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 4 of 10 Finding - The completed project w' mcr ase traffic and impact the City's transportation system. Chapter 15.4b, oncurrency Management, requires all development to mitigate impacts to th 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 - FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS Finding - Canal Road Finding - Y3 Conclusion - Proposed Conditions of Approval - 5.A. 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.B. 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 residentiaP'. 6. 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 sufficent area for 2 parking spaces while meeting the maximum lot coverage of 75%. 7. 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, oversizing agreements, and the creation of local improvement districts may all be considered. In the event of a new funding source, however, concurrency is not CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 5 of 10 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 Wilkersen 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 fora 10 inch PVC line to connect the line on N.P. Road and the line on Wilkerson 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 Wilkerson Road and N.P. Road water lines would increase available fire flow at the project site. Conclusion - Conditions of Approval - 7.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. 7.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 Wilkerson Road. 8. Wastewater: Finding -The city's Sewer Comprehensive Plan identifies a portion of the City area for service. The City is pursuing additional land areas or approval and the extension of facilities. Completion of such activities is dependent on grand 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, oversizing 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. CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 6 of 10 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. However, the City of Yelm sewer treatment plant is located on N.P. Road. A direct connection into the plant would require the installation of approximately 2,000 feet of sewer line. 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. Conclusion -City sewer service is available to the site from the treatment plant on N.P. 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 - 8.A. The proponent 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. 8.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. 9. 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 runnoff from the frontange improvement on Wilkerson 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. CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 7 of 10 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 - 9.A. The applicant shall design and construct all storm water facilities in accordance with the DOE 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. 9.B. All roof drain runoff shall be infiltrated on each lot. Infiltration shall be accomplished utilizing individual drywells. 9.C. The applicant shall submit a storm water operation and maintenance plan to the Community Development Department for approval prior to final plat approval. 9.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 tots for the maintenance and repair of the stormwater facilities. 10. 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 - 10.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. 10.B. The applicant shall submit fire flow calculations for all existing and proposed hydrants. All hydrants must meet minimum City standards. 11. 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 - CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 8 of 10 11.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. 12. Subdivision Name and Addressing: Finding -The proposed project is not currently named. Addressing is approved by the Community Development Department. Conditions of Approval - 12.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 is distinguisable from other subdivision names and an addressing plat map for approval. 13. 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 - 13.A. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation requirements of the MDNS issued on February 7, 2003. Mitigation includes: The applicant shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new p.m. peak hour trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based on 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips per residential unit. The applicant will be responsible for a TFC of $757.50 per unit, which is payable at time of building permit issuance. Prior to final subdivision approval, the developer shall realign Canal Road with Wilkerson to meet City Standards for intersections. Improvements to the intersection shall include core road improvements. Prior to final subdivision approval, the propenent shall submit to the City of Yelm a signed school mitigation agreeement between the developer and the Yelm School District. 14. 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. CUP-02-8329-YL Staff Report Page 9 of 10 ' 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. 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 - 14.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. 15. Shoreline Management Act and Thurston County Shoreline Master Program: Finding - 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; 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 Thurston Councy Shoreline Master Program, 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 10 of 10 ^ T h e Shea Group 360-459-3609.3F0.459.0154 fax a Parametrix company 8830 Talton Lane, Suite B, Lacey, WA 985t 6 • PO Box 3427, Lacey WA 98509-3427 TRANSMITTAL FORM s,,~ . To: Grant Beck Date: May 14, 2003 Community Development Director Project Number: 244-1781-015 (12) City of Yelm Project Name: Benum-Coyne We are transmitting the following materials: Staff report and Intersection analysis Comments: The staff report for the Y3/Corridor/Coyne Benum proposed subdivision and the intersection analysis memorandum are attached. Please call if you have questions. These are: ®PER YOUR REQUEST Sent Via: ^ U.S. MAIL ^ FOR YOUR INFORMATION ^ GROUND SERVICE ^ FOR YOUR REVIEW AND APPROVAL ^ EXPRESS OVERNIGHT ^ FOR YOUR FILES ^ COURIER ^ FOR YOUR ACTION ®HAND DELIVERY/PICK UP Sincerely, ~C'` ~ ~~, Mgy1 ~ ` s?~o~ cc: o:\cad\1781\contracts\015\12\051403 Grant Beck.trn ~~ Candace Cramer Quality Service Through Employee Ownership oaiot 04/14/03 14:55 FA% 253 473 0599 APE% ENGINEERING C~j001/002 * .. ... s TRANSMITTAL T0: Terry Brink, Attorney at Law Gordon Thomas Honeywell DATE: April 14, 2003 REGARDING: Benum and Coyne Plat FILE~fASK: 2700?J2 ~x En9iaeeringy FAX NUMBER: 253 620-6565 PHONE NUMBER: TOTAL PAGES: WE ARE TRANSMITtiNG THE FOLLOWING: ^ For approvallreview/comment ^ Fot your use DATE: DESCRIPTION: COMMENTS: Dear Teny, The attached sketch shows a roundabout as a conceptual intersection improvement at Wilkensen Road S.E. and Canal Road S.E. We considered several alternatives here and the roundabout seems to be a reasonable application. Further, it is a refinement of the intersection improvement shown on the City's drawing dated March 28, 2003. We estimate the core improvements for this design to total approximately $60,000. These core improvements include only the earthwork, crushed surfacing top course, pavement and curbing. A hard copy will be put in today's mail. Comments? COPY T0: Benum Enterprises Attn: Mr. Bob Benum Mr. Bob Coyne SENDER: FAX: (253) 539-6061 {253)926-4093 _ ^ (253) 770.1473 ^ 2601 South 35th, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98409 (253) 473.4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599 PI.F.ASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY IF NOT RECEIVED PROPERLY Heath and Associates 04/14/03 14:55 FA% 253 473 0599 APE% ENGINEERING X002/002 CONCEPTUAL INTERSECTI®N IMPROVEMENT WILK~NSEN RD. SE.. AND CANAL RD. SE. \\ SeAL~ ~ /~'-50/ ~/GF_ # 94r1~?fl ~9R 1 V W 0 W~ N' J ~~ l8 ~9 ~9 2CJ ~~ I~ .. Z3 ~x ~~~~~ ,.......„ ,.,.,.~~ .e.o4-~.~ ~~ ~ 22ir , =f-~`.-2003 FRI 08;32 AM DOE SW REGIONAL OFFICE FAX N0, 3604076305 ~':-~"~ fax Note 7671 oar pa°gas~ _-___,.,._ ,~~ 51AT~ o~ i ~s/,(a From ~ ~~. .~.r._- r -- . Co. __ ._~ y~: . PhonA # 'ryr, ixu~ ~~ F WASI~INGTON utrF~K l ens=~~1T OF ECOLOGY P.O. Boz 47T~5.Olympia, Washington 912504-7775 • (36U) 407-6300 February 19, 2003 Mr. (grant Beck Community Development Director City uf'Yolm 1'U Box 479 "elm, WA 98597 P, 01 /02 ~~~; ,~M~ t Your address ~~..'.. ~ ~ , , ,,I,,S ,~.. i is in the ~~ :.... . ~; ~..~ L,~~,.~ ....~ ~ f; ~, .~~ watershed Dear Mr. Reek: Thank you for the opportuiuty to comment on the mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the proposed Preliminary Plat, Benum and ~=Dyne Property project, located on the east side of Willcenson load, bounded on the north by Centralia Poway Ganal, on the east by the Yc;lan/Roy Prairie Line; Railroad, as proposed by kobert L. Coyne (contact' Benum Enterprises, Inc.). We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments: The owner of a construction silo which disturbs five acres or more of total land area, and which ha.s or ti~'ill liavo a discharge of stone water to a surface water or to a storm sewer, must apply for coverage under cology'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 rnust also apply i f the construction activity is part of a larger contiguous plan of dcsv~lopment or sale in which more; than five acres will eventually be disturbed. Disdlarge of storm water from such sites without a permit is a violation of federal and state law and the owner will be subject to enforcement action by the Department of)rcology or through third party lawsuits. T'or construction of subdivisions, the five acre threshold which triggers the NPDF;S permit requirement applies to land that is disturbed by the land owner, land owner's agent, or by an entity Which has obtained z, use agreement (e.g., lease, easement) froth the land owner. Include acreage which is disturbed. (c.~;., -ailed) prior to its sale to independent contractor(s). A stormwater pern~it application for, referred to as a Notice of Intent, can be obtained by calling Ecology's Stonnwater Request Line at (360) 407-71 S6, or i.inda Matlock at (360) 447-6437. 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 eonsmtction-related sediment and erosion. '1'hcse $Ml's shall be desired to mee# the standards of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for'Vlrestcrn VVashinl;ton, published by Washington State pepartrnent of Ecology in Au6ust, 2001. ,ym.hilT; jd. ~~, `a ~~-21-203 FRI 08 32 Ah1 DOE SW REGIONAL OFFICE FAX NO. 3604076305 P, 02/02 Mr, Grant Beck Page 2 If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please caii Ms. Kerry Carrel! with the'Water Quality Program at (360) 4U7-6244_ Sincerely, /~ Jeri Berube Administrative Coordinator Southwest Regional Office .eE,ie(U3-0606) ee: Be:num Enterprises, ]nc., C:ontact for applicant Kerry Carroll, SWRO/WQ i...i.nda Matlock, HQ/WQ ~.e \o ~~-c~/ S h~ n~%ru~ ~ S~z~6-e-- c~ ~ ~, go.,~ ~o ~ 1~~~ ate, C~~Q ~- lo ~ti o ~ ~,~,-~ ~,~ P~~,~ ~~- ~~ ~" V ~/ `\\~\^uJ ~~ ~ ~~. '' • ~ elf/I~" V' FEB-28-2003 FRI 12 13 PM THE SHEA GROUP The Shea Group a Paramet-u' comp8ny 8639 TaIIaA land, Suite 9, l~cey. WA 9851 B • PO Sor 3411, laccy WA 985Q8~3417 FAX TRANSMISSION GOVER PAGE FAX # 360-459-0154 To: Grant Beck Phoney 458-8408 Fax #: 458-3144 cc: date: February Z8, 2003 From: Cathie Carlson Sent By: Total # of pages: 10 [] URGi=NT ®FOR REVIEW ^ PER YOUR REQUEST ^ PLEASE REPLY ^ FOR YOUR FILES BACKUP COPY WILL NOT B£ SENT CommentslMessage: d Ilr•~bulion.1lpfeas~eMca1 us~to lest immediately a 60-458.3609 and realm the o~ glnal to usv la the UtSrPostal Seiv~epTna kI you I~ Qualia~y Service Through Employee Ownership FAX N0, 360 459 0154 P, Ol 368.4593809 •360.469.0154laz oaro~ FEB-28-2003 FR[ 12 13 PM THE SHER GROUP FRX N0. 360 459 0154 P, 02 .b~. - Project Location FEB-28-2003 FR[ 12 13 PM THE SHEA GROUP FAX N0. 360 459 0154 P. 03 l NOT to SC~ PRIOR!'1'Yr' RECOMMENDATIONS !!- YI 93RD AvE/T-~FIRSTON NIGFf1.ANOS CONNECTOR Y11 110th AvE SE CR¢DC CROSSClG 6 Y2 sRSO7/TO GROVE ROAR CONNECTOR t EDwAADS STREET iwPROroEUEI+TS Y YS CANAL ROAD NORTH LOOP J YEW AVG/$Al.O NIU.S RD. SICNAI _ I CRE~JC S7 Ie1PORVENENTS Z'p'tt Y~ (~W~ STREET INPROVETAENTS B MOSMAN STREET IM7'ROVf31ENT5 lr,t1 Y5 YELM AVEffVE 14PROVE1rENTS t0 SECOND STREET n1PROVEI~rNTS Y7 SIY ACCES4 tY RAJIROAp STREET NW NIPROVE1tENT5 p Yd MOSMAM SflI.BERG ST CONNECTOR t tiPGRADE JJ RHOTIIN RDAO IMPROVE~EHTS Y9 BAIL HILLS ROAD /S +r}1M AVE Nf~1Ctl.LON fi0. REAUGNaENT Y10 VANdL ROAD CONNECTpN t6 t'41M AVE W/43RD AYE REALIGNMENT 1r RAItt20AO STREET sw 111PROVtieD+15 fe aTY MDE ROAOwAY REStlR<ACmc • PRloktrr rRd>If Q raalt rn.Lxsroxr.LrloA+ lYPROVICI/aM Ptt00JlLM (tpp7-tOQS) J•(D r~r..~c r~ ~x 1 l t pgR7 7ERY INtB W1 a~urTM eoutm.rrr /` GEND .d ~ ^ - ....., -- '~.aNC TP7~/ uRBA-f aROrn+ 6OLJ1~lDA,Rr ~, _ ~ _ _ . s~faRr t~af L-rle~w aROwrwr eovNOU+r ~,.,~.~.~ pl~re~ I~PRO~Irs wwwwww.uwwww. UPfD£-E7tf/NED ROADWAY ALJpMfE-~1T figure 20 Year Transportation Plan 1997 Update FEB-28-2003 FRl 12 14 PM THE SHER GROUP FAX N0. 360 459 0154 P. 04 Existing Traffic Volumes Base Roadway Network FEB-28-2003 FRf 12 14 PM THE SHER GROUP FAX N0. 360 459 0154 P, 05 ~~~ ~ ~1 `'~ '~ ,~ ~'` ~ ~~ ., ~ ~~~ t ~, .~~,. •~ ~., , ~ ~` ~` ~~ ~ ~ ~ NOT TO SCALE .` ~~ '' ,~ •• ~ ~ wo rwr+e~., ~ ~' \~ i ~•• h rr. •K. • 3 R $ ~ ~r~Nn • rc ~ .~~, • yS+ •r+ ffi w no, s '~ ~ .; 1 ''~ Q tooth sir ~ ,'i V i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '6 ~,~ ~ • ~ o1n A i •' ,oyy A1C III p •~ ~ , ~I y ~I ~ ~. I Q iC5M AVE SE ~ • ~ ~ ~ I , 9 ~/ I • I ®~_ ~' ~ Y .~ - -- ,~ f ~. /~ , A Js. i LEGEND -- --- -- -- -- LGWC 1~RM URBAN CitOWlff BOClNOARY ,•r•• • - • ••~•• 3 LANES ....,---~--...... {/3 LIMES .. ~... _ ~ _ .~ ~ S LANES S 000 ftl7URE T'EiVt (2024) OAlLY TRAFFIC k7f.UNE figure 2020 Traffic Volumes and Needed Traffic Lanes Base Roadway Network FEB-~8-2003 FRf 12 14 PM THE SHEA GROUP FAX N0, 360 459 0154 P, 06 .y,,, o existing and 'Year 2020 L0~ on Base Roadway Network FEB-28-2003 FR[ 12 14 PM THE SHEA GROUP FAX N0. 360 459 0154 P. 07 " ~ ~ \~ ~t ~; ;~ ~; ~ ~~ ti ~,,, . ., ~... •,~' :`ti '' . `~ ~', s~o ~~~~~ i i ' r'----=~.-..i I { •, ~ ~ L._. ` rar-~"=-~' -~-~ ~s~o i .~ LEGEND NOT TO SCAL£ cvnc ~N ux~r~w cxvrnrr erwnuws r J LANES 4/5 LANES 5 LANES FUTURE YEAR (2020) AAlLY TRAFFIC MOI.UA/E ~ ; ~, ~%/ F1QUf8 ~. 2020 Traffic Volumes and Nesded Traffic Lanes With Y2 FEB-28-2003 FRl 12 15 PM THE SHEA GROUP FAX N0. 360 459 0154 P. 08 i ~~' ~ ~~, ~ ,. -' ,~ 'l1 ,, ~~ ~~ ~'; ~~~ •,. ~ ., ••. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~A NOT TO SCALE • , Sid • ~~ . biihQD: , '~. i ~ `~ ~~, -~ ~ -:~, _ _ _ .; e ew,,~ - _ -,r~`~ _ , ~ i ~ ~ r i ~ ~ '~ 8 ~ 8 ~ M.r t''', o~ ~' .' ~ v• + - .' ,yv r~ , ~ ~ ~~ i~ .r' ~ , Qf ,r` c tioou~ wir ~ -;~ % . ~ ~ I ~~,~ cp ~ ~', / Sara . : ~' im~e .w: ,, ~ ~ ,, ,. +mi ~ ~~ A M t _. .... ,r..: ..- Y7 - .: ,' ~ LEGENO - --- --- toNC ~u+ uN9AN cROwr-~ 9ouNDARY •-.• . -• . •- JUNES _.... - _ -.... s tAN~s fUNRE YEAR (?0?O1 oArtY Txw~rc vaur~~ i t-igure 2020 Traffic Volumes and Needed Traffic Lanes With Y2 and Y3 ----..._.._._......._,-..,~.>w~~-~--- =~......,.~.a~a.~xsea:r.:aa~uR7~~.sr.'K FEB-28-2003 FR[ 12:15 PM THE SHER GROUP FAX N0. 360 459 0154 P. 09 r~gura 200 cos With Y2/Y3 FEB-28-2003 FRf 12 15 PM THE 5HEA GROUP FAX N0. 360 459 0154 P, l0 .....1 {I I i i t ~y I I 1 I i i 1 I~ 1 .......! r~guce Y2JY3 Alternatives +,~y r~ ~•~~ ,~ _} ~~"~. x \ d X x , ti rr C7 ~ \ of x ~ ~` ..r \\ ~~ \\\ i ~ ~~.~ .`Nµ~~` ~t ............................. I X X X "."~ r _... _.. ;~~ ___ r` _ ....___.... ~_..~.._._ ~~ M\ \. V i r. , /f ~~ 1 ~ ,~' M ~ r•:, „.% A / j r (((..~~~... i i ,- ~,.~:.,,r / ~W ~~? ~/ ~'/~ mot` l 3 j/ .. / / / ~ ~' ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ,/ ,y ~~~ .. I3 ~ ~// P" l ~~ /./ r/ j / / ~ // ~j J //// ~....,. /,/ / / +,l / / / ~~/f / ~ i i1 i ~ ` J ~~ / fff,,, ~/ ~ z . ~ „~ L iC... r~ /l ~ f ~~_, ~~l A ~1 / / Ii ~ I / ~,., i~f ,'z + ,/ ii ~ ~.~~ ~~, ARC ~ 7 ! ~.~ { ' ~ uC ~~ I z ~ d ~ ~_~'~ , o°O o ~' a c~° o pp ? t..,....t t ~ ~ ~ N N b j~,_.r. y 0 f m m ~ .. _ _....... ~, ., . ~~ ~:~ ~. _..... _., t L x .n n / 11 r e E ~~ ~ a / ~ o - o ~ ~~ ` m ~, ~ 3 e x ~ i ~ o ' ~ ~` ,~ . , ~ m 9 ~ rT !~ ~ rA _', W ) ' M J UZ 41~ ?U U r C aW NJ W Q ~~ x U~ zr o i o ~ ~ ~ yi ~' o m D 1 i ~ , /~ (l i + /.,._ i m ~ `~~' r'-- a . /~" 3 ~ G 2 Q Z ~_ LJ.~ 0 ~S,j3M% f0/LZ/ZO 31tl0 ~53`JtlVYI ~ , .....~ l.!~ / `~/ ~~ 1 / ~ / %! 1 t h' p1/ / .. / ~ ^~' i ~ ~ / ,I I $ d~ THE' '+9 j~ YEI.l~i WASHI N O'I~N CITY OF YELM PO Box 479 Yelm WA 98597 360-458-3835 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. TAMI MERRIMAN RAN MfN Q-Tf~ti<tICtAN -- - City of Yelm Community Development Department P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 (360) 458-3835 (360) 458-3144 FAX Memorandum To: Site Plan Review Committee ~'/~' From: Grant Beck, Community Development Director., Date: January 30, 2003 Re: SUB-02-8329-YL -Project Review Schedule for Benum~Coyne Attached is the application packet for the above referenced project. After your initial review of the information submitted, if you need additional information from the applicant, please let me know as soon as possible. The following is the tentative review schedule for the project. February 5 - SPRC TIA and Project Review. Department comments. February 7 -Notice of Application distributed -begin 15 day comment period. February 7 -Environmental Determination issued by Planning Department. Begin 14 day comment period followed by 7 day appeal period. February 28 -Environmental Determination appeal time expired. March 21 -Public Hearing notice to paper, mailing and post site. March 24 -Complete Staff report for public hearing. April 7 -Public Hearing April 17 -Hearing Examiner Decision ~~°~ `~ ~~ CITY OF Y~LM ~ ~ PO Box 479 Yelm WA 98597 360-458-3835 YELNi WASHI N OT'ON 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. ~ ',_ l SEPA N0: 8329 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 Yelm~Roy 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 43.21C.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 Comment Deadline: February 21, 2003 at 5:00 P.M. Grant Beck, Community Development Director This Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance (MDNS) is issued pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11-340(2). Comments must be submitted to Grant Beck, Community Development Department, at City of Yelm, 105 Yelm Ave. W., P.O. Box 479, Yelm, WA 98597, by 5:00 p.m., February 21, 2003. The City of Yelm will not act on this proposal prior to 5:00 p.m., February 28, 2003. You may appeal this determination to the Yelm City Council, at above address, by submitting a written appeal no later than 5:00 p.m., February 28, 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 Published: Nisqually Valley News, Friday, February 7, 2003 Posted in public areas: Friday, February 7, 2003 Copies to: All agencies/citizens on SEPA mailing list and adjacent property owners, February 7, 2003 Dept. of Ecology w/checklist, February 7, 2003. City of Yelm Community Development Department P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 (360) 458-3835 (360) 458-3144 FAX Memorandum To: Site Plan Review Committee i From: Grant Beck, Community Development Director(~~ Date: January 30, 2003 Re: SUB-02-8329-YL -Project Review Schedule for Benum~Coyne Attached is the application packet for the above referenced project. After your initial review of the information submitted, if you need additional information from the applicant, please let me know as soon as possible. The following is the tentative review schedule for the project. February 5 - SPRC TIA and Project Review. Department comments. February 7 -Notice of Application distributed -begin 15 day comment period. February 7 -Environmental Determination issued by Planning Department. Begin 14 day comment period followed by 7 day appeal period. February 28 -Environmental Determination appeal time expired. March 21 -Public Hearing notice to paper, mailing and post site. March 24 -Complete Staff report for public hearing. April 7 -Public Hearing April 17 -Hearing Examiner Decision OWENS DAVIES, P.S. Attorneys at Law Frank J. Owens Arthur L. Davies John V. Lyman Richard G. Phillips, Jr. Brian L. Budsberg Michael W. Mayberry Kirk M. Veis Robert F. Hauth Matthew B. Edwards Brent F. Dille Theda Braddock Fowler* Mark O. Erickson, Of Counsel Burton R. Johnson (1970) January 15, 2003 Ms. Shelly Badger City Administrator City of Yelm P. O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 RE: Benum Enterprises, Inc. Preliminary Plat SUV 02-8329-YL Dear Ms. Badger: ~~~~ l ~i ~ly-- Z~~ /)~~~~r tv.o.- l! ~' ~'N ~1.~ P. O. Box 1 a ~ ~ Olympia, Washington ya~~ . Phone (360) 943-8320 Facsimile (360) 943-6150 *Also Admitted in California, Maryland and Massachusetts This letter is in response to a question we have been asked regarding the Benum Enterprise, Inc. preliminary plat application. The specific question is whether the City of Yelm can require the developer, as part of the SEPA process, to analyze the impacts the development will have on the proposed Y2/Y3 corridor. The Yelm Department of Community Development wishes to expand the current environmental analysis to fully identify potential impacts and possible mitigation measures. The developer, through their attorneys, are opposed to this further analysis and threaten an action in inverse condemnation if that analysis is required. As is commonly known, SEPA can be used as a means to ensure compliance with the comprehensive plan. We understand that the proposed Y2/Y3 corridor road is envisioned in Yelm's comprehensive plan. Finding a way to accommodate future acquisition of this corridor via SEPA conditions on the development maybe in the public interest, but it contains risks. One must first look at the purpose of the desired impact study. We are told by Grant Beck of the Yelm Community Development Department that the City wishes to analyze ways to adjust the development to accommodate the corridor road. This could include prohibiting development within the corridor itself or rotating the first phase so that the plat boundary leaves room for the corridor. Either way, it appears the purpose of the study is to find a way to accommodate future acquisition of and construction within the corridor. OWENS DAVIES, P.S. Ms. Shelly Badger January 15, 2003 Page 2 The City cannot require studies for the purpose of developing conditions which cannot properly be applied against the development. It is unlikely that the City could require the developer to set aside a corridor area for construction of a road, without compensating the developer for the fair market value of the land. What is less certain is whether the City can require the developer to rotate the development to better accommodate the timing schedule for the road. Courts have generally held that any condition must bear a nexus to and be roughly proportionate to the impacts caused by the development. It is our understanding that no direct access to the corridor road will be provided to the development. Therefore it is difficult to argue that enh~atzcement of the Y2/Y3 road is a responsibility of the developer in this case. It is, thereby, also difficult to argue that the developer should bear some responsibility for the timing of the corridor's construction. One issue bears on whether appeal of this threshold determination would go to the City Council or directly to the courts. The SEPA statute, Chapter 43.21(c) RCW, provides that a developer must exhaust internal administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. Section 14.04.120 of the Yelm Municipal Code provides that where any proposal or action not requiring a decision of the City Council is conditioned or denied on the basis of SEPA by anon-elected official, that decision shall be appealable to the City Council. The question before you is not whether to "condition or deny" all or a portion of the development. The issue is whether the threshold determination should require certain further environmental analysis. Thus .120 of the Code doesn't appear to cover an appeal such as this. It is our view that any appeal of this threshold determination must be taken to the Court, but, per the holding in Foster v. King Co., 83 Wn. App. 339 (1996), only as part of the appeal of any underlying permit once it is finally issued by the City. Although Benum Enterprises cannot appeal this threshold determination until the time it may appeal the City's decision on the preliminary plat as a whole, the developer may make a claim for temporary damages arising out of the delay caused by the required study. Chapter 64.40 RCW provides a cause of action for developers for damages against a public entity, if the entity, in its treatment of the developer's application, acts in an arbitrary, capricious or unlawful manner. Since the stated reason for the study and any related condition is to accommodate Yelm's ability to acquire and develop the road, we have some concern that a court might find that the study requirement is in fact arbitrary and capricious. The court may find that this stated purpose has no bearing on whether the development complies with the applicable regulations of the City of Yelm, but that it serves to enhance a regional public work. In summary, while we feel that the goal sought to be accomplished by the City by this study is laudatory, a court might ultimately find, for the reasons stated above, it would not be a valid requirement. Whether the court would find that the action was arbitrary or capricious, and thus a basis for damages against the City, is difficult to predict. We feel, however, that there is a reasonable risk of that. OWENS DAVIES, P.S. Ms. Shelly Badger January 15, 2003 Page 3 I hope this sheds some light on your inquiry and dilemma. If you have any further questions, please contact me or Mark Erickson. Very truly yours, S, P.,S~. Brent F. Dille BFD/so C\57\BFD CLIENTS\YELM\LTR BADGER 112602.DOC City of Yelm Resolution No. 391 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YELM RECOMMENDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE Y2/Y3 CORRIDOR DESCRIBED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PUBLISHED IN OCTOBER, 1999 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. WHEREAS, there is severe congestion on the only existing east-west corridor through the City of Yelm (Yelm Avenue, also referred to as SR 507 and SR 510) and is anticipated to worsen to unacceptable levels by design year 2020; and WHEREAS, the 1995 City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan and Joint Plan with Thurston County has identified the need for the Y2/Y3 corridor in lieu of widening the existing highway SR 510 and SR 507 through the downtown area of the City of Yelm; and WHEREAS, the City assembled a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to recommend goals and objectives as well as guide the development and evaluation of alternatives to alleviate congestion in and around the City of Yelm; and WHEREAS, the TAC established goals and objectives for the project that should be designed to: a) Provide alimited-access regional corridor to reduce current congestion on SR 507/SR510 (First Street, and Yelm Avenue), the only existing continuous east-west corridor through the City of Yelm. b) Provide a facility with design speeds of 50 mph and with intersections spaced two miles apart. c) Allow for interconnection of existing streets to-accommodate travel in and around the core area of the City. d) Provide a transportation system that provides efficient mobility of freight to all industrial and commercial areas of the City. e) 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. f) Provide a transportation system that would be consistent with the Washington State Department of Transportation (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. g) Minimize impacts on schools, parks, and recreational facilities along the existing corridor. WHEREAS, the engineering studies have examined a number of Y2/Y3 route alternatives, and WHEREAS, a new Y2/Y3 corridor project must address the environmental impacts in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment document which described the Alternatives Analysis Process, Preferred Y2/Y3 Alternative and No Build Alternative was prepared for public and agency review; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on October 20, 1999 to present the project alternatives and hear public testimony on the project; and WHEREAS, there is a need to act quickly to proceed with the next steps to relieve uncertainty and minimize impacts for those whose homes and properties may be affected, and WHEREAS, THE FEDERAL Highway Administration (FHWA) who retains approval authority of the document has requested the City to recommend a preferred alternative and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to FHWA final approval of the document and issuance of a FONSI; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YELM DO HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The preferred Alternative is consistent with the 9995 City of Yelm Comprehensive Plan and Joint Plan with Thurston County, and 2. The City of Yelm recommends FHWA issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact for the Preferred Y2/Y3 Alternative as described in the Environmental Assessment. Adopted by the City Council and Signed by the Mayor this 8th day of December, 1999. o IN Kat ryn M. olf, Mayor Attest/authentication: /%l~~ //' ~N>~''C' Agnes - P. Bennick, City Clerk/Treasurer 110V-26-02 TUE 527 PM OWE~IS DAVIES FAX ISO, 3609436150 F, 1 QWENS Z~AVIES, P.S. Attorneys at Law Frank J, Owens Street Address: Arthur L. Aavies 926 - 24`t' Way SW John V. Lyman Olympia, Washington 98502 Richard C. Phillips, Jr. Brian 1/.13uilsbcrg Mailing Address: Michael W. Mayberry P. O. Box 167 Dirk M. Veis Olyti~pia, Washington 98507 Robot F. Hauth Matthew B. Edwards Rhone {3G0) 943-$320 Brent F. Dille Faesitnile (360) 943-G150 Theda Braddock Fowler" Ruth S. Sparrow's Of Coutlsel Mark O. FriCkSOn „ Also Admitted in CaltiFamia, , 2002 November 26 lVlaryland and Massachusetts , M Also Admitted ur Pennsylvania Burton R. Johnson (1970) Ms. Shelly Badger City Administrator City of Yelm P. O. Box a79 Yelm, WA 98597 Past-It'" Fax Note 7671 °at© 11 ~ pagas~ To From Co./Dept. Co_ Phony # Phone # Fax # ~, Fax # ltE: Benum Enterprises, ~rzc. 1?relimitaazy plat SUV 02-8329-YL Dear Ms, Badger: This letter is in respozase to a question we have been asked regarding the Benun1 Enterprise, Izac. prelimizaary plat application. The specific question is whether the City of Yelm can require the developer, as part of the SEPA process, to analyze the impacts the development will have on tlae proposed Y2/Y3 corridor. The Yelm Department of Community Development wishes to expand the current environmental analysis to fully identify potential impacts and possible mitigation measures. ThE developer, through their attorneys, are opposed to dais £urthex analysis and threateza aza action iz1 inverse condemnation if that analysis is required. As is commoxtly knowza, SEPA can be used as a means to ensure compliance with the comprehensive plan. We understand that the proposed Y2/Y3 corridor road is envisioned in Yelm's corxzpxelaezasive plan. k'inding a way to accommodate future acquisition of this corridor via SEPA conditions on the development maybe in the public interest, but it cazatains risks. Otae must first look at the purpose of the desired impact study. We are told by Grant Bcck of the Yelzta Cozxzmunity Development Department that the City wishes to analyze ways to adjust the development to accommodate the cozxidox road. This could include prolaibitizxg development within the corridor itself or notating the first phase so that the plat boundary leaves roon1 for the corridor. Eithex way, it appears the purpose of the study is to find a way to accommodate future acquisition of grad construction within the corridor. X05-26-02 TUE 5.27 PM OWENS DAMES FAX FIO, 3609436150 P, 2 OWENS DAMES, P.S. Ms. Shelly Badger 1~Iovember 26, 2002 page 2 The City cannot require studies for the purpose of developing conditions which cannot properly be applied against the development. It is unlikely that the City could require the developer to set aside a corridor area for construction of a road, without compensating the developer for the fair market value of the ]and. What is less certain is whether the City can require the developer to rotate the development to better accommodate the timing schedule for the road. Courts have gerteraliy held that any condition must bear a nexus to and be roughly propoxtiotaate to tl~e impacts caused by the developzxtent. It is our understanding that no direct access to the corridor road will be provided to the develop;-xtent, Therefore it is difficult to argue that enhancement of the Y2/Y3 road is a responsibility of the developer in this case. It is, thereby, also difficult to argue that the developer should bear some responsibility for the timing of the corridor's consti~.~ction. One issue bears on whether appeal of this threshold deternination would go to the City Council or directly to the courts. The SEl?A statute, Chapter 43.21(c) RCW, provides that a developer must exhaust ixtternal administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. Section 14.04.120 of the Yelm Municipal Code provides that where any proposal or action not requiring a decision of the City Council is conditioned or denied on the basis of SEPA by a nonelected official, that decision shall be appealable to the City Council. The question before you is not whether to "condition or deny" all or a portion of the development. The issue is whether the threshold determination should require certain further environmental analysis. Thus .120 of the Code doesn't appear to cover an appeal such as this. 7t is our view that any appeal of this threshold determination must be taken to the Court, but, per the holding in Foster v. King Co., 83 Wn. App. 339 (1996), only as part of the appeal of any underlying permit once it is finally issued by the City. Although Benum Enterprises cannot appeal this threshold determination until the time it may appeal the City's decision on the pxelixxxiz~ary plat as a whole, the developer may make a claim for temporary damages arising out of the delay caused by the required study. Chapter 64,40 RCW provides a cause of action for developers for damages against a public entity, if #ha entity, in its treatment of the developer's application, acts in an arbitrary, capricious or unlawful manner. Since the stated reason for the study and any related condition is to accomrr-odate Yelm's ability to acquire and develop the road, we have some concern that a court might end that the study requirement is in fact arbitrary and capricious. The court may find that this stated purpose has no bearing on whether the development complies with the applicable regulations of the City of Yelm, but that it serves to enhance a regional public work. In summary, while we feel that the goal sought to be accomplished by the City by this study is laudatory, a court might ultimately f~txd, for the reasons stated above, it would not be a valid requirement. Whether the court would find that the action was arbitrary or capricious, and thus a basis for damages against the City, is difficult to predict. We feel, however, that there is a reasozaable risl~ of that, I~OV-26-02 TUE 5:28 PM OWEIdS DAMES FAX 1~0, 3609436150 ~, ~?W~N'S 1~A~IES, P.S. Ms. Shelly Badger ~tovennber 2G, 2002 Page 3 1 hope this sheds some light on your inquiry and dilernrna. if you have any further questions, please contact zx~e or l~lark Erickson. Very truly yours, OWENS DAVIBS, la.S, Brent F, Dille BFD/so 11S7CP1S716PpCLIEAITS~XE(,I+a1LTABAJ]G~R 112602.DOC w 9 ~. ~~~ , , ~~~ YELM WASNINOTON November 22, 2002 Robert L. Coyne Benum Enterprises P.O. Box 73130 Puyallup, WA 98373 Dear Bob: City of Yel~n 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 This letter is regarding you and Robert Benum's application for preliminary subdivision and shoreline substantial development permit for the subdivision of approximately 28 acres located on Wilkenson Road just south of the Centralia Power Canal into 108 residential lots. The application was submitted to the City of Yelm on November 4, 2002, along with application fees in the amount of $3,850.00. The proposal has been assigned project number SUB 02- 8329-YL. I will be acting as the project planner for your application. The Community Development Department has reviewed the application and has determined it to be complete. Grant Beck, Dire~for Community Development Department c. Brent Dille, City Attorney Terry Brink, Attorney for Benum/Coyne Bob Benum, Applicant Robert Crippen, Apex Engineering 77ie City of Yelm is an Egi~nl Opportunity Provide~~ / ~~ THE p~~ ~. ~~ . ~~ -,.~ ,:. _ ~, YELM WASNINL3TON November 22, 2002 Robert L. Coyne Benum Enterprises P.O. Box 73130 Puyallup, WA 98373 Dear Bob: City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 This letter is regarding you and Robert Benum's application for preliminary subdivision and shoreline substantial development permit for the subdivision of approximately 28 acres located on Wilkenson Road just south of the Centralia Power Canal into 108 residential lots. The application was submitted to the City of Yelm on November 4, 2002, along with application fees in the amount of $3,850.00. The proposal has been assigned project number SUB 02- 8329-YL. I will be acting as the project planner for your application. The Community Development Department has reviewed the application and has determined it to be complete. ~t Beck, Dire'~tor munity Development Department c. Brent Dille, City Attorney Terry Brink, Attorney for Benum/Coyne Bob Benum, Applicant Robert Crippen, Apex Engineering The Cih~ of Yelm is an Ec~«al Opportunity Provider ~1~OV- 5-02 TUE 1215 PM OWENS DAMES PAX ISO, 3609436150 ~: OWENS DAV~ES, P.S. .A.ttolrzreys at ~,aw Frank J. Owens Arthur L. Davies John V. Lyman Richard G. Phillips, Jr. Brian L. Budsbcrg Michael W. Mayberry Kirk M, Veis Robcrc F. llauth Matthew B. Edwards Brent F. Dille Theda Braddock Fowler'" Ruth S. Sparrow" Burton R. Johnson (1970) Mr. Grant Beck City of Yelm PO l3ox 479 105 Yeltrl Avenue W Xe1m, W,A. 98597 Navem.ber 4, 2002 P, 2 Street Address: 926.24`h Way SW Olympia, Washington 98502 Mailing Address: P. O. Box 18? Olympia, Washington 98507 Pltone (360) 943-8320 Facsimile (360) 943.6150 'Also Admitted 1D Califol'ni>i, Maryland end Mass~chusctls ''Also Admitted in Pennsylvania Sent Via Fax to: (360) 458-4348 RE: $enum Enterprises Dealr Grant: Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, enclosed please find a Dopy of correspondence received from Terry $rink, attorney for Benttm Enterprises, regarding their prelimizlary plat approval. Upon your receipt and review, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. 1 remain. , . Verily yours, AVtES. P.S. Brent F. Dille BF,D/cf Enclosure C:\57\BPD C415NTS1YE4bflY2Y3 CORRIDOR\LTR BECK 110402.DOC -?~~V- 5-02 TUE 12 15 PM OWENS DAVIES FAX ISO, 3609436150 P. 3 LAW UFF[CES GORDON, 'J,'HOl1~A,5, ~XONE,YWF,LL, MALANCA, 1<'F.TERSO~i & bA~#L~A~ LI.I' TACOMA OFFICE ALSexa B. tAALANCA sANPRA J covAl SEATTLE OFFICE 2201 PACIFXc AvENVE, SUITE 2200 wA.RREH J. 0.4HEIM JOE OORDON, Jh, sAnas e. nraPc ncLISSA K ¢RYAN ONE UNION SQUARE POST OFFICE SOX 1157 PENN2G S RARWwE xAmrc G. wPn[vwgUL. P b UARRELL L. COCetmnN OA~10 P. WOODY 600 Ut72VERSITY, 5UITE 210p TACOMA WASFIxNGTgN 9 84 01-115 7 w1cLIAn c FPLT BRADL[Y G DAVIg SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-Q185 , (253) 620-65p0 kONALO b LCICxTOri JONM c cwaonoLA G1'LPWWIF L~ BLOIWPf ELD Angxq,A n, O'MALWRAN (206) 67x9 -7$00 FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565 DONALD W. HANPORU PAVIP m sKrvs[M FACSIMILE (206) 676-7S75 rlnoaav J wHITCERg JorLa c roLCY - x1 LLIpN T LYNN TI NOTHY L. A9HCRAPT - wngk~N R Pg7~SR5UN ';tiJ6-IBN 91 K¢NM¢rw ~. %76vF`[R JULIE S. DICKENS OP COUNSEL Ti+UMAS L PIbwRURNE I1vJV~19tl II JAn[B C. wAU40 T LBE FR,TfPiiAEY9 JOBERN +{. TARPON VALmN fi nrxlCYxmt.l~ 11919~39V7i RPkc[i c. xtlTCxi NS, D 5 vpLA0.A6 Z6EC% x wpl.i/+Ak ~vANAGw, JR MA'fTHfx W STAN LeY 7uA00¢US P r.V~eT:w R rer. caw Pl~r<;-, )n 1 _ J. Ri CifARD CREA'tURA PIA4MC K. OQNHAY eLi eAeeTM G1Ke tN ¢'t[N REPLY TO TACOMA OB'PTCE MI DHAEi. D HI'CT LAVRA kE9eLMJwrv ONAA LOT'K N C,iNLAtR DONALD 5. COKEN LAPGOTO DARLING DONALD N. THOMP50N FOBEPT C. ORAY60N BRIAN LADENHURG DALE L CARL151,6. P.5 LhneLt DLit Tbccllm~ l75]) 670.649) vICTORIA L. vR[ELANO MARIA OEIJWOE 7wOws~S J. GRb[NAM P11~ect Dint Sc>,D~cle. 1306) 676-6x99 Bonn R. CpNjlYy4Y, JR. 5z•¢vEN SIF6kt L¢wi$ ¢I.lSr+OR'rR apn : t2irilJa Y kh~law ~n~il ~eI ALrREb M. rack srcvmN RcSCN . s j K ALAN b, NACbnfk50N s. eRAPt.cY ¢uCKNALTeF DIANH J. KERO 9I'ON8 CKI990M C, JAMES PRV5N JA9CN SCHAVEK YRAALEY A~ NJV44 b, 6kiA'AN TACEY GALVADOR A~ NUNGIA BRUCE KRIbGMAN waRR¢I+ ¢. MAjii IN SILCtN x ReraP50N GARY 6, MOVO PATRICIa PEl+RBON ~ ~, ~ .~~ ~~ c~~. y~(y. r,n„Y">. t_7 S""--~ 9 ~r . M. nYKe BiNvreR RP¢cRT f,ALGx;I.L , f s ~ ~ ~ BAADI.EY B. JONES TERRY L. BRINK .70NCNOK kr JEMIMa NcCULLUM y,~ . f~.r ':) 66 I`H , '-,~G, ~ L 1 MAT'fHEw A. REIBEP J.D. 4nISM ~ .1, ,~~ ~ I q I ' h~ JAMES 7. SBEU'f LOREN A. COCHPAN t . ~~ MARGARET X, A~iCHBR LINCOLN C. BEAURFX'ARD r ~ta "'~i~ ~ ~ LINDA CJ L66 MAN E. JACOBS ' P. r7 ,,k 3: ^~ ~t~~~ ry Mf ~MASL T PVAIJ A[I LI.Y SUl< P Y ' / lire~xt k. Dille Owens [)avies, P.S. Attorneys at Law P. O. Box 187 Olympia, WA 98507 ~Toverzaber ~, 2002 RF: Benun~ Enterprises, Tnc. preliminary plat Tlturston Coutrty Taa~ Parcel Nos.' 643-01-2001,00 and 227-17-330100 Dear Mr. Dille: Thank you i'or your letter dated Septeaxtber 13, 2002 regarding the al,ove-referenced matter. Although eve appreciate your cozt~n~ents v~litlt respect to the inverse condemnation issue, tl~e opinion expressed in our letter to the City of Xelxxt's City ,A.dt~aiAt~istrator Shelley Badger is unchanged. Simultaneous with ottr dispatching of this letter to you, our clients axe deli,vexing to the City of Yeltn a complete application for a preliminary plat (the "Application"). The Application includes a 3'rat~sportatiort Impact Study that does not conclude that ally trtitigation is appropriate or rcgi~ired for the X2/X3 Transportation Corridor. We trust that the City will respect our client's property rights and process the Application as submitted. 13y this letter, we are requesting that you correspond with me directly advising me whether the City intends to accept the Application as complete and process it, or not, Accordtttg to RCW 36.708.070 entitled "Project permit applications -~' Determination of completeness - l~iotice to applicant" requires that a written determination be delivered to tYte applicant witl~in [ 1 t 9920b v2] ~~I~OV- 5-02 TUE 12~ 16 PM OWE11S DAVIES FAX ISO, 3609436150 P. 4 CORpON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON £3 DAHEIM LLP Nove-~~ber 1. 2002 Page 2 twenty-eight (28) days after receiving the application stating that: (i) the application is complete; or (ii) the application is incorriplete and what is necessary to make the application complete. The following is a citatio~i of the relevant portion of the above-referenced statute: (1) Within twent -e' ht da s ailer receivin a ro'ect ermit a lication a ocal oven~~t~ent ]annin ursuant to R W 36.70A.040 s a 1 ai or rovide in erson a written deterlni ation to the applicant, sY~tir~g either: (a) That the application ~s co~aplete; or (b) T~~t the-application is incomplete and what is necessarxto, ttlake the application complete, (Emphasis added.} [tCW 36,70B,070. For your infvrn~ation and convenience, we are enclosing a copy of the Application thae is bei---g submitted to the City of Yelm. if you have any questions or would like to discuss a~~y of the foregoing, you may reach me by: (i) calling me on my direct telephone lire at 253,620.6493; (ii) a-mail at tbrink ~gih-law.cont; (iii} regular mail at P. Q. Box 1157, Tacoma, Washington 98401-1157; or (iv) facsimile at 253.620.6565. Youzs very truly, Te~xy L, Brink TLf3:bf Enclosure cc: Robert E. Beiuun, Benum Eztterprises, Inc. (w/o ettc) k~oberk L. Coyne, Jr. (w/o enc) JaRttes H. Crippen, F.E., Apex lrngineering, P.L,L.C. (w/o enc) Greg 1-leath, P.E., Heath & Associates, Znc. (w/o ex7~c) [1199206 v2] X0;3 5-02 TUE 12:16 PM OWEI~S DAMES FAX ISO, 3609436150 P, 5 QWEnTS DA~IES, P.S. Attorneys at Law )Frank J. Owens Street Address: 926 - 24'" Way SW Arthur L. Davies John V. Lyman Olympia, Washington 98502 Richard G. Phillips, Jr. Brian L. Budsberg MAlting Address: Michael W, Mayberry )?. Q. Box 187 Kirk M. Veis Olympia, Washington 98507 Robert P. Fl;auth Matthew B. Edwards )Phone (360) 943-8320 Brent 1M- 17iflc FacsimlMe (3G0) 943-ti1S0 Theda Braddock Fowler" Ruth S. Sparrow** "Also Admitted in California, Durtoa R. Johnson 1970 ( ) Se tember 13 2002 Maryland and Massachusetts p - ""Also Admitted in hennsytvania Mr. Terry L. Brink Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell Malattca, Peterson & Daheim, LLP 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2240 PO Box 115' Tacoma, WA 98401-1157 RE: Bcnum Enterprises, Inc. preliminary Plat The City of Yelrn Dear Mr. Bri1~1.k: please be advised that I represent the City of Yelm (the "City") and am in receipt of your August l3, 2002 correspondence. First, I would like to point out that the Y2/Y3 Transportalion Corridor is closer to becoming a reality than your conversation with Mark Ellis of the 'Washington State TJepartrrtezat of Transportation may have led you to believe. In point of fact, a p'edcral I~ighway Administration Findil1g of No Significant Impact for Yelm Y2/Y3 Corridor was approved on February 1, 2000 aztd approved and adopted as a preferred alternative by the Yelm City Counsel by Resolution 39$ ozt March 8, 2000. This approval was subsequently incorporated into the City's 2001 Comprehensive Transportation Plan. and, by Ordinance 741, adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In light of these facts, it is not inconsistent that NIr. Ellis was unaware of the progress and status of the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor as this is a federal project. Consequently, under the City's SEl'A procedure, because the corridor is part of the City's Growth Management Plan, the City has authority to consider the impact the proposed plat vial have on the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor. As of this date, the City has not received any application for a prelimminary plat from your clients. If and when your clients do make application, and the City chooses to declare the application to be incomplete because it failed to include a traffictmpact analysis, your client still has the administrative appeal process under Yelm Municipal Code 14.04, Please be advised that at this time, the City has trot indicated it will reject your client's application or fail to timely process it as insinuated i;n your letter. ~IO,V- 5-02 TUE 12.17 P1VI OWEI~S DAVIES FAX ISO, 3609436150 P. 6 ~J'VCja~NS DA`~Y~S, P. S.''"~ ~ Mir. Terry L. Brink Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell Nlalanca, Peterson & Daheim, LLP September 13, 2002 Page 2 It is my hope that this letter has shed more light on the progress the City has made toward making the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor a reality, and I look forvvazd to worl~ing with you and your client in making youz clie;nt's project a reality. Should you have any duestions or concerns or zaeed further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. z rem,ain... Very truly yours, OWI~I`1S AAVI~S, F.S. ~~ )rent F. Di11e Bk'D/cf cc; Ms. Shelly Badger 1Vlr. Grant Beck C~17TBPp C1.IENTSIYHI,MICANAL ESTATESU.TR BR1idK 09I202.DOC O~ T~ ~~ a .,.~. .~~ FAX TRANSMISSION CITY OF YELM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PO BOX 479 -105 YELM AVE W YELM WA 98597 (360) 458-3835 FAX: (360) 458-3144 TO: Brent Dille DATE: 9/5/2002 FAX #: 943-6150 PAGES: 6 FROM: Grant Beck SUBJECT: Terry Brink Letter re: Benum/Coyne Subdivision COMMENTS: including this cover sheet. * * IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL COPIES, OR ANY COPY IS NOT LEGIBLE, PLEASE CALL (360) 458-3835 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. R:\Community Development\Templates\BLANK FAX TRANSMISSION.doc LAW OFFICES GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA, PETERSON & DAHEIM LLP TACOMA GFFICE 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2200 POST OFr^ICE BOX 1157 TACOr,,A, TASHINGTON 9 84 01-115 7 (253) 620-6500 "rACSIMILE (253) 620-6565 WARREN R. PETERSON (1926-1989) THOMAS L. FISHBURNE (1939-198"]) REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE ALBER'P R h41LANCA WARREN J. DAHELM JOr ~ORD~N, JI' DENN:S S. iiI~R I,OY+E NARK C;. HGN F.YW ELL, k~.S WILLIAM E. HOL'C RONALD B. LEIGHTOCI JOHN C. GUADNOLA DONALU W. HANFCRD TIMO'PHY J. WH I1"I'ERS WILLIAM T. LYNN KENNETH G. KI EFFER JAMES C. WALUO ROBERT G. HUTCHINS, P.S. MATTHEW W. STANLEY J. RICHARD CR EATURA MICHAEL D. HITT DONALD S. COHEN ROBERT C. GRAYSON VICTORIA L. VR EELANO JOHN R. CONNELLY, JR. ALFRED M. FALK ALAN D. NACPHERSON DIANE J. KERO C. JAMES FRUSH BRADLEY A. MA}fA SAL'JADOP. A. MUNGIA WARREN E. MAHTiN EILEEN S. PETERSON F. M!nE SFIA Fk EN B RA:.::,E" B .'ONES TERRY I.. BRINK NJ+TTHEW A. REIBER JAMES 'C. ~E^LY MICHAEL T. PFAU SANDRA J. ROVAI JAMES A MEADS MELISSA K. BR YAeJ DARRELL L. CGCHRAN DAVID P- MOODY ARADLEY G. DAV15 STEPHANIE i. 6~liGM FI ELD AMANDA M. G'HALLORAN DAVID B. JEP'S?N JOAN C. FOLEi TIMOTHY L. ASHCRAFT JULiE E. :CIiFNS .. LEE HUM PHREI'S VALARIE ZEECK THADDEUS P. MARTIN DIANNE K. CONWAY MICHELLE A. MENELY LAURA WESELMANN LAFCADIO DARLING BRIAN LADENBURG MARLO DELANOE STEVEN SITEIi STEVEN REI Cti J. BRADLEY BUCKHALTER STONE GR:SSOM JASON SCHAU ER S. SHAWN TACEY ARUCE KRI EGMAN GARY E. HOOD ..ARISSA PAYIVE PATRICIA PEARSON ROBERT CALD4IELL JONG4:ON YI SEATTLE OFFICE ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY, SUITE 210C SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-4185 (206) 676-7500 FACSIMILE (206) 676-7575 OF COUNSEL JOSEPH H. GORDON W. WALLACE CAVANAGH, JR. L. R. GHILARDUCCI, JR. ELIZABETH PIKE NART IN CHARLOTTE N. CtiALKER DONALD H. THOMPSON DALE L. CARLISLE, P.S. THOMAS J. GREENAN LEWIS ELLSWORTH Direct Dial 'Incvle: (253) 620-6493 Direct Dial Saattle: (206) 676-6493 FYmil Pddress: tbrir>Ms~jth-law. mn LINDA CJ LEE D. SMITH August 13, 2002 SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQ UESTED Shelly Badger City Administrator City of Yelm P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 RE: July 31, 2002 Pre-Application Meeting Benum Enterprises, Inc. Preliminary Plat Thurston County Tax Parcel Nos.: 643-O1-200100 and 227-17-330100 Dear Ms. Badger: Our Finn represents Robert Benum and Robert L. Coyne, Jr., Who are the owners of the above-referenced property. We are advised that our clients attended a pre-submission conference pursuant to YMC § 16.12.010 at the City of Yelm (the "City") on July 31, 2002 in anticipation of submittal of a preliminary plat application. We are also advised by our clients that one of the topics of discussion during the meeting was the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor. According to Mr. Coyne, the City has taken the position that the Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA") to be prepared u1 conj~uiction with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") process will require an analysis of the impacts to the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor caused by the proposed preliminary plat including any potential mitigation measures. It is our understanding that the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor is a possible future public road construction project that is not currently: (i) funded; (ii) engineered; or (iii) targeted for commencement of construction. On May 28, 2002, I had an opportunity to speak wit]; the [118b321 v6] GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON £~ DAHEIM LLP August 13, 2002 Page 2 Washington State Department of Transportation's ("WSDOT") Real Estate Specialist Mark Ellis regarding the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor. Mr. Ellis confirmed that: (i) the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor project has not even been designed; (ii) there is no money available; (iii) there is no assurance if and when the money may become available; and (iv) it is likely that the currently proposed alignment will change from its present location by the time condemnation proceedings are underway. Mr. Ellis also mentioned that the last similar transportation corridor project of this nature that he is aware of was in Sequim, Washington. Mr. Ellis said that it took approximately twenty (20) years to obtain the necessary financing for the Sequim project. As far as I know, neither the City or the State of Washington (the "State") has made any offer to purchase all or any portion of our clients' property under threat of condemnation pursuant to Washington's eminent domain laws codified under Title 8 RCW entitled "Eminent Domain." Moreover, we are advised that neither the City or the State has any intention of leaking any such offer to purchase all or any of the property under the threat of condemnation at this time, or in the foreseeable future. In light of the foregoing information, the City's demand that the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor be considered in the TIA and that related mitigation measures be determined during the SEPA process is unlawful and would give rise to an inverse condemnation claim. Inverse condemnation is defined by Washington law as the manner in which property owners recover just compensation for the taking of their property when condemnation proceedings have not been instituted. Martin v. Port of Seattle, 64 Wn.2d 309 (1964), cert. Denied, 379 U.S. 989 (1965). Inverse condemnation has also been characterized as an action brought against a governmental entity having power of eminent domain, to recover the value of property which has been appropriated in fact but without a formal exercise of the power. Id. A party alleging inverse condemnation must establish the following elements: (i) a taking Or damagliig; (11) Of private prOrertj'; ~lll) f0:" YL1bhC I1Se; (lv~ `.xlltll0llt ~llSt COmnensatlOn being paid; (v) by a governmental entity that has not instituted formal proceedings. Phillips v. King County, 136 Wn.2d 946 (1998). Ownership of property entails more than the right to exclusive possession; it includes the right to use of the land. Thus inverse condemnation actions may be brought seeking recovery for interference with the use and enjoyment of the property regardless of whether condemnation is characterized by physical invasion. Highline School Dist. v. Port of Seattle, 87 Wn.2d 6 (1976). As you know, if our clients were to succumb to the demands of the City, the proposed preliminary plat would be virtually decimated by the division of the property by a two hundred foot (200') right-of--way together with an elevated limited access state highway running through the middle of the property. Not only would the use of the two hundred foot (200') right-of--way create significant adverse impacts to the preliminary plat, but the elevated state highway would [ 1186321 v6] CORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON £~ DAHEIM LLP August 13, 2002 Page 3 also cause additional significant adverse impacts to the remainder parcels because of the: (i) excessive noise; (ii) air pollution: and (iii) aesthetically offensive elevated structures in the midst of a residential subdivision, etc. Attached is an 8 %" x 11" copy of the current preliminary plat site plan that shows an overlay of the currently proposed location of the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor and its potential impact on this project. The foregoing described scenario would deprive our clients of the economically reasonable use of their property as a result of restrictive governmental regulations that are not justified because of the absence of any condemnation proceeding. A property owner who is deprived of the economically reasonable use of land as a result of restrictive governmental regulations is entitled to compensation if the property owner can demonstrate that the application for the use of the property was made and refused, or that the application would be futile. Orion Corp. v. State, 103 Wn.2d 441 (1985), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1022, 100 L. Ed. 2d 227, 108 S. Ct. 1996 (1988) (Orion I); Estate of Friedman v. Pierce County, 51 Wn.App. 176 (1988), aff'd, 112 Wn.2d 68 (1989). The primary purpose of this letter is to advise the City that under the present circumstances our clients have no intention of conducting an analysis that would result in any mitigation of a project that may or may not ever be constructed. We believe that the City 11as exceeded its lawful authority in asserting such a demand in this instance. Our clients are in the process of preparing its application for a preliminary plat and will be submitting it to the City for processing as soon as practicable. Our clients will comply with all of the lawful regulatory controls in effect at the time of a complete application in accordance with RCW 58.17.033(1). If the City rejects the application, or fails to process it in a timely manner, our client intends to file a lawsuit against the City: (i) for violations of its own ordinances YMC ~ 16.':2.041'? and Yl1?C ~ 16.12.130; (ii) for violations of RCW 36.70B.070 and RCW 36.70B.120; and (iii) because such rejection of the application will be considered uncontroverted evidence that pursuit of an administrative remedy would be futile. In the Friedman case cited above, the Court of Appeals held that a landowner must show by "uncontroverted evidence that pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile." Friedman, 51 Wn.App. @ 181. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the issue of futility is to be decided by the Court, not the jury, and that although the landowner has a substantial burden of proof when seeking to establish futility, futility need not be shown by uncontroverted evidence. Estate of Friedman v. Pierce County, 112 Wn.2d 68 (1989). Although our clients seek no confrontation with the City, please understand that our clients are determined to protect their lawful property rights against the City's recent unlawful demands. We urge the City to reconsider its position with regard to this matter and to withdraw its demands with regard to the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor. If litigation becomes necessary, [ 1186321 v6] GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON ~ DAHEIM LLP August 13, 2002 Page 4 our clients will seek: (i) a writ of mandamus ordering the City to process their application; (ii) alternative damages incurred as a result of the inverse condemnation; (iii) damages incurred because of the City's disregard for and violation of applicable local and state land use regulatory controls; and (iv) damages and attorneys fees for wrongful refusal to process a permit pursuant to RCW 64.40 and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. The City's failure to process our clients' application would be arbitrary and capricious under state law and would deny due process of law under federal law. Moreover, the decision makers would not have legislative immunity for such acts and could be held individually liable. Yours very truly, Terry L. Brink TLB:cs cc: Robert E. Benum, President, Benum Enterprises, Inc. Robert L. Coyne, Jr., Executive Vice President, Benum Enterprises, Inc. James H. Crippen, P.E., Apex Engineering, PLLC [1186321 v6] ~---- al y1L1 1 ~ v ~ } ~~~ ~ ll1?13dOt9d 3NA0~ ON1f iNI7N39 x ~ ~~ ~ ~- LLrwc Nlfld 3115 A'~11(N~pl'13bd vz~ .^.-.~-~ ~ ao 1 p rr C 311L>• ..~ ~ noe~a ,. y~ 8 ~v_^L~r'•'s__ ._.._.. .~tnLrt~o/ie3la%b~'AS3/~~ b~T1.7~b ~X ~~ ~ ~ • _ ~ ~ a ~ A c V.. s_ ~ U T ~_ V ~l!,~a ~ Q 1 ~. .~~ ~e~ p ~~~~ 3 ~ W ~x 0 ~~~~ bq~+sop~~ ~ I ~ ~Q Q gse y °e J ~~i F. ~ d6~~6a~~~1~C i eta ~ ~ ra~~~ ~ >, s 5 ~~ a W N a Z J a a W 0 a Z O V Z Q P ~ ~~% ~ ~a~~% ~~ W ~~~ ~~~ ;~~~~ z~ -_ li ; ~ • ~ LJ.1 18 ~(~ .x `.~ 1-- 3 ~~ a a ~ i ?3Q T W } ~ ~ ~ to / d ~ ~ ~~~ ~ W o°W ~1 Jsi •' ' F Z V p~ J _, ~ ~ w ~a • ~ 1 N W ~ _ ~ ' , .~~:: V n y= /~ y Z y =7 I z ~ f.. ~ •~~. ~ s ~ o> __ . ~, / ~• . - _ ~ ~~ 7 .,. ~ M I Ff1F~ON ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~~ n ~~ '~ • • a--.:: 6 s + ~C~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a ~~\ ti ~I. ~ 6 ti ~ ~`\, `` ~~~,\ a ~~ r !>:i f ` . L ~ i a y ~ • ~` i ~ , r R .+ ~ ~'m• s_ ~ fa • I _,_..____ t ~• r1wiM~ 71tl AI/OD~OLIMYI I~MI YDf.n d ~~ :~ ~ .Z W o t y Y ~`~~ ~\ . ~ ~ ,,1 ~ . _~ ~•-~ _~r •4 . •. inn inn f~3t 91~I2i$~11TI'~1Q~ %~d~ 6650 CLb C5Z X~3 OC ~ 5T ZO/LO/80 SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD Covered moorages for 86 boats in Day Island waterway in Pierce County are consistent with a flexible master program guideline calling for one moorage per acre where that guideline was exceeded before enactment of the SMA and it is not shown that exceedance of the guideline formula would have a significant adverse impact. Day Island Community Clrrb v. Pierce County, SHB No. 87-/2. A swimming pool, tennis court, fencing and light standards on Lake Washington must be set back 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark to minimize view impairment. The master program incorporates the zoning ordinance in the Town of Yarrow Point. Yctle v. Yarrow Point, SHB No. 87-22. A previously approved master program in a later annexed area will continue to be valid until a new master program is adopted by the city and approved by DOE under the provisions of WAC 173-19-044. DOE v. City of Issaquah and Samamish Development Company, SHB No. 89-3~. See: SHB No. 82-41. 8.6.1 (c) Permit Consistency Required Each portion of an interpretive center facility and related system of trails, canoeing area and reviewing platforms which lie in different environmental designations, must be compatible with those designations. Department of Came v. Skagit County, SHB No. 2-~0. ` When a city's master program is proposed, yet not approved by the department for an area annexed from the county, the city should review a proposed substantial development using the county's master program. Department of Ecology, et al., v. Ci'n~ of Arzacortes and Ancrcortes-Fidalgo Bcty Marina, SHB No. 8/-23. 8.6.1 (d) Amendments, Omissions The failure of a master program to provide an environmental designation for an area subject to a permit causes the matter to be remanded to the local government to either amend its program to include the omitted area or reconsider the proposal under RCW 90.58.020 and the Guidelines. Welchko, et al., v. City of Ancrcortes and Skyline Marir:a, Inc., SHB No. 79--~5. The function of changing environmental designations belongs to local government and is not a function of the Board. ` Oliver v. King County, SHB No. 80-26. Any change to a master program is for the legislative authority of the city to make. Seattle Shorelines Coalition, et al., v. Cit}~ of Seattle and H.C. Henrz• Pier Compar?r. et ctl., SHB No. 82- -~6. Areas which are annexed subsequently to the adoption of a city shoreline master plan remain governed by the county master plan until proper amendments to the city's master plan are approved by DOE. Eldridge, et al., v. City of Stanwood, SHB No. 91-62 crud 9/-70. A proposed project is reviewed under the Master Program as it existed at the time the completed application was filed. Substantial changes to the Master Program thereafter are not considered in the SHB No. review. Seattle Yacht Chrb v. Jefferson Corrrrh~, et al., SHB No. 89--15. { 8.6.2. Variances and Conditional Uses Variances are strictly and narrowly construed. Northrr,p r~. Klickitcrt Cnunl~' crrrcl DOF_, .SHB Na. 9?--10. 7-1 1 173-18-030 Shoreline Management Act-Streams and Rivers WAC 173-18-030 Definitions. The definitions and concepts set forth in RCW 90.58.030 shall apply as used herein. [Order DE 72-13, § 173-18-030, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173-18-040 Streams and rivers. The following provisions of this chapter delimit, by county, the streams and rivers which constitute shorelines of the state as follows: (1) Streams which constitute shorelines. (a) Western Washington. The following provisions describe the streams in Western Washington from the point at which the stream reaches a mean annual flow of twenty cubic feet per second down to the mouth of said stream or river: Provided, That the stream falls at said point, within the jurisdiction of chap- ter 90.58 RCW. (b) Eastern Washington. The following provisions describe the streams in Eastern Washington from the point at which the stream reaches a mean annual flow of twenty cubic feet per second down to the mouth of said stream or river: Provided, That the stream falls at said point, within the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW. (2) Rivers which constitute shorelines of state-wide significance. (a) Western Washington. The following provisions describe the point on those rivers in Western Wash- ington where the mean annual flow reaches one thousand cubic feet per second and lists said river in all counties below said point through which said river passes with a mean annual flow in excess of one thou- sand cubic feet per second: Provided, That the river falls at said point within the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW. (b) Eastern Washington. The following provisions describe either of the following points on those riv- ers in Eastern Washington, whichever is farther upstream; (i) The point at which the mean annual flow exceeds two hundred cubic feet per second, or (ii) The lowest extremity of the first three hundred square miles of drainage area east of the crest of the Cascade Range; provided that either of said points which is utilized is within the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW. (iii) The following provisions additionally list said river in all counties below said point through which said river passes. (3) Streams or rivers outside the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW. In those cases where the above described points on streams or rivers fall in geographical areas outside of the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW. The following provisions list said streams or rivers in all counties downstream from the boundaries of said geographical areas. In such listing, if the body of water is a shoreline of state-wide significance below said geographical area, such will be indicated in the description and by asterisk. (4) Other data. (a) Wherever a river of state-wide significance falls within a county, it is followed by an asterisk. (b) The following provisions set forth the name of the quadrangle maps where the stream or river is shown. The quadrangle in which the shoreline delimitation begins and the first quadrangle downstream from the county line is underlined. The quadrangle in which the shoreline of state-wide significance begins is followed by an asterisk. The size, in minutes, of all quadrangle maps is designated. (c) Where quadrangle maps are unavailable, photomaps have been used as indicated. [Order 73-14, § 173-18-040, filed 8/27/73; Order DE 72-13, § 173-18-040, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173-18-044 Review of designations. The department shall review all the designations made herein at least once in every five-year period following the effective date of chapter 90.58 RCW or as fre- quently before then as is deemed advisable by the department, and prepare the necessary revisions to ensure that the designations conform to the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW and of chapter 173-18 WAC in the manner and form prescribed for adopting and amending rules and regulations in chapter 34.04 RCW (the Administrative Procedure Act). [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-08-052 (Order DE 80-20), § 173-18-044, filed 6/30/80.] WAC 173-18-046 Conflicts between designations and criteria. In the event that any of the designa- tions set forth in this chapter conflict with the criteria set forth in RCW 90.58.030(2) or in WAC 173-18- 040 the criteria shall control. The designation of the stream or river shall be governed by the criteria. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 80-08-052 (Order DE 80-20), § 173-18-046, filed 6/30/80.] [Ch. 173-18 WAC-p. 2] (3/6/90) Shoreline Management Act-Streams and Rivers Quadrangle Stream Name Name and Size Leeal Description (11) Spokane Clayton 15 From the Spokane County River Wellpinit IS line on the Spokane River (Cont.)* Turtle Lake 15 (Sec.32,T27N,R42E) down- Lincoln 15 stream through Long Lake to Spokane Indian Reserva- tion boundary (Sec.15,T27N,R39E), right shore only. This river has 300 sq. miles of drainage area and over 200 cfs MAF at Spokane Co. line. (12) Deep ~irit 7 1/2 From the confluence of Creek Aladdin 7 1/2 Rocky Creek and South (South Fork of Deep Creek in Fork) (Sec.8,T37N,R41E) down- stream to confluence North Fork Deep Creek and Deep Creek in (Seas, T38N,R41E). (13) Deep Deep Lake 7 1/2 From the confluence of Creek Aladdin 7 1/2 McKinnon Creek and North (North Fork Deep Creek in Fork) (Sec.11,T39N,R41E) down- stream through Deep Lake to confluence with South Fork Deep Creek and Deep Creek in (Sec.S, T38N,R41E). (14) Deep Aladdin 7 1/2 From the confluence of the Creek Spirit 7 1/2 South Fork and North Fork of Deep Creek in (Seas, T38N,R41E) downstream to mouth at Columbia River (Sec.34,T40N,R40E). 173-18-380 [Order DE 76-14, § 173-18-370, filed 5/3/76; Order 73-14, § 173-18-370, filed 8/27/73; Order DE 72-13, § 173-18-370, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173-18-380 Thurston County. Streams Quadrangle Stream Name Name and Size Leeal Description (1) Beaver Tenino 15 From the confluence of Creek Maytown 7 1/2 Beaver Creek and Rochester 15 unnamed creek (Seel 1, T16N,R2W) downstream to mouth at Black River (Sec.2,T16N,R3W). (2) Black Tenino 15 From the confluence of River Maytown 7 1/2 Dempsey Creek and the Rochester 15 Black River (Sec.13, T17N,R3W) downstream to Grays Harbor County line (Sec.26,T16N,R4W). (3) Black Tumwater 7 1/2 From outlet of Black Lake Lake (Sec.32,T18N, Drainage R2W) downstream to con- Ditch fluence with Percival Creek (Sec.21,T18N, R2W). (3/6/90) [Ch.173-18 WAC-p. 101] 173-18-380 Shoreline Management Act-Streams and Rivers Stream Name (4) Cedar Creek (5) Chehalis River (Cont.)* (6) Deschutes River (Cont.) (7) Kennedy Creek (8) Little Nisqually River (Cont.) (9) McAllister Creek (10) McLane Creek (11) Mima Creek (12) Mitchell Creek Quadrangle Name and Size Leeal Description Rochester 15 From the confluence of Cedaz Cr. and Sherman Creek (Sec.2,T16N,R4W) downstream to Grays Har- bor County line (same section). Rochester IS From Lewis County line (Sec. 23,T 15N,R3 W) downstream to Grays Har- bor County line (Sea 11,T15N,R4W), excluding all federal lands. The flow exceeds 1,000 cfs MAF at Lewis County line. Ohop Valley 15 From Lewis County line Bald Hi117 1/2 (Sea24,T15N,R3E) Lake Lawrence downstream to mouth at 7 1/2 Capitol Lake (Sec.26, Vai17 1/2 T18N,R2W), excluding Weir Prairie 7 1/2 all federal lands. East Olympia 7 1/2 Tumwater 7 1/2 Maytown 7 1/2 Shelton 15 From the confluence of Kennedy Creek and unnamed creek (Sec.14, T18N,R4W) downstream to the Mason County line (Sec.6,T18N,R3W). Ohop Valley 15 From the Lewis-Thurston Eatonville 7 1/2 County line (Sec.21, T15N,R4E) downstream to Alder Lake (Sec.16, same township). Anderson Island 15 From the McAllister Nisqually 7 1/2 Springs (Sec.19,T18N, R1E) downstream to mouth at Nisqually Head (Sec.31,T19N,R1E). Tumwater 7 1/2 From an approximate point (SWl/4 of NE1/4 of Sec.25,T18N,R3W) downstream to mouth at Eld Inlet (Sec.19,T18N, R2W). Rochester 15 From an approximate point (NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Sec.16,T16N,R3W) downstream to mouth at Black River (Sec.20, same township). Ohoo Valley 15 From the confluence of Bald Hi117 1/2 Mitchell Creek and unnamed creek (Sec.18, T15N,R3E)downstream to mouth at Deschutes River (Sec.7, same town- ship). [Ch.173-18 WAC-p. 102] (3/6/90) TITLES »WAC 197 TITLE »WAC 197 - 11 CHAPTER » 197-11-444 Print version WAC 197-11-444 Elements of the environment. (1) Natural environment (a) Earth (i) Geology (ii) Soils (iii) Topography (iv) Unique physical features (v) Erosion/enlargement of land area (accretion) (b) Air (i) Air quality (ii) Odor (iii) Climate (c) Water (i) Surface water movement/quantity/quality (ii) Runoff/absorption (iii) Floods (iv) Ground water movement/quantity/quality (v) Public water supplies (d) Plants and animals (i) Habitat for and numbers or diversity of species of plants, fish, or other wildlife (ii) Unique species (iii) Fish or wildlife migration routes (e) Energy and natural resources (i) Amount required/rate of use/efficiency (ii) Source/availability (iii) Nonrenewable resources (iv) Conservation and renewable resources (v) Scenic resources (2) Built environment (a) Environmental health (i) Noise (ii) Risk of explosion (iii) Releases or potential releases to the environment affecting public health, such as toxic or hazardous materials (b) Land and shoreline use (i) Relationship to existing land use plans and to estimated population (ii) Housing (iii) Light and glare (iv) Aesthetics (v) Recreation (vi) Historic and cultural preservation (vii) Agricultural crops (c) Transportation (i) Transportation systems (ii) Vehicular traffic (iii) Waterborne, rail, and air traffic (iv) Parking Legislature Home About us E-Mail Lists Search Help (v) Movement/circulation of people or goods (vi) Traffic hazards (d) Public services and utilities (i) Fire (ii) Police (iii) Schools (iv) Parks or other recreational facilities (v) Maintenance (vi) Communications (vii) Water/storm water (viii) Sewer/solid waste (ix) Other governmental services or utilities (3) To simplify the EIS format, reduce paperwork and duplication, improve readability, and focus on the significant issues, some or all of the elements of the environment in WAC 197-11-444 may be combined. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21 C.110. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-444, filed 2/10/84, effective 4/4/84.] i~~:~'~ ,- _ VVAS H ! ~`~i +G T~ ~! STATE L EG 5 LATtJ R"~``~~ j p ~tw~f~ . Legislature Home About Us E-Mail Lists Search Help RCW TITLES » TITLE 90 » CHAPTER 90.58 » SECTION 90.58.030 Print Version RCW 90.58.030 Definitions and concepts. As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions and concepts apply: (1) Administration: (a) "Department" means the department of ecology; (b) "Director" means the director of the department of ecology; (c) "Local government" means any county, incorporated city, or town which contains within its boundaries any lands or waters subject to this chapter; (d) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, organization, cooperative, public or municipal corporation, or agency of the state or local governmental unit however designated; (e) "Hearing board" means the shoreline hearings board established by this chapter. (2) Geographical: (a) "Extreme low tide" means the lowest line on the land reached by a receding tide; (b) "Ordinary high water mark" on all lakes, streams, and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the department: PROVIDED, That in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water; (c) "Shorelines of the state" are the total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of state-wide significance" within the state; (d) "Shorelines" means all of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them; except (i) shorelines of state-wide significance; (ii) shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and (iii) shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes; (e) "Shorelines of state-wide significance" means the following shorelines of the state: (i) The area between the ordinary high water mark and the western boundary of the state from Cape Disappointment on the south to Cape Flattery on the north, including harbors, bays, estuaries, and inlets; (ii) Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent salt waters and the Strait of Juan de Fuca between the ordinary high water mark and the line of extreme low tide as follows: (A) Nisqually Delta -- from DeWolf Bight to Tatsolo Point, (B) Birch Bay -- from Point Whitehorn to Birch Point, (C) Hood Canal -- from Tala Point to Foulweather Bluff, (D) Skagit Bay and adjacent area -- from Brown Point to Yokeko Point, and (E) Padilla Bay -- from March Point to William Point; (iii) Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt waters north to the Canadian line and lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide; (iv) Those lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, with a surface acreage of one thousand acres or more measured at the ordinary high water mark; (v) Those natural rivers or segments thereof as follows: (A) Any west of the crest of the Cascade range downstream of a point where the mean annual flow is measured at one thousand cubic feet per second or more, (B) Any east of the crest of the Cascade range downstream of a point where the annual flow is measured at two hundred cubic feet per second or more, or those portions of rivers east of the crest of the Cascade range downstream from the first three hundred square miles of drainage area, whichever is longer; (vi) Those shorelands associated with (i), (ii), (iv), and (v) of this subsection (2)(e); (f) "shorelands" or "shoreland areas" means those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to be designated as to location by the department of ecology. Any county or city may determine that portion of aone-hundred-year-flood plain to be included in its master program as long as such portion includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land extending landward two hundred feet therefrom; (g) "Floodway" means those portions of the area of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified, under normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover condition. The floodway shall not include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state; (h) "Wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. (3) Procedural terms: (a) "Guidelines" means those standards adopted to implement the policy of this chapter for regulation of use of the shorelines of the state prior to adoption of master programs. Such standards shall also provide criteria to local governments and the department in developing master programs; (b) "Master program" shall mean the comprehensive use plan for a described area, and the use regulations together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals, and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020; (c) "State master program" is the cumulative total of all master programs approved or adopted by the department of ecology; (d) "Development" means a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this chapter at any state of water level; (e) "Substantial development" shall mean any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars, or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state; except that the following shall not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of this chapter: (i) Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire, or elements; (ii) Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single family residences; (iii) Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements; (iv) Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations; (v) Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys; (vi) Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter; (vii) Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and multiple family residences. This exception applies if either: (A) In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two thousand five hundred dollars; or (B) in fresh waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed ten thousand dollars, but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development for the purpose of this chapter; (viii) Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water for the irrigation of lands; (ix) The marking of property lines or corners on state owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water; (x) Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system; (xi) Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, if: (A) The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters; (B) The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including, but not limited to, fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; (C) The activity does not involve the installation of a structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity; (D) A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored to preexisting conditions; and (E) The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550; (xii) The process of removing or controlling an aquatic noxious weed, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the department of agriculture or the department jointly with other state agencies under chapter 43.21 C RCW. [1996 c 265 § 1. Prior: 1995 c 382 § 10; 1995 c 255 § 5; 1995 c 237 § 1; 1987 c 474 § 1; 1986 c 292 § 1; 1982 1st ex.s. c 13 § 2; 1980 c 2 § 3; 1979 ex.s. c 84 § 3; 1975 1st ex.s. c 182 § 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 203 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 286 § 3.] NOTES: Severability -- Effective date -- 1995 c 255: See RCW 17.26.900 and 17.26.901. Severability --1986 c 292: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1986 c 292 § 5.] Intent -- 1980 c 2; 1979 ex.s. c 84: "The legislature finds that high tides and hurricane force winds on February 13, 1979, caused conditions resulting in the catastrophic destruction of the Hood Canal bridge on state route 104, a state highway on the federal-aid system; and, as a consequence, the state of Washington has sustained a sudden and complete failure of a major segment of highway system with a disastrous impact on transportation services between the counties of Washington's Olympic peninsula and the remainder of the state. The governor has by proclamation found that these conditions constitute an emergency. To minimize the economic loss and hardship to residents of the Puget Sound and Olympic peninsula regions, it is the intent of 1979 ex.s. c 84 to authorize the department of transportation to undertake immediately all necessary actions to restore interim transportation services across Hood Canal and Puget Sound and upon the Kitsap and Olympic peninsulas and to design and reconstruct a permanent bridge at the site of the original Hood Canal bridge. The department of transportation is directed to proceed with such actions in an environmentally responsible manner that would meet the substantive objectives of the state environmental policy act and the shorelines management act, and shall consult with the department of ecology in the planning process. The exemptions from the state environmental policy act and the shorelines management act contained in RCW 43.21 C.032 and 90.58.030 are intended to approve and ratify the timely actions of the department of transportation taken and to betaken to restore interim transportation services and to reconstruct a permanent Hood Canal bridge without procedural delays." [1980 c 2 § 1; 1979 ex.s. c 84 § 1.] i ~~~ %/I - ~'~ 7i ~" ~ G ~~ - ' 1 59999-8(E9Z1L £L£98 tlM'dflllVMd 66S0-£L4 (90Z) JCVd 4644-CLi (90Z) 6L4L-60496 uo76wyso,N owoooj I N n no a ' ^ ' ' 7! OOZ S 47S£ 4i 5 t09Z QN J~ ? d~ 1 ~_ ~~ te C N OCLfit XOB O d ~ S39Nfd7l31N31'1I1N3910MJ ' c (L O ~UV~~aV~6Va O Q a G~ 3NA00 1121380M 1J~'10 `'~ ~ fi'~3/IL'b'Si7' NMVHO ~ 3 o Y a A1213d02ld 3N~10~ dNV Wt1N38 ~a w N~a v'~.~na'D'S a' azva Noumea Nom oN n3u ~ ~, `~ ~ 1Kld A2IVNIWIl321d ~ , :~~ ~ a ~ ~~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~~ H ~~d~ _ 3~ ~~I J Q _Z U G g a a ccZ G J a W O a W Z O Z Q Z W N ti ~2 o° N ~ Z ? ~ ~ H' Q W 3 ~~ ~Z zo U = 2 H ~` ~ ti: ~ z= o~ U' ~ W} ~~ ~o ~~ W U O Q Q =W ~s z ~° ~~ ~- x° .°. ~ ~~ o~ Z ~~ 66 ~Q`Q ~a m o ~~~ ~ ~ ~~a ~~~ ~~LL ~ S 9 O W iz~1 =3 ~ \ ~z~, Q ~ J ~a W /a W Q a/ 2 :, / U / ~ ~ ~~ o ~ 3 0~ ~_/ o~~. z ~ 'a ~ a/ ~Q ~~ Q ~ , } ~ -IU `~~ ar ~ ~ ~ , ~, \~ ~~~ \ ~i~~~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~~ / 3e ~ , ~, ~y~ s ~ ~, a '~ ~ ,°~ ~ y ~ ~~ ~ ~~ . ~~ y c d ~ ~~ . ! ,Fii ~ I~c! R ~ OOi / ~ .. 6Fi o ~7l I ~. x °~ 8. ~. a~ \1, Z O a U W W ~ ~ ~L J 1~ Q Z °~ -~ F Z Z o~ Z~ ~~ ay 3 m~ a F~ $ ~~ ~ a `o a° ~ $ S m `o ~ ~~T ` U 3 ~ > a r ro 'v; ~~ c ~$~~ E ~ s p E p So ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~c~ ~} ~y ~6 0~~3 ~ E y ~a~ W Q ly a ~. ~ Z, m ~y a C B ~ VJ LU ~ } ~ F ~ ~ ~{ ~4 ~ f m3~m : ~ ~ h ~ ~' ~ O ~ o ~ ~~c~l'`~' ~ a W . T ~W~~ ~m~$ m W ~ m J ~ W °"°-z~ W~~~~ 1- g U mg'ji'u'f ~¢z°O rc a ~ s 5 ~ 3uWia'~'c3 Q. ~ ~ /sE / , /OQ,O ~R~~G~ Z~ Z ~ o~ OZ ~~ ~~S m~~ U J ~ ~ a our,°~ o~~~ ~~~~ oWOo y~~~ a 3~~~ W o~ ~~~~~~. o~~ ~ y ~~~~W ~ ~o~LL o~~~ W ~ ~ Uy~ b5O W Z~~'~FK m ~~mRW W ~ W m k~ o ~~~ ` W W ~ U ~ y ~~~~~~a~ ~~~~~~~ N U C7 U Z Z~ ZN OV Q~ ~_ ~~ ~ J °z~ - ~- ~o J Z z zw. O~ H~ U~ N °tS ~~ Z Q~ j_ U 0 z ~CO ~ &~ F- I. ~°C.~ pa,s 5 li'} ~~~ ~ nd~ } ~ N ~ N ~ 3a c~ Z ~ ~ y ~ ~y g w n U8 Z ~ ~2~2 j. IFy2 ~~`1 '211 N^~~ Z ~a ~c~ ~ ~f^y~Z~3~ ~3H0~ fl'.OrL ~4~ O m n WN ~~1F ~ ~ > 05 N p'CK~LL ~~ ttl ~'~ t~I1~1~~NN~11~~~ N Ya'~ o. LL ~ZII~"trl~Fll~~ y ZUZ ZC~ ~ON7~~ " NO1LLy A. G 0 2 LL N ~~2b ~ ~uS y °~6 ~LLJ ~~~ ~ v~O O N ~7~Q NI~LL~ ~~ l+l~ _ $....o< t~..w m s~~~~~g~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pyy' 1 ~U~O~aZ MH~ } ~ } ----Original Message----- From: Tami Merriman [mailto:tmerriman@ywave.com] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:55 AM To: Shelly Badger; Perry Shea; Brent Dille Subject: Good Morning All: I need to arrange a meeting for us to discuss an upcoming project in Yelm. We will need legal advice, and knowledge and expertise on the Y3 proposal. I would like to arrange the meeting for Wednesday, June 12, 2002 between 1 pm - 3pm. I am not sure how long this meeting may run. Below is a little information on the proposal, and when we get the meeting arranged, I will forward all the information that I have to you to review prior to the meeting. I foresee the attendees of this meeting to be Shelly Badger, Brent Dille, Perry Shea, Grant Beck (new CDD Director), myself, and anyone else that you may suggest. The proposal is fora 108 lot residential subdivision on 28 acres (zoned R4, 4 units per acre.) The property is located on Wilkensen Road, at the very northeast corner of the City limits. Property owners Benum/Coyne. There are a couple of challenges with the site, but the biggest challenge is that the proposed Y3 corridor goes directly across the middle of the property, and will be a large overpass over the railroad. The proposed access on/off Wilkensen road is the only access to the industrial area. In the past, we have been somewhat successful with requiring open space dedicated to the City in the area of the proposed corridors. In this case, the Y3 area is too large to require the open space in the proposed area. The property owners are willing to discuss with us the possibility of placing the required open space in that area, and the additional possibility of selling the rest of the Y3 area to the City on a long term sales contract. There may be other options available to us. It would be good for us to meet to discuss and explore our options, before requesting the developer to make changes to his proposed plat. Please contact me to let me know if you are available on this date Thank you, Tami Merriman ~~ ~N.~~ City of Yelm Community Development Department ~ P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 (360) 458-3835 ~~-~,~~,, (360) 458-3144 FAX Memorandum To: Brent Dille, Perry Shea, Shelly Badger, Grant Beck, and Jim Gibson. From: Tami Merriman, Planning Technician Date: June 7, 2002 Re: Benum/Coyne Subdivision/Y-3 Issues Meeting on June 17, 2002 Hi All: Attached is the little bit of information that I have regarding the meeting we have arranged for June 17, 2002. The applicant is preparing to submit a preliminary plat application fora 108 lot subdivision. I spoke with Perry this morning, and he will try to provide an overlay of where the proposed Y3 corridor will be in regards to this site. That will be a great aid in our discussion. Thank you all in advance, and I look forward to seeing you on Monday the 17`n Tami Document2 ub~iu~uz i~:~=r r~,~ ~~;~ ars u3sa .~r~.~ ~;~vGtN~;xxl~tiu FAXITRANSMITTAL TO: Catherine Carlson City Planner , Ci of Yelm,. ,_ DATE: May 10, 2002 REGARDING: Benum and Goyne Pro e FI LEI?ASK: 27002!1 ~J UUl ~~ ~ngineering~ FAX NUMBER: _'360 458~t348 PHONE NUMBER: TOTAL PAGES: WE ARE TRANSMITTING THE FO1_LOWING: ^ For approvallreviewlcomment DATE: DESCRIPTION: ^ For your use COMMENTS: Dear Cathy: Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with Brian and me Wednesday morning, and for your insight on several issues affecting the development of the Benum and Coyne property. I like your idea of the "in-house" meeting involving City staff and City consultants for thy: discussion of the Y-3 corridor and the alternatives, constraints andlor opportunities that it presents to development of the Benum and Coyne property. Mr. Benum and Mr. Coyne, l and other members of our m, will be available to meet with the ~~ity on this topic following your in-house sessions. Please route a copy of t ' to Tammy a d to Shelly. COPY T0: 6enum Enterprises Inc., FAX: (253} 5398061 Attn: Bob Benum Attn: Bob Coyne - SENDER: Jarrl~s H. Crippen, P.E. Project 2601 South 35th, Suite 200 <<,~ / ~ Tacoma, Washington 98409, 4' 1 /~" (253) 473-4494 Fax: (253) 473-0599 PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMED1ATr=LY IF NOT RECEIVED PROPERLY Tami Merriman From: Cathie Carlson [carlson@yelmtel.com] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 9:15 AM To: Tami Merriman Subject: RE: upcoming plat that will need LOTS of help You sum that up great. One thought I had on a negotiating tool is the TFC - you can credit the entire project TFC for "purchase" of some of the r-o-w. Cathie -----Original Message----- From: Tami Merriman [mailto:tmerriman@ywave.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:02 PM To: Shelly Badger Cc: Cathie Carlson Subject: upcoming plat that will need LOTS of help Shelly: Cathie and I met with Apex Engineering regarding the Beman property out on Wilkensen Road. You may remember a previous pre-sub 2 years ago regarding this site. The engineer has been told to go forward with the project, and they are planning to submit the same plan as discussed before. Y3 goes right through the middle of the site, and it happens to be the overpass over the railroad. Not only will the applicant be dealing with the shoreline issues from the canal, but we have Y3 to deal with. We told them that we would like to work with the applicant in preparing for the Y3, by open space placement and to explore other options for preparing for the r-o-w issues. Cathie and I thought it would be a good idea for staff to meet prior to application submittal, to discuss our options, and be prepared to meet with the applicant to explore the different options that might be available to us. Her thought was for planning staff, you, Brent & Perry to meet. If you agree, can I arrange this meeting in the next couple of weeks? Please see me or Cathie if you need more information. Thanks Shelly Tami 1 December 28, 2001 Ms. Shelley A. Badger City Administrator City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue P.O. box 479 Yelm, WA. 98597 RE: LID Account #O1-019 Tax Parce164301200100 LID Account #O1-018 Tax Parce122717330100 Dear Ms. Badger: Robert & Ann Benum Robert & Barbara Coyne P.O. Box 73130 Puyallup, WA. 98373-0130 Enclosed please find our check #19760 in the amount of $27,775.27 in payment of our LID payment due October 15, 2000. This amount reflects principal, interest and any penalties due on this installment, and is based on a Notice of Payment due dated August 15, 2001 (copy attached). We are paying this amount in protest. Kindly allow me to provide you with a little background regarding our protest payment. We (Robert and Ann Benum, my wife and I) have owned this property since 1992. Knowing that it was our plan to develop the property into single family lots/homes, we needed sewage treatment capacity so we started the first step by annexing the property into the City to wait for the City to increase its sewer capacity. By our plan to development the property into single family residential lots and homes, we would be providing affordable housing for the City's resdidence and increasing the tax base for the City. We were informed that the City was in the process to increase its sewer treatment plant capacity. We were contacted by Mr. Gorman, the City Engineer and were requested to provide the City with an Easement across the North Easterly portion of our property to provide the City with an outfall line to the Centralia Power Canal. We agreed without any compensation or future consideration of any kind. We then, notified the City that we would, based on our 27+ acres (4 residential units to the acre), become involved in the ULID for 108 ERUs. Based on real estate market conditions, we have delayed the development of the land. Continued on page 2 Page 2 Ms. Shelley Badger During this time, we knew that the City had been researching a possible highway bypass for Yelm Avenue to mitigate an ever increasing traffic flow during peak traffic hours. We did not know, however, prior to requesting the full 108 ERUs that the planned route for the bypass would, when adopted by the City Council, go right through the middle of our property (200' right of way). This route and right of way renders some 5 acres of our property useless (the right of way area) and further renders the back 11-12 acres (that acreage furthest from Wilkenson Road) virtually useless as it would be extremely difficult to access that area given the proposed Y2/Y3 corridor. We requested the City to reduce the amount of our ULID commitment, but were told that would not be possible as they had already committed to the municipal bonds and had included all of our origina1108 ERUs toward this commitment. A few months ago I met with you and Cathy Carlson with a possible approach to providing awin/win situation for both the City and us as property owners. I proposed that the City enter into an agreement to purchase the right of way property from us with payment to be made some 8-10 years out and interest only payment during the interim time. We also proposed that we would donate the rear acreage to the City as a park or nature trail area. All this would be at an agreed upon price per acre. This would provide the City with low cost land (current acreage pricing) for its corridor, rather than wait for the actual time the land was needed and having to pay the increased price per acre. To date we have not reached any agreement on this proposal. Given the above issues surrounding the use of our property, we are paying the October 15, 2000 installment in protest and plan to pay the 2001 installment sometime in early 2002. Very truly yours, y~~~ 'C.... Robert L. Coyne, Jr. PLANNING DEPARTMENT (x) PW Dir. (x) City Admin. (x) City Planner (x) Building Off. (x) Mayor (x)Applicant (x);Posted (x) PW Secretary (x)'PW Supervisor THE FOLLOWING CASES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT YELM CITY HALL, 105 YELM AVE. WEST, IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. MEETING DATE: Wednesday, July 26th. 2000 -TIME PRE- SUB- h~iISSION ENVIRON-. MENTAL - REVIEW SITE PLAN REVIEW OTHER DESCRIPTION 1:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 2:30 p.m 3:00 p.m. 68 single family lots and 22 zero line duplex lots 3:30 p.m. Pre-submission meetings: Applicants and/or representatives are required to attend meeting. Environmental Review/Site Plan Review: Staff review only, applicants and/or representatives are not required to attend. If you plan to attend, please notify the Planning Department at 458-8408. C:\MyFilesIFORMSIWEEKSPR iJ~.''1~.'<<,t9Li 1,1:41 t,l1-45=-434L~ =~IT' _'' ~ _-'"~ - pF p~~ ~~~ '~~~ f 4 ~r~~. \\`., Y ELM 'A'ASHINGTO~+ ---~~~Y C3F YELI~I! PO Box 479 Yelm WA 98597 360458-3244 Presubmission Meefiing Request Form FAA' NAnP. OFFfC1AL USE QhiLY ~ Fee fl/A _ _ Data Received ay File No. A presubmisslon conference Is an opportunity for applicants, developer(!3) and/or consultar'ts to meet with city staff to discuss preliminary studies or sketches of a proposed project. At the conference the staff will malts available information relating to the proposed development. The Intent is to identify and eliminate as many potential problems as possible in order For the project to be processed without delay. The conference should take place prior to detailed work by an engineer ~r surveyor, however a site drawing must be submitted that has suffident information to allow for evaluation. Discussion topics will inGud® such things as Yelm's Comprehensive Plan, street design, storm runoff and retention, Shoreline Master Program, aonirtg, availability of sewer and water, development cpncspts, other requirements and permits, and the ernrironmental Impact. Staff not®s are prepared at~d available to review. There is nv charge for this meeting. Meetings are held each Wednesday. This request form should be . submitted by 5:00 p.m. at least one week before the preferred nteeting date. MEETING DATE REQUESTED / ~~ T ~ ••~ a/l? (a ednesday) i Time (a~moon only} APPi.ICANT acv ~'~u~'~'" k~'rft~ OWNERc f G/e(Ut ~~~ /~I~~ _„_ ADDRESS .~'- `f ` t' = ' ,af! ~~"':'~ ADDRESS ~ . l~ ~ TELEPHONE ~~h ' ~~:'-~~fJ"~ ~ TELEPHONE Cam'- SAS '~.S'.i.~ ~~~ ~~ REPRESENTATIVE (lf a y} ' ~.(®~.5 OCCUPATION ~ti'~ / ~d~~r'~-- ADDRESS ~ rr.~ I ~~ ~ ~~ TELEPHONE d S'~- Lf 3" - ~'~` / I ' General location of the project fn~'~'cff~'t ~ ~~' ~ ~~~' 3-- : `7~ i Section ~ s'w ~'! Township /~ __ kange Assessor's Tax Parcel Number ~~? ' 4' ~- ~ :'i a~c~ _ 'y "i- '~ - ~ t9 ' G~ Type of Project (Subdivision, Annexation, Zone Change, etc..} ,~~ ~ ~ ~~/ rotalacreage ~~• v'~ Proposed Density ~ ~ ~~-- Proposad Cand Uss:;° Ingle-ramAy Duplex Muitl-tarnily Mobile HomA Patio CammerrJal Industrial `" ~'r ~' i Srle~/f•descrl lion of p jest ~~g ~/~'w~-~ f~>'?%~~a ~~°~T.S A.'~ ~ ~ '~P~f',t~ "; -- i ~ Please attach five copies of a site plan drawing nol larger than 11" X 17"and forward to Yelm Clty Hall. C1TY OF YELM dslc:bffice~p,andept ccl6ppsb~esu0.app Pre-Application Meeting July 26, 2000 •**These comments are preliminary in nature and are not intended to represent final comments and or requirements for the City of Yelm. Until a complete application is made, the planning andlor public works department can only attempt to inform the applicant of general requirements as they appear in the form presented by the applicant at the time of pre-submission. Proponent: Bob Benum and Bob Coyne Project Proposal: Subdivide approximately 28 acres into 68 single family lots and 22 zero lot line duplex lots for a total of 112 units. Project Location: Between Wilkenson Road and Burlington Northern Railroad just north of the NP and Canal Road Intersection. Zoning: Low Density Residential (R-4), Chapter 17.12 Density: Maximum 4 units per acre. Minimum Lot Size -none Setbacks: Front yard - 15' from R-O-W, with a 20' driveway approach. Rear Yard - 25' Side yard -minimum 5', total both sides 12' Landscaping: Chapter 17.80, Type II, 111 and V. Type II - Open space and the perimeter of the site. Type III landscaping provides visual relief where clear sight is desired. This landscaping includes street trees and vegetation required with frontage improvements and landscaping to provide an attractive setting and overstory canopy. Type V landscaping is required for all storm water facilities. A conceptual landscaping plan including street trees is required with the application for Preliminary Plat. Final landscaping and irrigation plan is required as an element of civil construction drawings, with installation prior to final plat approval. Traffic: The City has adopted a Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) of $750.00 per pm peak trip. The Ordinance provides a default table that the applicant can use to determine new pm trips generated by the proposed use. A single family home generates 1.01 pm peak trips per unit. As proposed the TFC for each new unit is $757.50. The TFC is payable at time of building permit issuance. If the applicant feels the proposed use would not generate the default number of trips as designated in the TFC Ordinance an analysis prepared by a Traffic Engineer can be submitted to the City for review and consideration. In addition to the TFC a projects which generate 25 or more pm peak hour trips is required to submit a Transportation Impact Analysis. A scoping meeting will be necessary to establish the scope of the analysis. The TIA is considered an element of the application packet and must be submit at the time of application. CRITICAL AREAS: Shoreline of the State - 200' Jurisdictional Boundary. The Department of Ecology (DOE) has determined that the Centralia Power Canal is a shoreline of the state but has not classified or designated its type (i.e. rural, suburban, conservation.) The Shoreline designation will need to be determined by DOE prior to establishing setbacks, allowed densities and what if any shoreline permits are required. What the City has encourage for properties along Yelm Creek is to only develop areas outside of the 200' area and designate the 200' jurisdictional area as open space. The open space must be dedicated to the City. If all development is outside of the 200' the underlying density of 4 units per acre is allowed and no shoreline permit is required and we will not have to wait for a DOE determination of what the shoreline classification is. SEPA: Environmental checklist is required. Yelm School District requires applicants to mitigate impacts to the School District from residential growth. Each developer must negotiate an agreement with the School District. In the past mitigation fees for family residential have been $650.00. Open Space: All single family residential developments are required to provide 5%of the gross area in open space or pay a fee in lieu of. Open space shall be dedicated and have the following attributes and characteristics: 1. Environmental interpretation or other education; 2. Park, recreational land, or athletic fields; 3. Off-road footpaths or bicycle trails; or 4. Any other use found by the City to further the purposes of this chapter. If the Shoreline Jurisdiction area is used to meet your requirements for open space simple amenities such as a walking path and environmental signage will adequetely meet the requirement above. Improvements in the shoreline area must be less than $2,500.00 or a shoreline permit is required. Other: Thurston County Health Department Review may be required if any wells and/or septic systems are located within 100' of property. All wells and septic systems within 100' of the property must be shown on preliminary plat drawings. Application/ Process: Development of the site as a residential subdivision requires Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, including Environmental Review and potentially a Shoreline Permit. Preliminary Plat approval requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission with a final decision by the City Council. The environmental determination, shoreline permit and preliminary plat are'reviewed concurrently and can be completed in 16 - 20 weeks. Preliminary Plat approval is valid for 5 years. Preliminary subdivision approval typically contain conditions of approval that the applicant must complete prior to receiving final subdivision approval or permits for residential construction. Following land use approval the applicant is required to submit civil construction drawings to the Public Works Department for review and approval and satisfy all conditions of preliminary subdivision approval. Upon satisfactory completion the applicant submits the final documentation for final plat approval. Final Plat approval takes approximately 6 weeks from the time the City receives a completed application packet. PRE-SUBMISSION MEETING Date: July 26th, 2000 To: Bob Benum -Bob Coyne Jim Crippen /Apex Engineering From: Public Works Department RE: Wilkensen Road & Canal Road The Public Works Department has the following comments relative to the proposed site development located on Wilkensen/Canal Road: WATER: The proposed site is currently not serviced by the City's water system. The site would need to connect to the City's water system. A 10" PVC line is available on NP Road. The line will need to be extended across the entire property frontage. Interior waterlines will be sized according to the plat. Each proposed residential. unit will require one ERU. Water ERU's (equivalent residential units) are based on a consumption rate of 240 gallons per day and aze charged at a rate of $1,000/ERU (fee subject to change) inside city limits. These fees are due at building permit issuance. SEWER: The proposed site is currently not serviced by the City's STEP sewer system and therefore would need to connect to the City's system. It appears that the connection point would be on Rhoton Road and would require running the connection across the frontage of Wilkenson Road, however, this needs further review by the City's engineer. Each residential unit would require one ERU. Sewer ERU's (equivalent residential units) are based on discharge of 240 gallons per day. ERU's aze charged at the current rate of $4,850/ERU (fee subject to change). Additionally, there is an inspection fee in the amount of $145.00 /ERU. These fees aze due at building permit issuance. FIRE: Fire protection to the buildings must be provided per the Uniform Fire Code. There will be requirements for installation of fire hydrants. To be determined upon further review of plans. STORM WATER: If the proposed improvement is over 5,000 square feet of impervious surface there are stormwater treatment requirements per the D.O.E. Stormwater Manual. STREET FRONTAGE: Frontage improvements will be required for this project. Frontage improvements for Wilkerson Road need to be consistent with the section "Neighborhood Collector" per the City of Yelm's Development Guidelines. Interior roads need to be consistent with the section "Local Access Residential " STREET LIGHTING: As required per the City's "Development Guidelines". ADA REQUIREMENTS: To be determined upon further review of plans. OTHER: City of Yelm Business License. These comments are preliminary in nature and are not intended to represent final comments and or requirements for the City of Yelm. Until a complete application is made, the planning and/or public works department can only attempt to inform the applicant of general requirements as they appear in the form presented by the applicant at the time ofpre-submission. cc: SPR Committee File C:\My Documcnts\pre-subs\2000\72600.benum.coync.doc VARIES m 5' 7` 16' 16' -~ a `, °' h ~~ ~' I , ~ CEMENT CONC. BARRIER CURB i ,; i ~ ~ ;-o .t , ARiE$ ~~ ~ ~ b I 7 F' ~ ANa ~~ ~ ~ C(TY OF YELM DEPT. OF PUBLlC WORKS NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL NOTES: C O LLE C TO R 1. NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED. 2. REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE APPROVED oWG. No. DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL L~.-rJ' INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE. STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUC~t1JRE, ECT. 4-aeasti.nwc 1 ,~,.; , d~ ~-. ~, ~ ~ i I V i=- ~ ~- .ilk RAW ( R J1N R/W ~ R/W ~a' Ss' to• ^~ ~ 9.5' 1.5' 8' 7 ~~~ 11' T g'- ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~~. ~ m m rr m ~ WIRIES tii a~bU~EDT CU~C. IWD Gur~R GENERAL NOTES: 1. "ON STREET' PARKING PERMITTED. 2. REAPER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE. STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, ETC. +-~y~wo ..,. v O z CITY 0~' YELM DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS LOCAL ACCESS RESIDENTIAL 11PPRDVED DWG. NQ. 4-- 7 ~r~~-t~-R t c SIR i ~ C~ l ~~ FENCE FENCE 8.1 SHOULDER TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE SHOULDER BIKE VARES 244M g 3.66M 12' 3.66M 12' 2.MM 8' 12.38M (40~ MINIMUM VARIES 3.~ (1~ (STORM DRAINAGE AREA) 12.39M MIN~~ 18.29U 60 MINIMUM 18.29M 80 MINMUM 36.58M 120' R R "~ Typical Roadway Cross Section FENCE FENCE '1 g.1 SHWIDFR TRAVEL LANE LEFT TU LANE TRAVEL LANE SHOULDER BIKE VARIES 244M 8' 3.68M 12' 0-1.83M0-1.83M 3.86M 12' 2.44M 8 10.36M (34') MINMAUM. ARI PATH (0_8•) (o-8•) (STORM DRANAGE AREA) 3.OSM (10') 10.38M 34 MINIMUM 18.29M 60 MINMUM 18.29M 60' NIMUM 36.56M 120' R R ~ Typical Roadway Cross Section at Intersection ~ ~KE/PED SHOULDER TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE SHOULDER ~ '~ PATH 2' 244M (8' 3.66M (12') 3.66M (12') 2.44M (8') '? 2' 3.OSA1 (10') 6.71M 22' 2 10.36M 34' TOTAL MINIMUM `MDTH ~ f17.07M (f56') P fEMfl ' 1 80.96M (200') Rn R~ Vicinity of Railroad Crossing Between Railway Road and Wilkenson Road Figure 13 ' Proposed Roadway Sections for Y2 and Y3 4_1,,,.li,;~G14_t{t 1Et:41 F,E~-45=,-4=~4; =:IT~r' -~` ~--~''1 ~'~s:t ~=t1'41 .,,.y;i - ~~~~-aF YE~M / O ~ p~~ q~~ '~~~ PO Box 479 ~r~ Ye11Tt WA 98597 ~~~ ~~. 360-458-3244 ~' YEZ.~ Presubmission Meeting WASHINGTON Request Form OFFICIAL USE ONLY Fee „N!A - Date Received 9y - F11e No. __ A presubmisslon conference fs an opportunity for appllcanis, developer O and/or consultants to meet with city staff to discuss preliminary studies or sketches of a proposed p ~oJect. At the conference the staff will make available information relating to the proposed developme nt. The intent is to identify and eliminate as many potential problems as possible in order for the project to be processed without delay. The oonference should take place prior to detailed work by an engineer ~r surveyor, however a site must be submitted that has sufficient information to allow fore drawin luation. Discussion topics will g inGud® such things as Yelm's Comprehensive Plan, street design, storn h runoff and retention, Shoreline Master Program, zoning, availability of sewer and water, development c pncepts, offer requirements and permits, and the environmental Impact. Staff not®s are prepared ar hd available to review. There is no charge far this meeting. Meetings are held each Wednesday. This I; equest form should be . referred meeting submitted by 5:00 p.m. at least one week before the date. p L I ^ ~ ., n MEETING DATE REQUESTED_ (a Vednesday) ~ Time (aft moon only) APPLICANT ob t~u~ - ~ ~/~ OWNERS ~tn/ r/,Y,~-/~ ADDRESS -e- l ~ ~~ _ ADDRESS ~ ~ - I ~ TELEPHONE 2s~- ~ -~ TELEPHONE ~ g ~ "~S~-~ X83 7~ REPRESENTATIVE(lfa y} °. S OCCUPA ~ TION eV.•( ~p~(~ ADDRES5 a ~~ / ~ TELEPHONE ~S~- ~' ' ~~ ~~ ~r d~ General Location of the project W~~r~ ~^~ ®,~D ^'9`" ~ ~ Sw /'/ Township Sectlon nge _ Assessor's Tax Parcel Number -v ~~ o ~ c+et 22 - - ~ Zone Change, etc..} Annexatfon e of Protect (Subdlvl$lon T _ , ~ yp Total acreage 2~ o;~' Proposed Density Q Proposed Land Use: Ingle-tamby ou le Multa-family Mobile Hom o Park Commercial IndusGial ~descrfytlon of p ject ~i ~ ~-~ ~~~L Srlef A ^r Z~ ~~'1~~ , :C..c~'7' ~r i Please attach five copies of a site plan drawing not larger than 11" X 1 "and forward to Yelm Clty Hall. C1TY OF YELM dslc:btfice~plandept. oclapps~pres ub.app