Project Rev & CorrespondenceT _ _
~ _
l ~ t~ U~.-.Oy
Q
C
Or 'Cro
cG
c o~»a~ v ro~ i
~Y as
~
~'.% 4ro o'cu ~
~ ~ ~, ar
w
~ a m ~3
C a 'C.t U Y0 Q)'~ mo ,~ ~~_
'C U C ~
c C O~u:w
~ c •~ c CN~ro2 4C
~ ~ tNdUt6 C
ron roUE ioE
n
: m .~ E a. o~oy.~ LE ~~c co
p
O N ~ c6 C: -C Q1 ~ U ~ `-' N h N Y d
N T ~ OC N~ N N U
o
~ ~~ NON N~
~
~ m ~- ~ a~ o
m
~ ~ c 3 ro ~ E c~ F- o
~ Q_`~
~
~° N ro ,~ c •~
~
v On ~c°~a=oa
m ~
~
°-roc ~
~EaL~
m
3
'mo
` '
c wm m
a>
U UN N U]U y
t
o
f!/ UO~..
ai L m >~ ca m Q~ ~ ~~'" ~ y
m'g¢
aT ~ ~ o'ro
c
y
~
¢~ N -p U d Q.UN..,N
i~
m ~~ a
~
o C c vJ ° c~ ~
Ta.. ~x D
`°
N
~.e ~ ~' a
i
i
a a
•Qa ~ N ~ mv,°acn°
- m E o w
a
~am i
v
s
E>=' 'p`ro cE
T~c~'~N
~
tT
`Q~ ro ~,
~ m
h
®
as > a } n wv ~¢o~~° von' a~°_ro c
i ~c
t
C y0 U
mroU ro~ U
C~
o N
L ~ La O U ~~M.vN
C.a ~ > b
N
a
~~Q~ ro c
N,,C, N<?'N rNiC
~ `So
~tn
_
~ U
i ia
~.N C~.CE ZN Cep ro7
C
E
w a~
c.c
O~'~C N~~O
'
t
~ roa E.ro ~~ Qa o.otl
~
~~ ;O O dS
G t'[O. ~U~ Nom. row, oyc mya
'O yC YQ~ G7 y~
c
~ m
d
vo
~ e
i
E
:~
~
~~ cZ'a
c~~
~~ ~ ~ ~r t ~ Ny'~tuo,~
~ v
i N
c~a
~~ro
roaNiN o...o.h...°i
to
Y p a~ as O-
U U Z> LLpCL
N 1
~
~.
..ro~ l
C.~^ ^ ^ ~ NN
U~ A4]g
7004 X750 002 4377 2798
N
O
3
W
~_
1
m
Q
c
N
O
A
y ~
m
~ C
a'3
3 ~
m
m
v
m
0
0
O
~J
Ln
O
0
0
w
-wl
RJ
...0
O
N
b
N
~~ `~~ '~
J\~~
C~- Ci
(
r_
~~ _, _
\.i
~~
~`S ~y
~~
~ '~
~
~
r
~~ ('
V
' F
CYO ^ J
~
\`
W
A
N
A
N
a
v
W
^ ^ ^ ~
j 37 n 2
C (fl ,'1 N
N
~ d '~O
m ma ~ m
w,
J
O ~~
c
O ~ N
9 N
fD
N d.
O
N
N
N
y
7
a
N
7
^ ^ ^
O ~ ~ ~ ~ o
~ ~ ~~ A~
m ~f c "~
-wy fD ~N
0 0 o y vim,
~~a' m ~ y
~ c ~ a_,
o `~
m ~ ~ °' ~w
mwfDa~a
~ pnj t011 •z fa
a a`~ N D
N j D. N
~ O N O
N .~ ? N, O
3 O N ~ O
wc~av
~ m m
~ ~ m
m
m
a
a
N
m
a
0
.~
a
- N O
'gyp N
lL ~
N ~ O
m~ Z
U~~~
~o~m`
iia~a
W
U
W
J
F
O
H
H
O
Z
•
~ ~1
t
..
c
~t
+
J
a
N
C
~
i/)
co ~.~ j -~
y
m
~~ ~ ~.~
~ J ~~~
~ ~
3
~ ~ ,~,~ ~
o
~
~,
_
~L
Q
~
~v r J
,~
~..
C,
~
C c~a
~
•
a
a
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF YELM
REPORT AND DECISION
CASE NO,:_ ..SUB-05-Q0.11-YL -..MOUNTAIN SHADOW
,., _ _ _
APPLICANT: Bob Benum
P.O. Box 73130
..Puyallup, WA 9$373, -
AGENT:- -Apex Engineering - ~ ~ _
- -- 2601_ South 35th Street, Ste. 200
- Tacoma, WA 98409
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to allow subdivision of approximately
20 acres into 82 single family residential lots. 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 July 5, 2005.
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 .^
EXHIBIT "3" - Storm Drainage Plan
-1-
EXHIBIT "4" - Utility Connection
EXHIBIT "5" - Comprehensive Grading and Utility Plan
EXHIBIT "6" - Comprehensive Street and Planting Plan
EXHIBIT "7" - Email from Grant Beck re: condition no. 1
EXHIBIT "8" - Fax from Jim Crippen to Examiner re: condition no. 25
GRANT BECK appeared, presented the Community Development Department Staff
Report; and testified that the main issue concerning the plat is the SR-510 corridor. The
`- - -applicant will authorize the same condition as in the Mountain Sunrise plat which will defer
building permits on those lots affected by the corridor. Such will allow the State time to
acquire funds to purchase the right-of-way. The applicant has dedicated some property for
right-of-way in :addition and _has limited the number of lots within the corridor to 13. During
- ~ the subdivsfan process the State allocated $32 million for acquisition, buff such postdated
"~ `~' _ ~~ ~ Elie application and therefore is not considered. The bypass project eliminated a proposed- -
signalizedintersection at Wilkenson and replaced it with a roundabout. The applicant had
- to-redesign the plat to accommodate the roundabout. The previous design showed 27 lots
taken for the corridor and are now reduced to 13. Canal Road will terminate in a cul-de-
sac and therefore lots can access directly onto the road. The City will not allow parking until
installation of the cul-de-sac. The applicant must improve Wilkenson to the roundabout and
beyond that the State will assume responsibility. The Centralia trail is a trade-off for the
open space. The applicant will not apply for building permits for homes within the corridor
until building permits for all other lots have been issued. DOT may start acquiring property
Eater this. near.
JIM CRIPPEN, Apex Engineering, appeared and thanked staff for its professionalism and
the ability to work together over the past months. He introduced a revised site plan as
Exhibit "2" and a storm drainage plan as Exhibit"3". He also introduced Exhibit "4", a utility
connection, Exhibit "5", the comprehensive grading and utility plan, and Exhibit "6", the
comprehensive street and planting plan. The site consists of flat to rolling topography with
an elevation difference of 10 feet from south to north. The property falls from west to east
about four feet. The current use of the site consists of a single family dwelling and pasture.
The underlying Spanaway soils are free draining and they propose infiltration of storm
water. They will remove all structures and will decommission the one well per the Health
Department. The site is located in the R4 zone classification and they propose a density
of four dwelling units per acre. Public streets, City water, and City sewer will serve the site.
They will infiltrate roof drainage on each lot and will direct runoff from driveways and roads
to a catch basin and eventually to Tract A. They will treat the water before its infiltration
into the ground. They propose an average lot size of 7,200 square feet and will meet the
standard setbacks. They have shown setbacks on some irregularly shaped lots and have
identif~d the front yard. Two shared driveways will provide access to four homes. He
requested clarification of Condition No. 1. In Mountain Sunrise the City designed Wilkenson
as a Neigyhborhood Collector, but now requests its design as an urban arterial which is a
substantially difference standard. They have already constructed Wilkenson to the
-2-
Neighborhood Collector standards for the Mountain Sunrise division. Concerning Condition
No. 25, they have concerns with the absolute requirement. They request a rewriting of the
condition to require them to work with the State. They are close to final design and
development will follow the natural contours. They desire a finding of fact providing that the
project satisfies the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit. He
suggested the same finding as No. 19 in the Mountain Sunrise subdivision. The conditions
are identical. The site is located in an area of the City that is presently developing. The cul-
de-sac will not be installed until the bypass is completed..
MR. BECK reappeared and testified that .the language proposed for Condition 25 is
acceptable. Concerning Wilkenson, the primary area is between Canal Road and the end
loop. It will need a center turn lane. The .improvement may. not affect the construction,
standards as the center turn lane is the only difference in the. standards.
MR. CRIPPEN reappeared and testified that the applicant will do whatever the. City wants.
They prefer a mirror of the other side of the road.
No one spoke further in this matter. The Examiner left the record open for preparation of
agreed language for Conditions 1 and 25. The hearing was concluded.
NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the City of Yelm Community
Development Department
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. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 13, 2005.
3. 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 June 24, 2005.
Notice was also published in the Nisqually Valley News in the legal notice section
on June 24, 2005.
4. The applicant has a possessory ownership interest in a triangular, 20.55 acre parcel
of property located within the City of Yelm. Wilkenson Road abuts the parcel along
the east property line, the Centralia Power Canal abuts the north property line, and
Canal Road SE forms the hypotenuse of the triangle as it abuts the southwest
property line. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to allow subdivision
-3-
of the site into 82 single family residential lots with an average lot size of 7,244
square feet.
5. The preliminary plat map shows that the parcel abuts Wilkenson Road for 1,240
feet, the power canal for 1,350 feet, and Canal Road for 2,030 feet. The preliminary
plat map shows development of the site in two phases with Phase 1 located south
of the proposed SR-510/507 loop. Internal plat roads with two access onto Canal
Road -will serve- all lots within said phase. Phase 2, located north_ of the loop,
consists of 11 to#s served by a-cul-de=sac. road extending east from Canal Road.
- Tract A, a 1.41 acre stormwater facility, is located at the southwest corner of
Wilkenson Road and the canal, and Tract B, a 1.83 acre open space, will become
~: .park of he. SR-510 loop.
6. - T~e_Centraiia Power Canal conducts water diverted from the Nisqually River to a
hydroelectric generating facility located, westrof the City of Yelm. Pursuant to the
- State Shoreline Management Act, the 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. A single family
residential subdivision complies with uses conterraplated for tfae urban environment.
7. The City and the applicant have resolved the most serious issue affecting plat
approval. The parties have agreed to a method of preserving a transportation
corridor for the SR-510/SR-507 loop which will provide a bypass around the City for
travelers on both routes. As in the Mountain Sunrise subdivision abutting the east
side of Wilkenson Road, the applicant and the City have agreed to a revised
preliminary-plat (Exhibit "2") which provides no road connections between the two
phases of the plat (which would cross the corridor) and have also agreed that the
applicant will not request building permits for any lots within the corridor (lots 50, 51,
and 61-71) until permits have issued for all other lots. Such will allow the City and
the State of Washington to acquire funds to purchase the corridor. Upon acquisition
of the funds, the City and State will purchase the portion of the corridor crossing the
parcel to include the 13 lots therein. The corridor plans show a roundabout at the
intersection of the bypass with Wilkenson Road. Said road will become an arterial
and Canal Road will terminate at a cul-de-sac adjacent to the south right-of--way line
at the corridor. Canal Road will also terminate in a cul-de-sac on the north side of
the corridor. All lots in Phase 2 will access to the north and all lots in Phase 1 to the
south.
8. The site is located within the Low Density Residential (R4) zone classification which
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 area and
-4-
overall development coverage to 75% of the lot area. The project as designed
proposes 82 lots on 20.55 acres which calculates to a gross density of 3.99 dwelling
units per acre. Proposed lot sizes and configurations will allow structures to meet
all required setbacks and all other bulk regulations of the R4 zone classification.
9. Parcelsto the north across the Centralia Power Canal and parcels to the southwest
across Canal Road are located within unincorporated Thurston County. Parcels to
the southeast consist of agricultural lands and single family homes on large parcels.
-.The Nisqually Pines single family residential development is located northeast of the
-site across the-canal, and vacant parcels and residential uses abut the.. north .side
of the canal. The Mountain Sunrise subdivision to the east is also located in the R4
<-zone classification. While Thurston County has zoned parcels to the north and.
-- - southeast for- lower density residential .uses, the canal and Canal Road provide .
buffering between .the present project and the uses and lot size requirements in
Thurston County.
10. Chapter 14.12 YMC requires a plat applicant to dedicate a minimum of 5% of the
gross area of a new subdivision as usable open space, and further provides that no
..more than- 5% of such dedicated space- will consist of impermeable surfaces. To
mitigate the impacts of the SR-510/507 loop, the applicant proposes to dedicate
portions of the required loop right-of-way in lieu of providing a specific open space
tract. The City has accepted the proposal as the loop will include pedestrian trails
tha# will link to the future trail system incorporated into the Yelm/Roy Prairie Line
owned by the City. The plat makes appropriate provision for open space, parks and
recreation, and playgrounds.
11. A mitigating measure in the MDNS requires the applicant to enter a school
mitigation agreement with the Yelm School District to offset the impact on the district
of school aged children residing in the plat. The entry of such agreement will ensure
that the plat makes appropriate provision for schools and school grounds.
12. As previously found, the SR-507/510 loop will bisect the property. The City
previously 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. The State has recently
allocated $32 million for acquisition of property. The revision of the intersection of
Wilkenson Road from a traffic signal to a roundabout required the applicant to
redesign the plat. As previously found, the applicant has also agreed not to obtain
building permits for lots within the corridor until all other lots have secured building
permits, and has also agreed to dedicate Tract B to the City for right-of-way
purposes.
-5-
13. Based upon the above mitigation measures the City and the applicant have agreed
to the applicant constructing the western half of Wilkenson Road to a Neighborhood
Collector from its intersection with Canal Road to SR-510 except that the asphalt
width will equal 18 feet. The applicant will construct Canal Road as a local access
residential street based upon its closure at the loop right-of-way. The applicant will
construct the internal plat road serving the lots north ofi-the loop to a modified local
- -- ---access street with curb and gutter, two 11 foot wide travel-lanes,-a seven foot.wide...
parking lane, six foot wide planter strip, and five foot wideaidewalk within a 43 foot
right-of-way. The southern internal plat roads will consist of the same improvements
with the exception of a nine foot wide parking lane and a 51 foot wide right-of-way.
- 14. ~ Section 16.16.090 YMC requires that new subdivisions provide for the continuation
• _ ' -- ~ = of streets to adjoining subdivisions and to provide for the continuation of stew streets
- within the subdivision to adjacent parcels. The applicant -canno# meet these
~- requirements due to the parcel's triangular=shape and the location- of-the canal: The
parcel does not directly abut any developable- properties. The applicant will comply
with the City's transportation facility charge. The plat makes appropriate provision
- - -for streets, roads, alleys, and otherpublic ways.. - _ _ -
15. The City will provide both domestic-water and fire flow to the site and will likewise
provide sanitary sewer service to each lot. The developers of Mountain Sunrise
constructed both a waterline and sewer main in Wilkenson Road and the applicant
will connect to said lines and also participate in a latecomers agreement.
16. The applicant will construct the stormwater management facilities in accordance with
City standards which are found in the 1992 Department of Ecology's stormwater
Manual. Said standards require both treatment and control- of stormwater runoff.
Compliance with City standards will ensure that the preliminary plat makes
appropriate provision for drainage ways.
17. The applicant will construct sidewalks on both sides of internal plat roads, along the
northwest side of Canal Road, and along the west side of Wilkenson Road. The
applicant will also install street lighting necessary to provide safety for pedestrians,
vehicles, and homeowners. The plat makes appropriate provision for safe walking
conditions.
18. The applicant must comply with Chapter 17.80 YMC which sets forth the
landscaping criteria. Said chapter requires landscaping of the perimeter with Type
2 landscaping or in the alternative fencing. Because of the Centralia Power Canal,
Type 2 landscaping will be installed along the Wilkenson Road frontage and at the
back of lots 36 through 49.
-6-
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
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 for the SMP and
therefore satisfies-the requirements for a substantial development permit.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented
by this request. -
2. The applicant has shown that the proposed preliminaryplat of Mountain Shadow
satisfies all bulk regulations of the R4 zone classification of the XMC and is likewise
consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan for development of this area.
3. The applicant has shown 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, and safe walking conditions.
4. The proposed preliminary plat will serve the public use and interest by providing an
appropriate and attractive location for a single family residential subdivision which
will have convenient access to the SR-510/507 loop road as well as to downtown
Yelm. The preliminary plat also serves the public use and interest by limiting the
number of lots within the bypass corridor and by providing open space which it will
later dedicate to the City for right-of-way purposes. Therefore, the proposed
preliminary plat should be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The western half of Wilkenson Road shall be reconstructed as a
neighborhood collector street pursuant to the Yelm Development
Guidelines from its intersection with Canal Road to the catch point of the
proposed roundabout on the SR-510 Yelm Loop, provided that the
required asphalt width shall be 18 feet.
2. The northern half of Canal Road shall be reconstructed as a local access
-~-
residential street, provided that an 12 foot travel lane and 4 foot paved
shoulder shall be provided on the southern half of the road.
3. Internal streets within that portion of the subdivision south of the SR 510
Yelm Loop corridor will be constructed as a local access residential street
pursuant to the Yelm Development Guidelines, provided that a single
parking lane 9 feet in width shall be provided for a total right-of-way width
.. _ .. . _.. of 51 feet:.. .: _ . _ --. - _ -
" ~ - -° 4. ' The'fn#ernat-street in that portion of the subdivision north of the SR 510
Yelm Loop corridor will be constructed as a local access residential street
- pursuant to the Yelm Development Guidelines, provided that the street
should not incPude a parking lane; planter strip, or sidewalk on-the south - -
side of fihe street-for a total right=of-way width of 43 feet. -
- - 5. `The applicant shall-mitigate transportation impacts based on the--new peak -
- P.M. trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge
(TFC) shall be based on 1.01 new peak P.M. trips per single family
--- -- dwelling, `payable-at time of building permit issuance.
6. No building permit will be issued for any lot impacted or partially impacted
by the SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor (lots 50, 51, and 61 through 71) until
building permits have been issued for every lot outside the corridor. The
developer shall work with the Washington State Department of
Transportation prior to final subdivision approval towards the acquisition of
required right-of-way for the SR 510 Yelm Loop.
7. That portion of the SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor within tract B as identified
on the revised preliminary subdivision application shall be dedicated to the
City of Yelm for road right-of-way purposes.
8. All dwelling units within the subdivision shall connect to the City water
system. The connection fee and meter fee will be established at the time
of building permit issuance.
9. All requirements for cross connection control as required in Section 246-
290-490 WAC shall be met by the applicant.
10. The applicant shall pay the latecomer fee associated with the water line at
the time of connection.
11. All planting strips and required landscaping not located within 75' of a
hose spigot shall be served by an irrigation system with a separate water
-s-
meter and an approved backflow prevention device. The applicant shall
submit a final landscape and irrigation plan at the time of civil plan
submission.
12. Each dwelling within the subdivision shall connect to the City S.T.E.P.
sewer system. The connection fee and inspection fee will be established
- at the time of building permit issuance. ` -
-- - - ~ - 13. The applicant shall pay the latecomer-fee associated vvith the existing
- sewer line at the time of connection. - - -
- - - - : - -14. = Prior to submission of civil plans, a revised conceptual stormwater plan
-- shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review
and approval. The applicant shall design-and construct ail stormwater
facilities in accordance with the 1992 DOE stormwater Manual, as
- adopted by the City of Yelm. Best Management Practices (BMP's) are
required during construction. A 10-foot setback from all property lines and
easements are required for stormwater facilities.
- 15. All roof drain runoff shall be infiltrated on each lot utilizing individual
drywells.
16. 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.
17. 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. The applicant shall
submit fire flow calculations for all existing and proposed hydrants. All
hydrants must meet minimum City standards.
18. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of hydrant locks on
all fire hydrants required and installed as part of development. The
applicant shall coordinate with the Yelm Public Works Department to
purchase and install required hydrant locks. Hydrant lock details shall be
included in Civil Plan submission.
19. Street lighting and interior street lighting will be required. Civil plan
submittal shall include a lighting design plan for review and approval.
20. Prior to the submission final plat application, the applicant will provide the
-9-
Community Development Department an addressing map for approval.
21. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation requirements of the MDNS
issued on June 13, 2005.
22. The applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan with the
civil engineering plans to include the perimeter of the project site, planter
strips, and stormwater facilities. Type II landscaping shall be required-
along the 1Nikenson Road frontage at the back of lots 36 through 49.
23. The applicant shall provide a performance assurance device in order to
provide':for maintenance of the required landscaping:_ until the tenant or
homeowners' association,becomes responsible for landscaping -
maintenance: Thre perfofmance assurance-devie~-shall be 150 percent of
the anticipated cost to maintain the landscaping for-three years.
24. The driveway for lot 36 shall be from Canal Road. The driveway for lot
may be from Canal or the internal subdivision road. The driveway from lot
16 shall be from the internal subdivision road. - - - - -
25. The Developer shall work with the Washington State Department of
Transportation on the design of the precise location and elevation of the
internal subdivision roads that are adjacent to the SR-510 Yelm Loop in
order to avoid the use of structures to separate the Loop from the
subdivision roads.
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, 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.
-10-
DECISION:
The request for preliminary plat approval of Mountain Shadow is hereby granted subject
to the conditions contained in the conclusions above.
ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2005. %
--
_._ _
- STEPHEN IK. CAUSSEAUX, JR.
Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED this 20th day of July, 2005, to the following:
APPLICANT: Bob Benum
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
AGENT: Apex Engineering
2601 South 35th Street, Ste. 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
City of Yelm
Tami Merriman
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
-11-
CASE NO.: SUB-05-0011-YL -MOUNTAIN SHADOW
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 August 3. 2005 (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 further
-12-
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.
-13-
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF YELM
REPORT AND DECISION
CASE NO.: SUB-05-0011-YL -MOUNTAIN SHADOW
APPLICANT: Bob Benum
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
AGENT: Apex Engineering
2601 South 35`" Street, Ste. 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to allow subdivision of approximately
20 acres into 82 single family residential lots. 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 July 5, 2005.
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 St~.~ff Report and
Attachments
EXHIBIT " 2" - Revised Site Plan
EXHIBIT " 3" - Storm Drainage Plan
-1-
EXHIBIT "4" - Utility Connection
EXHIBIT "5" - Comprehensive Grading and Utility Plan
EXHIBIT "6" - Comprehensive Street and Planting Plan
EXHIBIT "7" - Email from Grant Beck re: condition no. 1
EXHIBIT "8" - Fax from Jim Crippen to Examiner re: condition no. 25
GRANT BECK appeared, presented the Community Development Department Staff
Report, and testified that the main issue concerning the plat is the SR-510 corridor. The
applicant will authorize the same condition as in the Mountain Sunrise plat which will defer
building permits on those lots affected by the corridor. Such will allow the State time to
acquire funds to purchase the right-of-way. The applicant has dedicated some property for
right-of-way in addition and has limited the number of lots within the corridor to 13. During
the subdivision process the State allocated $32 million for acquisition, but such postdated
the application and therefore is not considered. The bypass project eliminated a proposed
signalized intersection at Wilkenson and replaced it with a roundabout. The applicant had
to redesign the plat to accommodate the roundabout. The previous design showed 27 lots
taken for the corridor and are now reduced to 13. Canal Road will terminate in a cul-de-
sac and therefore lots can access directly onto the road. The City will not allow parking until
installation of the cul-de-sac. The applicant must improve Wilkenson to the roundabout and
beyond that the State will assume responsibility. The Centralia trail is a trade-off for the
open space. The applicant will not apply for building permits for homes within the corridor
until building permits for all other lots have been issued. DOT may start acquiring property
later this year.
JIM CRIPPEN, Apex Engineering, appeared and thanked staff for its professionalism and
the ability to work together over the past months. He introduced a revised site plan as
Exhibit "2" and a storm drainage plan as Exhibit "3". He also introduced Exhibit "4", a utility
connection, Exhibit "5", the comprehensive grading and utility plan, and Exhibit "6", the
comprehensive street and planting plan. The site consists of flat to rolling topography with
an elevation difference of 10 feet from south to north. The property falls from west to east
about four feet. The current use of the site consists of a single family dwelling and pasture.
The underlying Spanaway soils are free draining and they propose infiltration of storm
water. They will remove all structures and will decommission the one well per the Health
Department. The site is located in the R4 zone classification and they propose a density
of four dwelling units per acre. Public streets, City water, and City sewer will serve the site.
They will infiltrate roof drainage on each lot and will direct runoff from driveways and roads
to a catch basin and eventually to Tract A. They will treat the water before its infiltration
into the ground. They propose an average lot size of 7,200 square feet and will meet the
standard setbacks. They have shown setbacks on some irregularly shaped lots and have
identified the front yard. Two shared driveways will provide access to four homes. He
requested clarification of Condition No. 1. In Mountain Sunrise the City designed Wilkenson
as a Neighborhood Collector, but now requests its design as an urban arterial which is a
substantially difference standard. They have already constructed Wilkenson to the
-2-
Neighborhood Collector standards tor' the Mountain Sunrise division. Concerning Condition
No. 25, they have concerns with the absolute requirement. They request a rewriting of the
condition to require them to work with the State. They are close to final design and
development will follow the natural contours. They desire a finding of fact providing that the
project satisfies the requirements for a shoreline substantial development permit. He
suggested the same finding as No. 19 in the Mountain Sunrise subdivision. The conditions
are identical. The site is located in an area of the City that is presently developing. The cul-
de-sac will not be installed until the bypass is completed.
MR. BECK reappeared and testified that the language proposed for Condition 25 is
acceptable. Concerning Wilkenson, the primary area is between Canal Road and the end
loop. It will need a center turn lane. The improvement may not affect the construction
standards as the center turn lane is the only difference in the standards.
MR. CRIPPEN reappeared and testified that the applicant will do whatever the City wants.
They prefer a mirror of the other side of the road.
No one spoke further in this matter. The Examiner left the record open for preparation of
agreed language for Conditions 1 and 25. The hearing was concluded.
NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the City of Yelm Community
Development Department
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. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 13, 2005.
3. 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 June 24, 2005.
Notice was also published in the Nisqually Valley News in the legal notice section
on June 24, 2005.
4. The applicant has a possessory ownership interest in a triangular, 20.55 acre parcel
of property located within the City of Yelm. Wilkenson Road abuts the parcel along
the east property line, the Centralia Power Canal abuts the north property line, and
Canal Road SE forms the hypotenuse of the triangle as it abuts the southwest
property line. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to allow subdivision
-3-
of the site into 82 single family residential lots with an average lot size of 7,244
square feet.
5. The preliminary plat map shows that the parcel abuts Wilkenson Road for 1,240
feet, the power canal for 1,350 feet, and Canal Road for 2,030 feet. The preliminary
plat map shows development of the site in two phases with Phase 1 located south
of the proposed SR-510/507 loop. Internal plat roads with two access onto Canal
Road will serve all lots within said phase. Phase 2, located north of the loop,
consists of 11 lots served by a cul-de-sac road extending east from Canal Road.
Tract A, a 1.41 acre stormwater facility, is located at the southwest corner of
Wilkenson Road and the canal, and Tract B, a 1.83 acre open space, will become
park of the SR-510 loop.
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
State Shoreline Management Act, the 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. A single family
residential subdivision complies with uses contemplated for the urban environment.
7. The City and the applicant have resolved the most serious issue affecting plat
approval. The parties have agreed to a method of preserving a transportation
corridor for the SR-510/SR-507 loop which will provide a bypass around the City for
travelers on both routes. As in the Mountain Sunrise subdivision abutting the east
side of Wilkenson Road, the applicant and the City have agreed to a revised
preliminary plat (Exhibit "2") which provides no road connections between the two
phases of the plat (which would cross the corridor) and have also agreed that the
applicant will not request building permits for any lots within the corridor (lots 50, 51,
and 61-71) until permits have issued for all other lots. Such will allow the City and
the State of Washington to acquire funds to purchase the corridor. Upon acquisition
of the funds, the City and State will purchase the portion of the corridor crossing the
parcel to include the 13 lots therein. The corridor plans show a roundabout at the
intersection of the bypass with Wilkenson Road. Said road will become an arterial
and Canal Road will terminate at a cul-de-sac adjacent to the south right-of--way line
at the corridor. Canal Road will also terminate in a cul-de-sac on the north side of
the corridor. All lots in Phase 2 will access to the north and all lots in Phase 1 to the
south.
8. The site is located within the Low Density Residential (R4) zone classification which
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 area and
-4-
overall development coverage to 75% of the lot area. The project as designed
proposes 82 lots on 20.55 acres which calculates to a gross density of 3.99 dwelling
units per acre. Proposed lot sizes and configurations will allow structures to meet
all required setbacks and all other bulk regulations of the R4 zone classification.
9. Parcels to the north across the Centralia Power Canal and parcels to the southwest
across Canal Road are located within unincorporated Thurston County. Parcels to
the southeast consist of agricultural lands and single family homes on large parcels.
The Nisqually Pines single family residential development is located northeast of the
site across the canal, and vacant parcels and residential uses abut the north side
of the canal. The Mountain Sunrise subdivision to the east is also located in the R4
zone classification. While Thurston County has zoned parcels to the north and
southeast for lower density residential uses, the canal and Canal Road provide
buffering between the present project and the uses and lot size requirements in
Thurston County.
10. Chapter 14.12 YMC requires a plat applicant to dedicate a minimum of 5% of the
gross area of a new subdivision as usable open space, and further provides that no
more than 5% of such dedicated space will consist of impermeable surfaces. To
mitigate the impacts of the SR-510/507 loop, the applicant proposes to dedicate
portions of the required loop right-of-way in lieu of providing a specific open space
tract. The City has accepted the proposal as the loop will include pedestrian trails
that will link to the future trail system incorporated into the Yelm/Roy Prairie Line
owned by the City. The plat makes appropriate provision for open space, parks and
recreation, and playgrounds.
11. A mitigating measure in the MDNS requires the applicant to enter a school
mitigation agreement with the Yelm School District to offset the impact on the district
of school aged children residing in the plat. The entry of such agreement will ensure
that the plat makes appropriate provision for schools and school grounds.
12. As previously found, the SR-507/510 loop will bisect the property. The City
previously 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. The State has recently
allocated $32 million for acquisition of property. The revision of the intersection of
Wilkenson Road from a traffic signal to a roundabout required the applicant to
redesign the plat. As previously found, the applicant has also agreed not to obtain
building permits for lots within the corridor until all other lots have secured building
permits, and has also agreed to dedicate Tract B to the City for right-of-way
purposes.
-5-
13. Based upon the above mitigation measures the City and the applicant have agreed
to the applicant constructing the western half of Wilkenson Road to a Neighborhood
Collector from its intersection with Canal Road to SR-510 except that the asphalt
width will equal 18 feet. The applicant will construct Canal Road as a local access
residential street based upon its closure at the loop right-of-way. The applicant will
construct the internal plat road serving the lots north of the loop to a modified local
access street with curb and gutter, two 11 foot wide travel lanes, a seven foot wide
parking lane, six foot wide planter strip, and five foot wide sidewalk within a 43 foot
right-of-way. The southern internal plat roads will consist of the same improvements
with the exception of a nine foot wide parking lane and a 51 foot wide right-of-way.
14. Section 16.16.090 YMC requires that new subdivisions provide for the continuation
of streets to adjoining subdivisions and to provide for the continuation of new streets
within the subdivision to adjacent parcels. The applicant cannot meet these
requirements due to the parcel's triangular shape and the location of the canal. The
parcel does not directly abut any developable properties. The applicant will comply
with the City's transportation facility charge. The plat makes appropriate provision
for streets, roads, alleys, and other public ways.
15. The City will provide both domestic water and fire flow to the site and will likewise
provide sanitary sewer service to each lot. The developers of Mountain Sunrise
constructed both a waterline and sewer main in Wilkenson Road and the applicant
will connect to said lines and also participate in a latecomers agreement.
16. The applicant will construct the stormwater management facilities in accordance with
City standards which are found in the 1992 Department of Ecology's stormwater
Manual. Said standards require both treatment and control of stormwater runoff.
Compliance with City standards will ensure that the preliminary plat makes
appropriate provision for drainage ways.
17. The applicant will construct sidewalks on both sides of internal plat roads, along the
northwest side of Canal Road, and along the west side of Wilkenson Road. The
applicant will also install street lighting necessary to provide safety for pedestrians,
vehicles, and homeowners. The plat makes appropriate provision for safe walking
conditions.
18. The applicant must comply with Chapter 17.80 YMC which sets forth the
landscaping criteria. Said chapter requires landscaping of the perimeter with Type
2 landscaping or in the alternative fencing. Because of the Centralia Power Canal,
Type 2 landscaping will be installed along the Wilkenson Road frontage and at the
back of lots 36 through 49.
-6-
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
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 for the SMP and
therefore satisfies the requirements for a substantial development permit.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented
by this request.
2. The applicant has shown that the proposed preliminary plat of Mountain Shadow
satisfies all bulk regulations of the R4 zone classification of the YMC and is likewise
consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan for development of this area.
3. The applicant has shown 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, and safe walking conditions.
4. The proposed preliminary plat will serve the public use and interest by providing an
appropriate and attractive location for a single family residential subdivision which
will have convenient access to the SR-510/507 loop road as well as to downtown
Yelm. The preliminary plat also serves the public use and interest by limiting the
number of lots within the bypass corridor and by providing open space which it will
later dedicate to the City for right-of-way purposes. Therefore, the proposed
preliminary plat should be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The western half of Wilkenson Road shall be reconstructed as a
neighborhood collector street pursuant to the Yelm Development
Guidelines from its intersection with Canal Road to the catch point of the
proposed roundabout on the SR-510 Yelm Loop, provided that the
required asphalt width shall be 18 feet.
2. The northern half of Canal Road shall be reconstructed as a local access
-~-
residential street, provided that an 12 foot travel lane and 4 foot paved
shoulder shall be provided on the southern half of the road.
3. Internal streets within that portion of the subdivision south of the SR 510
Yelm Loop corridor will be constructed as a local access residential street
pursuant to the Yelm Development Guidelines, provided that a single
parking lane 9 feet in width shall be provided for a total right-of-way width
of 51 feet.
4. The internal street in that portion of the subdivision north of the SR 510
Yelm Loop corridor will be constructed as a local access residential street
pursuant to the Yelm Development Guidelines, provided that the street
should not include a parking lane, planter strip, or sidewalk on the south
side of the street for a total right-of-way width of 43 feet.
5. The applicant shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new peak
P.M. trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge
(TFC) shall be based on 1.01 new peak P.M. trips per single family
dwelling, payable at time of building permit issuance.
6. No building permit will be issued for any lot impacted or partially impacted
by the SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor (lots 50, 51, and 61 through 71) until
building permits have been issued for every lot outside the corridor. The
developer shall work with the Washington State Department of
Transportation prior to final subdivision approval towards the acquisition of
required right-of-way for the SR 510 Yelm Loop.
7. That portion of the SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor within tract B as identified
on the revised preliminary subdivision application shall be dedicated to the
City of Yelm for road right-of-way purposes.
8. All dwelling units within the subdivision shall connect to the City water
system. The connection fee and meter fee will be established at the time
of building permit issuance.
9. All requirements for cross connection control as required in Section 246-
290-490 WAC shall be met by the applicant.
10. The applicant shall pay the latecomer fee associated with the water line at
the time of connection.
11. All planting strips and required landscaping not located within 75' of a
hose spigot shall be served by an irrigation system with a separate water
-8-
meter and an approved backflow prevention device. The applicant shall
submit a final landscape and irrigation plan at the time of civil plan
submission.
12. Each dwelling within the subdivision shall connect to the City S.T.E.P.
sewer system. The connection fee and inspection fee will be established
at the time of building permit issuance.
13. The applicant shall pay the latecomer fee associated with the existing
sewer line at the time of connection.
14. Prior to submission of civil plans, a revised conceptual stormwater plan
shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review
and approval. The applicant shall design and construct all stormwater
facilities in accordance with the 1992 DOE stormwater Manual, as
adopted by the City of Yelm. Best Management Practices (BMP's) are
required during construction. A 10-foot setback from all property lines and
easements are required for stormwater facilities.
15. All roof drain runoff shall be infiltrated on each lot utilizing individual
drywells.
16. 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.
17. 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. The applicant shall
submit fire flow calculations for all existing and proposed hydrants. All
hydrants must meet minimum City standards.
18. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of hydrant locks on
all fire hydrants required and installed as part of development. The
applicant shall coordinate with the Yelm Public Works Department to
purchase and install required hydrant locks. Hydrant lock details shall be
included in Civil Plan submission.
19. Street lighting and interior street lighting will be required. Civil plan
submittal shall include a lighting design plan for review and approval.
20. Prior to the submission final plat application, the applicant will provide the
-9-
Community Development Department an addressing map for approval.
21. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation requirements of the MDNS
issued on June 13, 2005.
22. The applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan with the
civil engineering plans to include the perimeter of the project site, planter
strips, and stormwater facilities. Type II landscaping shall be required
along the Wikenson Road frontage at the back of lots 36 through 49.
23. The applicant shall provide a performance assurance device in order to
provide for maintenance of the required landscaping until the tenant or
homeowners' association becomes responsible for landscaping
maintenance. The performance assurance device shall be 150 percent of
the anticipated cost to maintain the landscaping for three years.
24. The driveway for lot 36 shall be from Canal Road. The driveway for lot
may be from Canal or the internal subdivision road. The driveway from lot
16 shall be from the internal subdivision road.
25. The Developer shall work with the Washington State Department of
Transportation on the design of the precise location and elevation of the
internal subdivision roads that are adjacent to the SR-510 Yelm Loop in
order to avoid the use of structures to separate the Loop from the
subdivision roads.
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, 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.
-lo-
DECISION:
The request for preliminary plat approval of Mountain Shadow is hereby granted subject
to the conditions contained in the conclusions above.
ORDERED this 20'" day of July, 2005.
STEPHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, JR.
Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED this 20t" day of July, 2005, to the following:
APPLICANT: Bob Benum
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
AGENT: Apex Engineering
2601 South 35t" Street, Ste. 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
City of Yelm
Tami Merriman
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
-11-
CASE NO.: SUB-05-0011-YL -MOUNTAIN SHADOW
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 August 3, 2005 (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 further
-12-
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.
-13-
07/06/05 05:46 FAr 259 47a 0599 APEY ENGINEERING IQ 001/001
TO_ Strpheu K_ Causseaux Jr. B~'~ ^ ~'1-`~1-L'
City of Yelna ^ OVERNIGHT
COMPANY Hearing Examiner
ADDRESS ^ COURIER
FAX ex
DATE: July 5, 2005 BUSINESS
~ngineerinq~
Preliminary Plat of Mt.
Shadow, City of Yelm Case
REGARDING: #SUB-OS-0011-YL BUSINESS FAX 253-272-6439
FILE/TASIL: 29177/0 TOTAL PAGES: 1
PLEASE FIND THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED:
COPIES DATE N0. DESCRIl'TiON
1 07-OS-OS I Fax Cover Sheet
WE ARE TRANSMITTING THE 1 OLLOWiNG:
~ For your approval/review/comment ^ For your use ^ Returned for corrections
Dear Mr. Examiner:
The Applicant respectfully requests that Staff Rccomme~idation #25 be rewritten to read as follows: "The Developer shall work with
the Washington State Department of Transportation on thz design of the precise location and elevation of the internal subdivision
roads that are adjacent to the SRSiO Yelm Loop in order to avoid the use of structures [o separate the Loop from the subdivision
roads"
City staff indicated their approval of the above reconstituted condition at today's hearing.
Sincerely,
James H_ Crippen, P.E.
Project Manager
COPY TO. Grant Berl:, Ciry of Yelm
$enum Enterprises Tnc., Attn. Bob Benum
FAX NUMBER: 3b0-458-3144
253-539-8061
SENDER:
bMATL:
2601 South 35'" Street, Suite 200
Tacoma, Washington 98409
(253) 473-4494
Fax: (253) 473-0599
.~ Page 1 of 1
~/~ 1
Christina Allen
From: "Grant Beck" <grantb@ci.yelm.wa.us>
To: <C.Allen@mcrilaw.com>; "Sherwin, Geoff' <Sherwin@ApexEngineering.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:20 AM
Subject: Mountain Shadow -Revised Condition 1
Christina -
At the hearing on the Mountain Shadow subdivision, the applicant and I came up with a revised condition number 1, which
Steve asked I email up. It is...
1. The western half of Wilkensen Road shall be reconstructed as a neighborhood collector street pursuant to the Yelm
Development Guidelines from its intersection with Canal Road to the catch point of the proposed roundabout on the SR 510
Yelm Loop, provided that the required asphalt width shall be l 8 feet.
Thank you!
Grant
Grant Beck, Director
City of Yelm
Community Development Department
P.O. Boa 479
Yelm, WA 98597
360.458.8408
360.4583144 (FAX)
grantb~ci.yelm.wa.us
7~6~2~~5
UTILITY' CONNECTION LOCATIONS
MOUNTAIN SHADOW
SCF~GE ~' ~/ T S.
- o I ~ ~-~ w ~ ~ --- --- - -
/ ,vy,~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ °a
i
9 ~i ~
- NW VIEW DR VIEW ® ~ \-~
- to I o ~~ ~ a ~ ~, ~',, Z ~ J" F' ~~
- W ~ X1200 i+rv cs~YS~~~ ~ ~ `9 ~" l
V I 42ND CT ~7fRJRSTCN C7 ~', J. ~ ~ ` ~~G(/~c~
T S NYV RYfOT T f~ ~ \ C~9
,3 ,8 934
' 000 ~ K~VfEW iNW QUAL AIEADQ4Yg CT 18 ~ ~ qC
2• ,9 I CT i ~ •~~ ~
- ~I fJTrl AlFtE l11 ~ _ ~ Q
- Z I MW KtNC~S UV 4~ CT O ~~
c~<'~ c~4 c~S c~ .fir ` v ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ c~~,.
~' ~"~~ '~Y ~ ~ 600 ~ ~Q • '
~~. ~~''~' ~ 5~ sr ~ z ~ 5~ ~ ~O c4~
~`
a
~ ~, ~ y e V7 9~ J~ R-30
~ cr ~ ~ ~i~ 5~ RAILWAY `A ~ P`' t~ W ~ cn-
4•~ Q`o ~ ,k, ~MIDDCEOy~~ ~ ~ ~ ~°~ S~ U Rf3~'Y \P~~O v ~ vWi
S~.
~~ cotf ~ ~ S'~
_ oyEC_~____ t5~ _-~
~ ~~
c~` °
507
~axvlF~ o
F5 2- t ` DR
,ruTU ev>` 104TH AVE SE
S ~ o ~ ~ 9
'~ ~t~. ~ Y ~T ~rcy. SF = , ~ T O
~9y \j ? t00TF~ WAY SE
,{c .~ ~y_ ~ `~~ ~ ~ f, ORT ~
~,~~~~,o'~ ~Fcs~~ ~\^F v ~S.`~/~ S~ S,~ CAF';
q,, 9 Q L
- ~ ------~-- w i9 >
`.~. .~ ~0~`~y~ v -~ -----'~--- ---------------- --
~~` ~ Q q` E iQ3R T SE ~~s I Yo ~ !2 ~ 1Q3R0 ST Sc
28.61 ~o ~ "'~ ~ ~
I NE ~~f S W ~j ~ ~ 9yQ
507 ~ ~ _ _`" _ `~~?~ ~ ~
~ Mountain Shadow 20+/.:acres
O Sanitary Sewer STEP System -City of Yelm
OO Water Main, '12~~ City of Yelm
O ?natural Gas -PSE
OO O.H. Po~t~er -PSE; O.H. & UG Telephone - Yelm Telephone
~~
,_---- -
Apex Engineering PLLC
Taco~,a, WA
January 3, 2005
~~29177
VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET
Please sign in and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list
to receive future agendas and minutes.
ALL CITY HEARING EXAMINER MEETINGS ARE AUDIO TAPED. FOR INFORMATION ON OBTAINING A
COPY PLEASE CALL YELM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 360-458-3835
MEETING: YELM HEARING EXAMINER DATE: JULY 5, 2005
TIME: 9:00 AM LOCATION: YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Hearing: 1. Country Vista -Case #SUB-05-0096-YL
2. Mountain Meadows -Case #SUB-05-0121-YL
3. Mountain Shadow -Case #SUB-05-0011-YL
NAME & ADDRESS MAILING LIST? /SPEAKER?
(Indicate which public hearing by
the assigned numbers above)
~l~r:s ~v 1GTf~~~ OI%r^p, ~ L~11.1 ./~ Pr n: 1Z~ Z Ilt~/Jn Lvu~ IUt U<<jw-~~., ~//~l )li..~~-V
~~ r
~enr~P~T,~ u {~'~ ~~eJ P~ g~X aU~ K~pr mss; n lc~ w. q ~ 3~~
JO~~-~ ~~~~~~.~~ ~~~~~~.ai~.~'S d~L~ ~i.h 1./~~'~.II 'In~.~ `~~ ~~.r
Case Number: SUB-05-0011-YL
Applicant: Bob Benum
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
Agent: Apex Engineering
2601 South 35th Street, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
Request: Subdivide approximately 20 acres into 82 single family
residential lots.
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Proposal
The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 20 acres into 82 single-family
residential lots. The property is zoned R-4 Low Density Residential, which allows up to
4 dwelling units per acre.
Property Characteristics
The property is located west of Wilkenson Road, north of Canal Road and south of the
Centralia Power Canal. The property is identified by Assessor's Tax Parcel numbers
22718440600 and 22718440100.
The subject property is bound on the north by the Centralia Power Canal, which is the
boundary of Yelm's Urban Growth Area. The area across the canal is zoned Rural
Residential 1/5 and is rural residential in character. To the east of the property is the
Mountain Sunrise subdivision, currently under construction. The area to the south of the
property is currently in unincorporated Thurston County and is zoned Light Industrial
(pre-zoned Industrial).
Notice of Application 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 January 19, 2005.
Notice of the date and time of the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner was
posted on the project site, mailed to the owners of property within 300 feet of the project
site, and mailed to the recipients of the Notice of Application and SEPA Determination
on June 24, 2005.
Notice of the date and time of the public hearing was published in the Nisqually Valley
News in the legal notice section on June 24, 2005.
Concurrency
Chapter 15.40 YMC requires the reviewing authority to determine that required urban
infrastructure is available at the time of development.
Concurrency with sewer infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section 15.40.020 (B)(1)
YMC when the project is within an area approved for sewer pursuant to the adopted
sewer comprehensive plan for the city and improvements necessary to provide city
standard facilities and services are present to meet the needs of the proposed
development.
Concurrency with water infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section 15.40.020 (B)(2)
YMC when the project is within an area approved for municipal water service pursuant
to the adopted water comprehensive plan for the city and improvements necessary to
provide city standard facilities and services are present.
Concurrency with transportation infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section
15.40.020 (5)(c) YMC when the project:
/ Makes on-site and frontage improvements consistent with city standards and
roads necessary to serve the proposed project consistent with safety and public
interest;
/ Makes such off-site facility improvements, not listed on the capital facilities plan,
as are necessary to meet city standards for the safe movement of traffic and
pedestrians attributable to the project;
/ Makes a contribution to the facilities relating to capacity improvements identified
in the adopted six-year traffic improvement program, in the form of a
transportation facility charge.
Concurrency with school infrastructure is achieved when the developer provides a letter
from the local school district that the school facilities impacted by the proposed
development are present, or are on an approved and funded plan, to assure that
facilities will be available to meet the needs and impacts of the proposed development.
State Environmental Policy Act
The City of Yelm SEPA Responsible Official issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-
significance based on WAC 197-11-158 on June 13, 2005. This determination is final
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 2 of 11
and fulfils the City's responsibility for disclosure of potential, significant environmental
impacts. The Hearing Examiner may take action to deny or condition the proposal
based on impacts identified in the environmental checklist or other environmental
documents.
The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance was issued with the following
conditions:
/ 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.
/ 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.
Lots Size and Setbacks
The Yelm Zoning Code does not establish minimum or maximum lot sizes, 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 for a flanking yard is 15 feet from the property line.
The lots within the proposed preliminary subdivision appear to contain sufficient area to
meet setback and lot coverage requirements, if conditioned as recommended.
Open Space
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)].
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 of a
new subdivision be dedicated as usable open space. Appropriate uses of dedicated
open space include:
/ Environmental interpretation or education
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 3 of 11
/ Parks, recreation lands, or athletic fields
/ Footpaths or bicycle trails
No more than five percent of any dedicated open spaces may be impermeable surfaces
and open space must be sited so as to be suitable for its intended purpose and at least
75% of the open space must be assessable to either the general public or all residents
of the associated development. Open space shall be dedicated at the time of final
subdivision approval.
As part of the mitigation of impacts to the SR 510 Yelm Loop from the proposed
subdivision, the applicant is dedicating portions of the required Loop right-of-way in lieu
of dedicating a specific open space tract. This is acceptable as the Loop will include
pedestrian trails that will link to the future trail system incorporated into the Yelm~Roy
Prairie Line owned by the City of Yelm.
Schools
New residential units create a demand for additional school services and facilities. The
Yelm School District requests that the applicant enter into an agreement with the school
district for the payment of mitigation fees based on the project's impact.
This request for a mitigation agreement between the applicant and the school district
became a condition of the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance issued pursuant
to the State Environmental Policy Act.
Transportation and Site Access
The SR 510 Yelm Loop will bisect the subject property when complete. The Loop is a
planned 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. The construction design of the Loop is currently being
completed and right-of--way acquisition has been funded.
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. The Yelm Comprehensive Transportation
Plan is adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The 510507 Loop is
identified as a project on the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Program.
The Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan establishes the following policy
regarding right-of-way...
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 4 of 11
To retain existing right-of-way and to identify, acquire, and preserve rights-of-
way.
The City intends to use the recommendations from this Transportation Plan to
identify current and future transportation system needs. The City will identify
specific transportation system needs. The City will identify specific transportation
corridors and alignments and locate and protect needed rights-of-way as soon as
possible. Some methods that will be used to acquire and preserve rights-of-way
include:
/ Requiring dedication of rights-of-way as a condition for development when
the need for such rights-of-way is linked to the development;
/ Requesting donations of rights-of-way to the public;
/ Purchasing rights-of-way by paying fair market value; and
/ Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.
The City also seeks to protect rights-of-way from encroachment by any structure,
substantial landscaping, or other obstruction to preserve the integrity of a
comprehensive plan recommendation. Protection methods that may be used
include a minimum setback requirement for property improvements to preserve
sufficient right-of-way to allow for expansion of roadways; and development of
specific guidelines regarding the installation and maintenance of any landscaping
within the public right-of-way.
In order to show consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to transportation
and, specifically, the SR 510 Yelm Loop, the applicant has agreed to the following
mitigating conditions:
/ No building permit will be issued for any lot impacted or partially impacted by the
SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor (lots 50, 51, and 61 through 71) until building permits
have been issued for every lot outside the corridor.
/ That portion of the SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor within tract B as shown on the
preliminary site plan shall be dedicated to the City for road right-of-way purposes.
In consideration of these mitigation measures, the City of Yelm recommends the
following changes to the Yelm Development Guidelines:
/ Frontage improvements to Wilkenson Road would be required from the
intersection with Canal Road to the catch point of the proposed roundabout on
the SR 510 Yelm Loop. Improvements would be to the urban arterial standard.
/ Canal Road, which is currently identified as a neighborhood collector by the
Development Guidelines, would be treated as a local access residential street.
After construction of the Loop, Canal Road will not be a through street and would
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 5 of 11
only serve the proposed subdivision and any development in the light industrial
property south of the road.
/ The northern internal roadway will be a modified local access street as follows
(south to north): curb and gutter, two 11 foot travel lanes, a 7 foot parking lane,
curb and gutter, a 6 foot planter strip, a 5 foot sidewalk. This modified section
requires 43 feet of dedicated right-of-way.
/ The southern internal roadways will be a modified local access street as follows:
a 6 foot planter strip, curb and gutter, a 9 foot parking lane, two 11 foot travel
lanes, curb and gutter, a 6 foot planter strip, and a 5 foot sidewalk. This modified
section requires 51 feet of dedicated right-of-way.
Chapter 16.16.090 YMC requires that the layout of new subdivisions provide for the
continuation of streets existing in adjoining subdivisions and to provide for the
continuation of new streets within the subdivision to adjacent properties that have not
been subdivided.
The proposal can not provide for connecting streets because of its triangular shape and
the location of the Centralia Power Canal to the north. There are no directly adjacent
properties to which to connect.
The completed project will increase traffic and impact the City's transportation system.
Chapter 15.40, 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.
Parking
Chapter 17.72 YMC requires minimum parking ratio of two spaces per dwelling unit,
which is typically met in subdivisions within a standard driveway. On-street parking is
allowed on both sides of local access residential streets.
Canal Road should be signed as `no parking' until the SR 510 Yelm Loop is constructed
and Canal Road becomes adead-end street.
Water System
The City's Water Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as being within the water
service area and the property is currently served by City water.
The current fee to connect to the City water system is $1,500.00 per Equivalent
Residential Unit (each ERU equals 900 cubic feet of water consumption per month).
There is an existing water main located in Wilkenson Road. The developers of the
Mountain Sunrise subdivision installed this waterline, and are in the process of creating
a latecomer's agreement which would impact the subject property.
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 6 of 11
The proposed subdivision would be required to connect to the City's water system and
the projects internal roadways will be required to have a water main installed to serve
fire hydrants and individual services.
Any existing wells on the property must be decommissioned pursuant to standards
established by the Washington Department of Ecology and any water rights associated
with these wells shall be dedicated to the City of Yelm.
An irrigation meter may be installed for the purpose of irrigation. A backflow prevention
device will be required for all landscape irrigation connections between the irrigation
system and the water meter. This also includes any individual irrigation systems that
may be located on any individual lot within the subdivision.
Identified in the 2002 City of Yelm Water Comprehensive Plan is a requirement to install
fire hydrant locks as part of the City's water conservation and accountability program.
In 2004, the City was also required to complete a vulnerability assessment in response
to the new homeland security measures as a result of 9/11.
Sewer System
The City's Sewer Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as being within the sewer
service area.
The current fee to connect to the City sewer system is $5,417.00 per Equivalent
Residential Unit (each ERU equals 900 cubic feet of water consumption per month).
Any existing on-site sewage disposal systems shall be abandoned per Thurston County
Health Department standards.
There is an existing sewer main located in Wilkenson Road. The developers of the
Mountain Sunrise subdivision installed this waterline, and are in the process of creating
a latecomer's agreement which would impact the subject property.
Stormwater Quality and Quantity
Impervious surfaces create stormwater runoff which, when uncontrolled and untreated
can create health, safety, and environmental hazards. The City of Yelm has adopted
the 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual, which requires all development to
treat and control stormwater.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary stormwater report which includes a
conceptual design for the treatment and infiltration of the stormwater. The Community
Development Department has reviewed this report and find that stormwater from the
site can be managed appropriately through the conceptual plan. Because the
conceptual stormwater plan was prepared prior to revisions in the site plan, the
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 7 of 11
applicant's engineer should submit an updated conceptual stormwater plan prior to civil
plan review.
stormwater facilities require continued maintenance to ensure they remain in proper
working condition.
Street Lighting
Adequate street lighting is necessary to provide safety to pedestrians, vehicles, and
homeowners. Street lighting is reviewed at the time of civil plan review in order to
assure adequate lighting.
Subdivision Name and Addressing
A subdivision name must be reserved with the Thurston County Auditor's Office prior to
submitting for final subdivision approval.
Addressing and street naming within the subdivision will be assigned by the Community
Development Department prior to application for final subdivision approval.
Landscaping
Landscaping and screening are necessary to provide screening between compatible
and incompatible land uses, to safeguard privacy and to preserve the aesthetic assets
of the City. Chapter 17.80 YMC requires all development to provide on site
landscaping.
The site is adjacent to properties that are compatibly zoned. Chapter 17.80 YMC
requires that the perimeter of the site be landscaped with a Type II landscaping. In
residential subdivisions the City allows fencing to meet the landscaping requirement for
the perimeter of the site. Landscape requirements shall be installed and approved prior
to application for final plat.
As the subdivision is flanked on the north by the Centralia Power Canal, on the south by
Rhoton Road, which will be considered a local access residential street and have
homes fronting the road, the only Type II landscaping that will be required will be along
the Wilkenson Road frontage at the back of lots 36 through 49.
Landscaping is required in open space and above ground stormwater facilities.
Chapter 17.80 YMC requires that at time of civil plan review and approval the applicant
provide the Community Development Department a detailed final landscape and
irrigation plan for approval.
Section 17.80.090 (F) YMC states that the owner/developer of any project requiring site
plan review approval, subdivision approval, or short subdivision approval shall provide a
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 8 of 11
performance assurance device in order to provide for maintenance of the required
landscaping until the tenant or homeowners' association becomes responsible for
landscaping maintenance. The performance assurance device shall be 150 percent of
the anticipated cost to maintain the landscaping for three years.
Staff Recommendation
The applicant has established that the proposed subdivision, if conditioned, 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.
The subdivision, if conditioned, 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 County Shoreline Master Program,
and the City of Yelm Development Guidelines.
The Hearing Examiner should approve the preliminary subdivision with the following
conditions:
1. The western half of Wilkenson Road shall be reconstructed as an urban arterial
street pursuant to the Yelm Development Guidelines from its intersection with
Canal Road to the catch point of the proposed roundabout on the SR 510 Yelm
Loop.
2. The northern half of Canal Road shall be reconstructed as a local access
residential street, provided that an 12 foot travel lane and 4 foot paved shoulder
shall be provided on the southern half of the road.
3. Internal streets within that portion of the subdivision south of the SR 510 Yelm
Loop corridor will be constructed as a local access residential street pursuant to
the Yelm Development Guidelines, provided that a single parking lane 9 feet in
width shall be provided for a total right-of-way width of 51 feet.
4. The internal street in that portion of the subdivision north of the SR 510 Yelm
Loop corridor will be constructed as a local access residential street pursuant to
the Yelm Development Guidelines, provided that the street should not include a
parking lane, planter strip, or sidewalk on the south side of the street for a total
right-of-way width of 43 feet.
5. The applicant shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new peak P.M.
trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 9 of 11
based on 1.01 new peak P.M. trips per single family dwelling, payable at time of
building permit issuance.
6. No building permit will be issued for any lot impacted or partially impacted by the
SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor (lots 50, 51, and 61 through 71) until building permits
have been issued for every lot outside the corridor. The developer shall work
with the Washington State Department of Transportation prior to final subdivision
approval towards the acquisition of required right-of-way for the SR 510 Yelm
Loop.
7. That portion of the SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor within tract B as identified on the
revised preliminary subdivision application shall be dedicated to the City. of Yelm
for road right-of-way purposes.
8. All dwelling units within the subdivision shall connect to the City water system.
The connection fee and meter fee will be established at the time of building
permit issuance.
9. All requirements for cross connection control as required in Section 246-290-490
WAC shall be met by the applicant.
10. The applicant shall pay the latecomer fee associated with the water line at the
time of connection.
11. All planting strips and required landscaping not located within 75' of a hose
spigot shall be served by an irrigation system with a separate water meter and an
approved backflow prevention device. The applicant shall submit a final
landscape and irrigation plan at the time of civil plan submission.
12. Each dwelling within the subdivision shall connect to the City S.T.E.P. sewer
system. The connection fee and inspection fee will be established at the time of
building permit issuance.
13. The applicant shall pay the latecomer fee associated with the existing sewer line
at the time of connection.
14. Prior to submission of civil plans, a revised conceptual stormwater plan shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval.
The applicant shall design and construct all stormwater facilities in accordance
with the 1992 DOE stormwater Manual, as adopted by the City of Yelm. Best
Management Practices (BMP's) are required during construction. A 10-foot
setback from all property lines and easements are required for stormwater
facilities.
15. All roof drain runoff shall be infiltrated on each lot utilizing individual drywells.
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 10 of 11
16. 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.
17. 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. The applicant shall submit fire flow calculations for all
existing and proposed hydrants. All hydrants must meet minimum City
standards.
18. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of hydrant locks on all fire
hydrants required and installed as part of development. The applicant shall
coordinate with the Yelm Public Works Department to purchase and install
required hydrant locks. Hydrant lock details shall be included in Civil Plan
submission.
19. Street lighting and interior street lighting will be required. Civil plan submittal shall
include a lighting design plan for review and approval.
20. Prior to the submission final plat application, the applicant will provide the
Community Development Department an addressing map for approval.
21. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation requirements of the MDNS issued
on June 13, 2005.
22. The applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan with the civil
engineering plans to include the perimeter of the project site, planter strips, and
stormwater facilities. Type II landscaping shall be required along the Wikenson
Road frontage at the back of lots 36 through 49.
23. The applicant shall provide a performance assurance device in order to provide
for maintenance of the required landscaping until the tenant or homeowners'
association becomes responsible for landscaping maintenance. The performance
assurance device shall be 150 percent of the anticipated cost to maintain the
landscaping for three years.
24. The driveway for lot 36 shall be from Canal Road. The driveway for lot may be
from Canal or the internal subdivision road. The driveway from lot 16 shall be
from the internal subdivision road.
25. Internal subdivision roads that are adjacent to the SR 510 Yelm Loop shall be
constructed to match the grade of the loop in order to avoid the use of structures
to separate the Loop from the roadways.
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 11 of 11
~~,~~ THgp~~ City of Yelm
d
Community Development Department
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 479
YELM Yelm, WA 98597
WASHINGTON
Case Number: SUB-05-0011-YL
Applicant: Bob Benum
P.O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
Agent: Apex Engineering
2601 South 35th Street, Suite 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
Request: Subdivide approximately 20 acres into 82 single family
residential lots.
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Proposal
The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 20 acres into 82 single-family
residential lots. The property is zoned R-4 Low Density Residential, which allows up to
4 dwelling units per acre.
Property Characteristics
The property is located west of Wilkenson Road, north of Canal Road and south of the
Centralia Power Canal. The property is identified by Assessor's Tax Parcel numbers
22718440600 and 22718440100.
The subject property is bound on the north by the Centralia Power Canal, which is the
boundary of Yelm's Urban Growth Area. The area across the canal is zoned Rural
Residential 1/5 and is rural residential in character. To the east of the property is the
Mountain Sunrise subdivision, currently under construction. The area to the south of the
property is currently in unincorporated Thurston County and is zoned Light Industrial
(pre-zoned Industrial).
Notice of Application 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 January 19, 2005.
Notice of the date and time of the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner was
posted on the project site, mailed to the owners of property within 300 feet of the project
site, and mailed to the recipients of the Notice of Application and SEPA Determination
on June 24, 2005.
Notice of the date and time of the public hearing was published in the Nisqually Valley
News in the legal notice section on June 24, 2005.
Concurrency
Chapter 15.40 YMC requires the reviewing authority to determine that required urban
infrastructure is available at the time of development.
Concurrency with sewer infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section 15.40.020 (B)(1)
YMC when the project is within an area approved for sewer pursuant to the adopted
sewer comprehensive plan for the city and improvements necessary to provide city
standard facilities and services are present to meet the needs of the proposed
development.
Concurrency with water infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section 15.40.020 (B)(2)
YMC when the project is within an area approved for municipal water service pursuant
to the adopted water comprehensive plan for the city and improvements necessary to
provide city standard facilities and services are present.
Concurrency with transportation infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section
15.40.020 (5)(c) YMC when the project:
/ Makes on-site and frontage improvements consistent with city standards and
roads necessary to serve the proposed project consistent with safety and public
interest;
/ Makes such off-site facility improvements, not listed on the capital facilities plan,
as are necessary to meet city standards for the safe movement of traffic and
pedestrians attributable to the project;
/ Makes a contribution to the facilities relating to capacity improvements identified
in the adopted six-year traffic improvement program, in the form of a
transportation facility charge.
Concurrency with school infrastructure is achieved when the developer provides a letter
from the local school district that the school facilities impacted by the proposed
development are present, or are on an approved and funded plan, to assure that
facilities will be available to meet the needs and impacts of the proposed development.
State Environmental Policy Act
The City of Yelm SEPA Responsible Official issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-
significance based on WAC 197-11-158 on June 13, 2005. This determination is final
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 2 of 11
and fulfils the City's responsibility for disclosure of potential, significant environmental
impacts. The Hearing Examiner may take action to deny or condition the proposal
based on impacts identified in the environmental checklist or other environmental
documents.
The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance was issued with the following
conditions:
/ 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.
/ 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.
Lots Size and Setbacks
The Yelm Zoning Code does not establish minimum or maximum lot sizes, 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 for a flanking yard is 15 feet from the property line.
The lots within the proposed preliminary subdivision appear to contain sufficient area to
meet setback and lot coverage requirements, if conditioned as recommended.
Open Space
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)].
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 of a
new subdivision be dedicated as usable open space. Appropriate uses of dedicated
open space include:
/ Environmental interpretation or education
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 3 of 11
/ Parks, recreation lands, or athletic fields
/ Footpaths or bicycle trails
No more than five percent of any dedicated open spaces may be impermeable surfaces
and open space must be sited so as to be suitable for its intended purpose and at least
75% of the open space must be assessable to either the general public or all residents
of the associated development. Open space shall be dedicated at the time of final
subdivision approval.
As part of the mitigation of impacts to the SR 510 Yelm Loop from the proposed
subdivision, the applicant is dedicating portions of the required Loop right-of-way in lieu
of dedicating a specific open space tract. This is acceptable as the Loop will include
pedestrian trails that will link to the future trail system incorporated into the Yelm~Roy
Prairie Line owned by the City of Yelm.
Schools
New residential units create a demand for additional school services and facilities. The
Yelm School District requests that the applicant enter into an agreement with the school
district for the payment of mitigation fees based on the project's impact.
This request for a mitigation agreement between the applicant and the school district
became a condition of the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance issued pursuant
to the State Environmental Policy Act.
Transportation and Site Access
The SR 510 Yelm Loop will bisect the subject property when complete. The Loop is a
planned 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. The construction design of the Loop is currently being
completed and right-of-way acquisition has been funded.
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. The Yelm Comprehensive Transportation
Plan is adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. The 510507 Loop is
identified as a project on the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Program.
The Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan establishes the following policy
regarding right-of-way...
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 4 of 11
To retain existing right-of-way and to identify, acquire, and preserve rights-of-
way.
The City intends to use the recommendations from this Transportation Plan to
identify current and future transportation system needs. The City will identify
specific transportation system needs. The City will identify specific transportation
corridors and alignments and locate and protect needed rights-of-way as soon as
possible. Some methods that will be used to acquire and preserve rights-of-way
include:
/ Requiring dedication of rights-of-way as a condition for development when
the need for such rights-of-way is linked to the development;
/ Requesting donations of rights-of-way to the public;
/ Purchasing rights-of-way by paying fair market value; and
/ Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.
The City also seeks to protect rights-of-way from encroachment by any structure,
substantial landscaping, or other obstruction to preserve the integrity of a
comprehensive plan recommendation. Protection methods that may be used
include a minimum setback requirement for property improvements to preserve
sufficient right-of-way to allow for expansion of roadways; and development of
specific guidelines regarding the installation and maintenance of any landscaping
within the public right-of-way.
In order to show consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to transportation
and, specifically, the SR 510 Yelm Loop, the applicant has agreed to the following
mitigating conditions:
/ No building permit will be issued for any lot impacted or partially impacted by the
SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor (lots 50, 51, and 61 through 71) until building permits
have been issued for every lot outside the corridor.
/ That portion of the SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor within tract B as shown on the
preliminary site plan shall be dedicated to the City for road right-of-way purposes.
In consideration of these mitigation measures, the City of Yelm recommends the
following changes to the Yelm Development Guidelines:
/ Frontage improvements to Wilkenson Road would be required from the
intersection with Canal Road to the catch point of the proposed roundabout on
the SR 510 Yelm Loop. Improvements would be to the urban arterial standard.
/ Canal Road, which is currently identified as a neighborhood collector by the
Development Guidelines, would be treated as a local access residential street.
After construction of the Loop, Canal Road will not be a through street and would
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 5 of 11
only serve the proposed subdivision and any development in the light industrial
property south of the road.
/ The northern internal roadway will be a modified local access street as follows
(south to north): curb and gutter, two 11 foot travel lanes, a 7 foot parking lane,
curb and gutter, a 6 foot planter strip, a 5 foot sidewalk. This modified section
requires 43 feet of dedicated right-of-way.
/ The southern internal roadways will be a modified local access street as follows:
a 6 foot planter strip, curb and gutter, a 9 foot parking lane, two 11 foot travel
lanes, curb and gutter, a 6 foot planter strip, and a 5 foot sidewalk. This modified
section requires 51 feet of dedicated right-of-way.
Chapter 16.16.090 YMC requires that the layout of new subdivisions provide for the
continuation of streets existing in adjoining subdivisions and to provide for the
continuation of new streets within the subdivision to adjacent properties that have not
been subdivided.
The proposal can not provide for connecting streets because of its triangular shape and
the location of the Centralia Power Canal to the north. There are no directly adjacent
properties to which to connect.
The completed project will increase traffic and impact the City's transportation system.
Chapter 15.40, 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.
Parking
Chapter 17.72 YMC requires minimum parking ratio of two spaces per dwelling unit,
which is typically met in subdivisions within a standard driveway. On-street parking is
allowed on both sides of local access residential streets.
Canal Road should be signed as `no parking' until the SR 510 Yelm Loop is constructed
and Canal Road becomes adead-end street.
Water System
The City's Water Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as being within the water
service area and the property is currently served by City water.
The current fee to connect to the City water system is $1,500.00 per Equivalent
Residential Unit (each ERU equals 900 cubic feet of water consumption per month).
There is an existing water main located in Wilkenson Road. The developers of the
Mountain Sunrise subdivision installed this waterline, and are in the process of creating
a latecomer's agreement which would impact the subject property.
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 6 of 11
The proposed subdivision would be required to connect to the City's water system and
the projects internal roadways will be required to have a water main installed to serve
fire hydrants and individual services.
Any existing wells on the property must be decommissioned pursuant to standards
established by the Washington Department of Ecology and any water rights associated
with these wells shall be dedicated to the City of Yelm.
An irrigation meter may be installed for the purpose of irrigation. A backflow prevention
device will be required for all landscape irrigation connections between the irrigation
system and the water meter. This also includes any individual irrigation systems that
may be located on any individual lot within the subdivision.
Identified in the 2002 City of Yelm Water Comprehensive Plan is a requirement to install
fire hydrant locks as part of the City's water conservation and accountability program.
In 2004, the City was also required to complete a vulnerability assessment in response
to the new homeland security measures as a result of 9/11.
Sewer System
The City's Sewer Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as being within the sewer
service area.
The current fee to connect to the City sewer system is $5,417.00 per Equivalent
Residential Unit (each ERU equals 900 cubic feet of water consumption per month).
Any existing on-site sewage disposal systems shall be abandoned per Thurston County
Health Department standards.
There is an existing sewer main located in Wilkenson Road. The developers of the
Mountain Sunrise subdivision installed this waterline, and are in the process of creating
a latecomer's agreement which would impact the subject property.
Stormwater Quality and Quantity
Impervious surfaces create stormwater runoff which, when uncontrolled and untreated
can create health, safety, and environmental hazards. The City of Yelm has adopted
the 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual, which requires all development to
treat and control stormwater.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary stormwater report which includes a
conceptual design for the treatment and infiltration of the stormwater. The Community
Development Department has reviewed this report and find that stormwater from the
site can be managed appropriately through the conceptual plan. Because the
conceptual stormwater plan was prepared prior to revisions in the site plan, the
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 7 of 11
applicant's engineer should submit an updated conceptual stormwater plan prior to civil
plan review.
stormwater facilities require continued maintenance to ensure they remain in proper
working condition.
Street Lighting
Adequate street lighting is necessary to provide safety to pedestrians, vehicles, and
homeowners. Street lighting is reviewed at the time of civil plan review in order to
assure adequate lighting.
Subdivision Name and Addressing
A subdivision name must be reserved with the Thurston County Auditor's Office prior to
submitting for final subdivision approval.
Addressing and street naming within the subdivision will be assigned by the Community
Development Department prior to application for final subdivision approval.
Landscaping
Landscaping and screening are necessary to provide screening between compatible
and incompatible land uses, to safeguard privacy and to preserve the aesthetic assets
of the City. Chapter 17.80 YMC requires all development to provide on site
landscaping.
The site is adjacent to properties that are compatibly zoned. Chapter 17.80 YMC
requires that the perimeter of the site be landscaped with a Type II landscaping. In
residential subdivisions the City allows fencing to meet the landscaping requirement for
the perimeter of the site. Landscape requirements shall be installed and approved prior
to application for final plat.
As the subdivision is flanked on the north by the Centralia Power Canal, on the south by
Rhoton Road, which will be considered a local access residential street and have
homes fronting the road, the only Type II landscaping that will be required will be along
the Wilkenson Road frontage at the back of lots 36 through 49.
Landscaping is required in open space and above ground stormwater facilities.
Chapter 17.80 YMC requires that at time of civil plan review and approval the applicant
provide the Community Development Department a detailed final landscape and
irrigation plan for approval.
Section 17.80.090 (F) YMC states that the owner/developer of any project requiring site
plan review approval, subdivision approval, or short subdivision approval shall provide a
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 8 of 11
[ '~
.~ S ;
~~~ ~~ ~ ~~
r
performance assurance device in order to provide for maintenance of the required
landscaping until the tenant or homeowners' association becomes responsible for
landscaping maintenance. The performance assurance device shall be 150 percent of
the anticipated cost to maintain the landscaping for three years.
Staff Recommendation
The applicant has established that the proposed subdivision, if conditioned, 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.
The subdivision, if conditioned, 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 County Shoreline Master Program,
and the City of Yelm Development Guidelines.
The Hearing Examiner should approve the preliminary subdivision with the following
conditions:
~;~~~. ra~~ ~
1. The western half of Wilkenson Road shall be reconstructed as an rteriat-~
street pursuant to the Yelm Development Guidelines from its intersection with ~
Canal Road o t e catch point of the proposed ro nd bout on the SR 510 Yelm
~ ~-- ~- - ~
Loop ~'° ,~ ,~ °,~- ~ -~,~-- ` ` n s~ ~ ~~ .. a ~ ~ «~,~ -z:
2. The northern half of Canal Road shall be reconstructed as a local access
residential street, provided that an 12 foot travel lane and 4 foot paved shoulder v
shall be provided on the southern half of the road.
3. Internal streets within that portion of the subdivision south of the SR 510 Yelm
Loop corridor will be constructed as a local access residential street pursuant to
the Yelm Development Guidelines, provided that a single parking lane 9 feet in
width shall be provided for a total right-of-way width of 51 feet.
4. The internal street in that portion of the subdivision north of the SR 510 Yelm
Loop corridor will be constructed as a local access residential street pursuant to
the Yelm Development Guidelines, provided that the street should not include a
parking lane, planter strip, or sidewalk on the south side of the street for a total
right-of-way width of 43 feet.
5. The applicant shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new peak P.M.
trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be ~
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 9 of 11
based on 1.01 new peak P.M. trips per single family dwelling, payable at time of
building permit issuance.
6. No building permit will be issued for any lot impacted or partially impacted by the
V SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor (lots 50, 51, and 61 through 71) until building permits
have been issued for every lot outside the corridor. The developer shall work
with the Washington State Department of Transportation prior to final subdivision
approval towards the acquisition of required right-of-way for the SR 510 Yelm
Loop.
7. That portion of the SR 510 Yelm Loop corridor within tract B as identified on the
~~ revised preliminary subdivision application shall be dedicated to the City of Yelm
for road right-of-way purposes.
8. All dwelling units within the subdivision shall connect to the City water system.
The connection fee and meter fee will be established at the time of building
permit issuance.
9. All requirements for cross connection control as required in Section 246-290-490
WAC shall be met by the applicant.
10. The applicant shall pay the latecomer fee associated with the water line at the
time of connection.
11. All planting strips and required landscaping not located within 75' of a hose
spigot shall be served by an irrigation system with a separate water meter and an
approved backflow prevention device. The applicant shall submit a final
landscape and irrigation plan at the time of civil plan submission.
12. Each dwelling within the subdivision shall connect to the City S.T.E.P. sewer
system. The connection fee and inspection fee will be established at the time of
building permit issuance.
13. The applicant shall pay the latecomer fee associated with the existing sewer line
at the time of connection.
Prior to submission of civil plans, a revised conceptual stormwater plan shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval.
The applicant shall design and construct all stormwater facilities in accordance
with the 1992 DOE stormwater Manual, as adopted by the City of Yelm. Best
Management Practices (BMP's) are required during construction. A 10-foot
setback from all property lines and easements are required for stormwater
facilities.
15. All roof drain runoff shall be infiltrated on each lot utilizing individual drywells.
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 10 of 11
16. 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.
17. 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. The applicant shall submit fire flow calculations for all
existing and proposed hydrants. All hydrants must meet minimum City
standards.
18. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of hydrant locks on all fire
hydrants required and installed as part of development. The applicant shall
coordinate with the Yelm Public Works Department to purchase and install
required hydrant locks. Hydrant lock details shall be included in Civil Plan
submission.
19. Street lighting and interior street lighting will be required. Civil plan submittal shall
include a lighting design plan for review and approval.
20. Prior to the submission final plat application, the applicant will provide the
Community Development Department an addressing map for approval.
21. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation requirements of the MDNS issued
on June 13, 2005.
22. The applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan with the civil
engineering plans to include the perimeter of the project site, planter strips, and
stormwater facilities. Type II landscaping shall be required along the Wikenson
Road frontage at the back of lots 36 through 49.
23. The applicant shall provide a performance assurance device in order to provide
for maintenance of the required landscaping until the tenant or homeowners'
association becomes responsible for landscaping maintenance. The performance
assurance device shall be 150 percent of the anticipated cost to maintain the
landscaping for three years.
24. The driveway for lot 36 shall be from Canal Road. The driveway for lot may be
from Canal or the internal subdivision road. The driveway from lot 16 shall be
from the internal subdivision road.
~5. Internal subdivision roads that are adjacent to the SR 510 Yelm Loop shall be
- constructed to match the grade of the loop in order to avoid the use of structures
~-- to separate the Loop from the roadways.
,f-~-~- Gov ~ ~v
SUB-05-0011-YL Page 11 of 11
/ ~~~ T1H~ p
~4
eri
YELM
WASHINGTON
City of Yelm
Community Development Department
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, WA 98597
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
YELM HEARING EXAMINER
DATE: Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, City Hall
105 Yelm Ave West
Yelm, Washington
PURPOSE: Public Hearing to receive comments regarding the following applications
Case Number SUB-05-0096-YL (Country Vista). A proposal by Landshapes Northwest, Inc., to
subdivide 3.01 acres into 16 residential lots on property located west of Mountain View Road
south of Buckhorn Estates on assessor parcel number 21713310200.
Case Number SUB-05-0121-YL (Mountain Meadows). A proposal by Henrietta Morey to
subdivide 4.88 acres into 23 residential lots on property located east of Burnett Road near the
northern end of the road on assessor parcel numbers 21713310400, 21713310401, and
2171310402.
Case Number SUB-05-0011-YL (Mountain Shadow). A proposal by Bob Benum to subdivide
approximately 20 acres into 82 residential lots on property located west of Wilkenson Road and
north of Canal Road on assessor parcel numbers 22718440600 and 22718440100.
The City of Yelm Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the
proposals. The Hearing Examiner will make a decision on the matter within 10 days after the
hearing.
Testimony may be given at the hearings or through any written comments. Comments must be
received by the close of the public hearing. Such written comments may be submitted to the
City of Yelm at the address shown above or mailed to: City of Yelm, 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 Tami
Merriman 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, call the City Clerk, Agnes
Bennick, at (360) 458-8404, at least 4 days before the meeting.
ATTEST:
City of 1Yelm
/~ ; ~~
~~ ~-%C~~
Ag Bennick, City Clerk
~~
DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE
Published in the Nisqually Valley News: Friday, June 24, 2005.
Posted in Public Areas: Friday, June 24, 2005.
LAW OFFICES ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~"
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA, PETERSON &DAHEIM LLP
TACOMA OFFICE
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100
POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98401-1157
(253) 620-6500
FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565
WARREN R. PETERSON (1926-1909)
THOMAS L. FISHBURNE (1939-1987)
VALEN H. HONEYWELL 11916-2002)
ALBERT R. MALANCA (1927-2005)
REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE
WARREN J. DAHEIM
JOE GORDON, JR.
MARK G. HONEYWELL, P.S.
WILLIAM E. HOLT
JOHN C. GUADNOLA
DONALD W. HANFORD
TIMOTHY J. WHI TTERS
WILLIAM T. LYNN
KENNETH G. KIEFFER
JAMES C. WALDO
J. RICHARD CREATURA
DONALD S. COHEN
ROBERT C. GRAYSON
VICTORIA L. VREELAND
JOHN R. CONNELLY, JR.
ALAN D. MACPHERSON
DIANE J. KERO
BRADLEY A. MA%A
SALVADOR A. MUNGIA
WARREN E. MARTIN
EI LEEN S. PETERSON
F. MIKE SHAFFER
BRADLEY B. JONES
TERRY L. BRINK
MARGARET Y. ARCHER
MICHAEL T. PFAU
SANDRA J. AOVAI
MELISSA K. LADENBURG
DARRELL L. COCHRAN
DAVID P. MOODY
BRADLEY G. DAMS
STEPHANIE L. BLOOMFIELD
AMANDA M. O'HALLORAN
DAVID B. JENSEN
JOAN C. FOLEY
TIMOTHY L. ASHCRAFT
JULIE E. DICKENS
VALARIE ZEECK
THADDEUS P. MARTIN.
DIANNE K. CONWAY
STEVEN REICH
BRUCE KAIEGMAN
PATRI CIA PEARSON
ROBERT CALDWELL
JONGWON YI
JEMIMA MCCULLUM
J.D. SMITH
LOREN A. COCHRAN
LINCOLN C. BEAUREGARD
SUE O'REI LLY
BRADLEY BUCKHALTER
MICHELLE MENELY
MARY QUAGLIANO
DURHAM MCCORMICK
LARA FOWLER
YVONNE MATTSON
PETER EGLI CK
JANE KIKER
SEATTLE OFFICE
ONE UNION SQUARE
600 UNIVERSITY, SUITE 2100
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-4185
(206) 676-7500
FACSIMILE (206) 676-7575
OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH H. GORDON
W. WALLACE CAVANAGH, JR.
L. R. GHS LARDUCCI, JR.
ELIZABETH PIKE MARTIN
CHARLOTTE N. CXALKER
DONALD H. THOM PSON
DALE L. CARLISLE, P.S.
THOMAS J. GR EENAN
LEWIS ELLSWORTH
DiYect Dial Ta~Ie: (253) 620-6493
Direct Dial Seattle: (206) 676-6493
F11ai1 Fd~ess: tbriJila~th-]aw.mn
PR?V~LEUED AND CONrTDENTiAL
June 27, 2005
Robert E. Benum, President
BENUM ENTERPRISES, INC.
P. O. Box 73130
Puyallup, WA 98373
RE: Mountain Shadow Preliminary Plat
Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor Issue
Dear Bob:
We are sending this letter to you in response to your request for an updated opinion with
regard to the question of whether the City of Yelm has lawful authority to require you as a land
developer to alter the site layout and to accommodate the potential future right-of--way for the
Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor. In revisiting this issue, we resurrected a couple of documents
that are relevant to the question. We are enclosing a copy of a letter that was sent to City
administrator Shelly Badger on August 13, 2002. We are also enclosing a copy of the
Letter/Memorandum that was submitted to the Pierce County Hearing Examiner on July 11,
2003 during the Public Hearing regarding the Mountain Sunrise Preliminary Plat (the
"Letter/Memorandum").
Both of the enclosed documents discuss the issue that is the subject of your inquiry. The
Letter/Memorandum addresses the issue in some detail throughout the document also citing
relevant and applicable statutory and common law.
It is our understanding that the City of Yelm has not made any monetary offer of
compensation for any of the property that is situated within the proposed Y2/Y3 Transportation
[1315067 v2]
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL
MALANCA, PETERSON £~ DAHEIM LLP
June 27, 2005
Page 2
Corridor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is our further understanding that you have
voluntarily elected to cooperate with the City of Yelm by designing the site plan for the
Mountain Shadow Preliminary Plat such that a significant amount of open space will be situated
within the proposed Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor. Moreover, we are also advised that you
have increased the quantity of the open space nearly to double what is required thereby
essentially donating approximately 1 acre of land towards the future Y2/Y3 Transportation
Corridor. Finally, we are advised that you have 13 lots situated within the proposed Y2/Y3
Transportation Corridor.
In light of the foregoing, as far as we know, the analysis set forth in the attached
documents still applies and there would be no obligation on your part to alter the site plan layout
to accommodate the potential future right-of--way. According to the information you provided,
you have voluntarily designed the Mountain Shadow Preliminary Plat in such a manner as to:
(i) include a required open space tract; (ii) include an added non-required open space tract; and
(iii) align lot lines of adjacent lots in order to minimize the number of lots to be taken if the
Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor Project should become a reality. If you have any questions
regarding any of the foregoing comments, please give me a call at 253.620.6493.
You s very truly,
_.._
_..
_~
Terr L. Brink
TLB:bf
[1315067 v2]
LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA, PETERSON 8~ DAHEIM LLP
TACOMA OFFICE
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2200
POST OFFICE BOX 1157
TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98401-1157
(253) 620-6500
FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565
WARREN A. PETERSON (1926-1989)
THOMAS L. FISHBURNE (1939-1987)
REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE
Dv.'ect Dial T~sna: (253) 620-6493
Direct IIial Sa3ttle: (206) 676-6493
IIn3i1 AdrheBB: N..; ntrr ~rh-]yW,mn
ALBERT R. MALANCA
WARREN J. DAHEIM
JOE CORDON, JR.
DENNIS S. HARLOWE
MARK G. HONEYWELL, P.S.
'WILLIAM E. HOLT
RONALD B. LEIGHTON
JOHN C. GUADNOLA
DONALD W. HANFORD
TIMOTHY J. WHI TTERS
WILLIAM T. LYNN
KENNETH G. KI EFFER
JAMES C. WALDD
ROBERT G. HUTCHINS, P.S.
MATTHEW W. STANLEY
J. RICXAAD CREATURA
MICHAEL D. HITT
DONALD S. COHEN
ROBERT C. GRAYSON
VICTORIA L. VREELAND
JOHN A. CONNELLY, JR.
ALFRED M. FALK
ALAN D. MACPHERSON
DIANE J. KERO
C. JAMES FRUSH
BRADLEY A. MAXA
SALVADOR A. MUNGIA
WARREN E. MARTIN
EILEEN S. PETERSON
F. MIKE SHAFFER
BRADLEY B. JONES
TERRY L. BRINK
MATTHEW A. REIBER
JAMES T. SEELY
MARGARET Y. ARCHER
LINDA CJ LEE
MICHAEL T. PFAU
SANDRA J. ROVAI
JAMES B. MEADE
MELISSA K. BRYAN
DARRELL L. COCHRAN
DAVID P. MOODY
BRADLEY G. MVIS
STEPHANIE L. BLOOMPIELD
AMANDA M. O'HALLORAN
DAVID B. JENSEN
JOAN C. FOLEY
TIMOTHY L. ASHCRAFT
JULIE E. DICKENS
T. LEE HUMPHREYS
VALARIE ZEECK
THADDEUS P. MARTIN
DIANNE K. CONWAY
MICHELLE A. MENELY
LAURA WESELMANN
LAFCADIO DARLING
BAIAN LADENBURG.
MARIA DELANGE
STEVEN SITEK
STEVEN REICH
J. BRADLEY BUCKIL4LTER
STONE GRISSOM
JASON SCHAUER
S. SHAWN TACEY
BRUCE KRIEGMAN
GARY E. HOOD
LARI SSA PAYNE
PATRICIA PEARSON
ROBERT CALDWELL
JONGWON YI
JEMIMA MCCULLUM
J.D. SMITH
SEATTLE OFFICE
ONE UNION SQUARE
600 UNIVERSITY, SUITE 2100
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-4185
(206) 676-7500
FACSIMILE (206) 676-7575
OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH H. GORDON
W. NALLACE CAVANAGH, JR.
L. R. GHILARDUCCI, JA.
ELIZABETH PIKE MARTIN
CHARIATTE N. CHALKER
DONALD H. THOMPSON
GALE L. CARLISLE, P.S.
THOMAS J. GREENAN
LEWIS ELLSWORTH
August 13, 2002
SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
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 firm represents Robert Benum and Robert L. Coyne, Jr., who are the owners of the
above-referenced property. We are advised that our clients attended apre-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 in conjunction 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 with the
[1186321 v8]
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
making 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 damaging; (ii) of private property; (iii) for public use; (iv) without just compensation 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 maybe 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 v8J
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 ''/z" 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 has
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
§ 16.12.040 and YMC § 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/I'3 Transportation Corridor. If litigation becomes necessary,
[1186321 v8]
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 v8]
LAW OFFICES
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL, MALANCA, PETERSON &DAHEIM LLP
TACOMA OFFICE ALBERT R. MALANCA
WARREN J. DAHEIM
1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 JOE GORDON, JR.
POST OFFICE BOX 1157 MARK G. HONEYWELL, P.S.
WILLIAM E. HOLT
TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98401-1157 JOHN c. cUADNOLA
(253) 620-6500 DONALD W. HANFORD
TIMOTHY J. WHITTERS
FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565 WILLIAM T. LYNN
KENNETH G. KIEPFER
- JAMES C. WALDO
WARREN R. PETERSON X1926-1989) ROBERT G. HUTCHINS, P.S.
THOMAS L. FISHBURNE (1939-196'1) MATTHEW W. STANLEY
VALEN N. HONEYWELL (1916-2002) J. RICHARD CREATURA
_ DONALD S. COHEN
ROBERT C. GRAYSON
REPLY TO TACOMA OFFICE VICTORIA L. VREELAND
JOHN R. CONNELLY, JR.
ALAN D. MACPHERSON
Di.TecC Dial TdLt7IB: (253) 620-6493 DIANE J. KERO
Dixec[ Dial Sa3ttle: (206) 676-6493 C. JAMES FRUSx
Fhgil ~Bg: [~jDj~~y-]~ ~~ BRADLEY A. MA%A
SALVADOR A. MUNGIA
WARREN E. MARTIN
EILEEN S. PETERSON
F. MIKE SHAFFER
BRADLEY B. JONES
TERRY L. BRINK
MARGARET Y. ARCHER
LINDA CJ LEE
MICHAEL T. PFAU
SANDRA J. ROVAI
JAMES B. MEADE
MELISSA K. BRYAN SEATTLE OFFICE
DARRELL L. COCHRAN
DAVID P. MOODY ONE UNION SQUARE
BRADLEY G. DAMS
STEPHANIE L. BLOOMFIELD 600 UNIVERSITY, SUITE 2100
AMANDA M. °'"ALL°RAN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-4185
DAVID B. JENSEN
JOAN C. FOLEY
(2O6) 676-7500
TIMOTHY L. ASHCRAFT FACSIMILE (206) 676-7575
JULIE E. DICKENS
VALARIE ZEECK -
THADDEUS P. MARTIN OF COUNSEL
DIANNE K. CONWAY JOSEPH H. GORDON
LAFCADIO DARLING W, WALLACE CAVANAGH, TR.
MARCO DELANGE L. R. GNILARDUCCI
JR.
STEVEN REICH ,
ELIZABETH PIKE MARTIN
STONE CRISSOM CHARIATTE N. CRACKER
S. SHAWN TACEY DONALD H. TMOMPSON
BRUCE KRIEGMAN DALE L. CARLISLE, P.S.
GARY E. HOOD THOMAS J. GREENAN
PATRICIA PEARSON LEWIS ELLSWORTH
ROBERT CALDWELL
JONGWON YI
JEMIMA MCCULLUM
J.D. SMITH
LOREN A. COCHRAN
LINCOLN C. BEAUREGARD
MA% E. JACOBS
SUE O'REI LLY
CASEY INGELS
JOSHUA WEISS
BRA[1LEY BUCKHALTER
MICHELLE MENELY
July 11, 2003
DATE FIELDS ARE FIXED -DATES NEED TO BE MA'~IUALLY UPDATED
HAND DELIVERED
Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr., Esq.
City of Yelm Hearing Examiner
Office of City of Yelm Hearing Examiner
P. O. Box 5767
Tacoma, WA 98405
Re: Benum/Coyne Preliminary Plat
Dear Mr. Examiner:
Our firm represents Bob Benum and Bob Coyne (the "Applicants") with respect to the
above referenced land use matter. The following comments are submitted on behalf of the
Applicants in support of their Application for approval of the Benum/Coyne Preliminary Plat
(the "Plat"). A reduced copy of the Site Plan for the Plat dated July 17, 2002 is attached to this
letter/memorandum as Exhibit "A," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by this
reference.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Applicants are proposing a development plan for two (2) City of Yelm Tax Parcels
(22717330100 and 64301200100) consisting of 28.02 acres to be divided into 108 single-family
residential lots in the Benum/Coyne Preliminary Plat that includes:
1. Setbacks as follows; except with respect to Lot 23, which shall be as shown on the
preliminary plat:
a. Side yard setbacks of: (i) a minimum on one side of five feet; and (ii) a
total on both sides of twelve feet;
(1228465 v12.docj
July 11, 2003
Page 2
b. Front yard setbacks of: (i) fifteen feet on local streets, with a twenty foot
minimum driveway approach; (ii) twenty-five feet on collector streets; and
(iii) thirty-five feet on arterial streets;
c. Rear yard setbacks of twenty-five feet;
d. Street side setbacks of fifteen feet;
2. Maximum building coverage of fifty percent;
3. Public streets;
4. Public storm sewers;
5. Public sanitary sewer;
6. Street lighting;
7. Concrete sidewalks on one side of the public streets;
8. Three (3) tracts:
a. Tract "A" is an open space tract consisting of 119,118 square feet, or 2.74
acres, which lies adjacent to and northwest of the Burlington Northern
Railroad right-of--way and includes on the northwest boundary an existing
thirty-foot Olympic Pipeline easement. Tract "A" will be preserved in its
natural condition for the owners and residents of the Plat. The existing
vegetation shall be supplemented as shown on the Conceptual
Landscaping Plan dated September 20, 2002 attached to this
letter/memorandum as Exhibit "B," which is incorporated and made a
part hereof by this reference. Maintenance of Tract "A" shall be by the
homeowners' association to be formed.
b. Tract "B" is a second smaller open space tract consisting of 14,570 square
feet, or .33 acres, which is shaped like above-tie and lies adjacent to and
north of Lot 52. Tract "B" will also be preserved in its natural condition
for the owners and residents of the Plat. The existing vegetation shall be
supplemented as shown on the Conceptual Landscaping Plan previously
referenced. Maintenance of Tract "B" shall also be by the homeowners'
association to be formed.
c. Tract "C" is a public storm drainage tract consisting of 64,635 square feet,
or 1.48 acres, which will be utilized in conjunction with on-site public
storm drainage facilities. A copy of the Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan
[1228465 v12.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 3
dated October 28, 2002 is attached to this letter/memorandum as Exhibit
"C," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference.
9. Utilities to be served by the following utilities purveyors:
UTILITY
Water
Sanitary sewer
Power
Gas
Telephone
PURVEYOR
City of Yehn
City of Yehn
Puget Sound Energy
Puget Sound Energy
Yelm Telephone Company
A reduced copy of a Conceptual Utility and Grading Plan dated July 17, 2002 is attached to this
letter/memorandum as Exhibit "D," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by this
reference.
10. A Shoreline Development Plan because of the Plat's proximity to the Central
Power Canal that borders and is adjacent to the Plat on the north boundary. A copy of the
Shoreline Development Plan dated July 17, 2002 is attached to this letter/memorandum as
Exhibit "E," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference.
SEPA
On January 30, 2003, the City of Yelm (the "City"), as lead agency, issued a Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance that was advance dated February 7, 2003 (the "MDNS"). A
copy of the MDNS is attached as Exhibit "F," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by
this reference. The MDNS's comment deadline was 5:00 p.m. February 21, 2003. The appeal
deadline was 5:00 p.m. on February 28, 2003.
On February 12, 2003, Isent an e-mail to the City Attorney, Brent Dille, on behalf of the
Applicants commenting on and objecting to the MDNS. A copy of that e-mail is attached to this
letter/memorandum as Exhibit "G," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by this
reference.
At the City Attorney's request, we sent a follow up second e-mail to another City
Attorney, Mick Phillips, during Mr. Dille's vacation on March 4, 2003. The second e-mail more
thoroughly expressed the Applicants' comments and objections. A copy of the second e-mail is
attached to this letter/memorandum as Exhibit "H," which is incorporated and made a part
hereof by this reference.
As a result of my communications with the City's Attorney, the City requested a meeting
with the Applicants. On February 26, 2003, a meeting was held at our firm's Tacoma office and
was attended by the following:
~ 1226465 v12.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 4
Name
Shelly A. Badger
Grant Beck
Brent F. Dille
Richard G. "Mick" Phillips, Jr
Bob Coyne
Bob Benum
Terry L. Brink
Title
Yelm City Administrator
Community Development Director
Yelm City Attorney
Yelm City Attorney
Co-Applicant
Co-Applicant
Applicants' Lawyer
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the City's desire to require that the Applicant redesign
the Plat to accommodate the future possible funding for the Y2-Y3 corridor's so-called
"alternative route." Prior to and during the meeting, the Applicants offered to sell the Plat in its
entirety to the City. However, during the meeting, the City rejected the idea of buying the Plat.
Instead, the City proposed that it would develop a proposed alternative design of the Plat at its
sole expense that would be designed to accommodate the "alternative route."
Following the meeting, the City commissioned its engineer to develop two (2) alternative
revised site plans for the Plat (the "Revised Site Plans"). After which, Mr. Beck met with the
Applicants and discussed the Revised Site Plans.
After the Applicants had an opportunity to thoughtfully consider the Revised Site Plans, I
sent a third e-mail to Mr. Dille on April 22, 2003, explaining the reasoning for the Applicants'
objections to them. A copy of the third e-mail is attached to this letter/memorandum as Exhibit
"I," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference.
The following is a brief summary of the Applicant's objections to the Revised Site Plans:
a. Significantly fewer lots;
b. Too many flat lots, which are undesirable and more
difficult to build on and sell;
c. Loss of significant open space;
d. The ill-conceived road design under the possible future
overpass highway; and
e. Significant reduction in the individual and average sizes of
the lots.
Since the processing of the Application had already been delayed due to the City's efforts
to include inappropriate language in the MDNS and attempt to convince the Applicants to adopt
(1228465 v12.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 5
one of the Revised Site Plans, I requested in the third e-mail that the SEPA process move
forward without further delay.
We also attached to the third e-mail a Pdf file consisting of the Applicants' engineer's
cost estimate and realignment plan for the City's proposed mitigation to the intersection of
Wilkensen Road Southeast and Canal Road Southeast.
After not receiving any response from the City, on May 6, 2003, I sent a fourth a-mail to
Mr. Dille advising him of the Applicants' objections to the continuing delays caused by the
City's non-action. A copy of our fourth e-mail is attached to this letter/memorandum as Exhibit
"J," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference.
On May 7, 2003, we finally received a proposed revised MDNS (the "Proposed Revised
MDNS"). A copy of the a-mail containing the Proposed Revised MDNS received from the
City's Community Development Director Grant Beck is attached to this letter/memorandum as
Exhibit "K," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference.
On May 14, 2003, I responded to Mr. Beck's May 7, 2003 e-mail with a fifth e-mail
suggesting a minor revision to the Proposed Revised MDNS. A copy of our fifth e-mail is
attached to this letter/memorandum as Exhibit "L," which is incorporated and made a part
hereof by this reference.
On May 23, 2003, the City issued a revised MDNS (the "Revised MDNS"). A copy of
the Revised MDNS is attached to this letter/memorandum as Exhibit "M," which is
incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference. There was no comment deadline for the
Revised MDNS. The appeal deadline for the Revised MDNS was 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2003.
No appeal was received by the City.
On May 29, 2003, Mr. Beck left a voice mail message for me advising that the City had:
(i) agreed to my suggested revision to the Proposed Revised MDNS; and (ii) arranged with the
Examiner to hold the public hearing on the Plat on Friday, June 27, 2003.
The Revised MDNS included three (3) mitigation measures. Two (2) of the mitigation
measures required traffic mitigation and one (1) of the mitigation measures required the
Applicants to enter into a school mitigation agreement with the Yelm School District.
TRAFFIC MITIGATION
The following cited Revised MDNS Finding Nos. 1, 2, and 3 pertain in relevant part to
traffic mitigation.
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:
[7228465 v12.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 6
• 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 (Yehn 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 [sic] Road at an angle
of approximately 50 degrees, which does not provide safe sight
distance for vehicles entering Wilkerson [sic] Road from Canal
Road. An additional 1034 weekday trips added to Wilkerson [sic]
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.
The following cited Revised MDNS Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 mitigate traffic impacts
caused by the Plat.
1. The proposal will have a significant impact on the
transportation system of the City of Yehn 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
[ 1228465 v12.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 7
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 [sic] 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
[sic] cost of realignment described in this Mitigation
Measure 2 is effected by the proponent.
A copy of the Applicants' Traffic Impact Analysis dated October, 2002 is attached to this
letter/memorandum as Exhibit "N," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by this
reference.
Adequate provision has been made for roads in compliance with RCW 58.17.110.
SCHOOL MITIGATION
The Applicant will be required to negotiate and consummate a so-called "voluntary
agreement" with the Yelm School District (the "District") pursuant to Revised MDNS Mitigation
Measure 3, which will assure payment of mitigation to offset the impacts resulting from the Plat.
Upon inquiry, I was advised by the District that the current per lot amount acceptable by
the District is $1,645.00. A copy of an e-mail received from the District dated May 8, 2003 is
attached to this letter/memorandum as Exhibit "O," which is incorporated and made a part
hereof by this reference.
Adequate provision for schools will be made when the Applicants enter into a School
Mitigation Agreement with the District in compliance with RCW 58.17.110 and RCW
82.02.020.
REQUESTED DENSITY IS APPROPRIATE
The Plat vested on November 4, 2002. A copy of the Notice of Complete Application
dated November 22, 2002 is attached to this letter/memorandum as Exhibit "P," which is
incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference.
X1228465 v12.doc~
July 11, 2003
Page 8
1. 4 Dwelling Units Per Acre is Allowed Outright. The Applicant is requesting a
density of 3.85 dwelling units per acre (108 lots - 28.2 acres = 3.85 dwelling units per acre).
Under the Low-Density Residential District (R-4) zoning classification, the density requested is
below the maximum density allowed outright of 4.0 dwelling units per acre pursuant to YMC
§ 17.12.020 A.1. A copy of Chapter 17.12 YMC is attached to this letter/memorandum as
Exhibit "Q," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference. The maximum
density allowed in this instance is 112 lots (28.2 acres x 4 dwelling units per acre = 112 dwelling
units).
OPEN SPACE
Chapter 14.12 of the Yelm Municipal Code ("YMC") requires a minimum of five percent
(5%) of the gross area of the site to be dedicated as open space, or pay a fee in-lieu-of providing
open space onsite. Five percent (5%) of the site amounts to 61,028 square feet (28.02 acres x
43,560 square feet = 1,220,551.20 x 5% = 61,028). The Application provides two (2) open space
tracts: (i) Tract "A" consists of 119,118 square feet; and Tract "B" consists of 14,570 square feet.
The total of both open space Tracts is 133,688 square feet (119,118 square feet + 14,570 square
feet = 133,688 square feet). Therefore, an adequate amount of open space has been provided to
comply with Chapter 14.12 YMC.
DELAYS RESULTING FROM
THREATENED INVERSE CONDEMNATION
On August 13, 2002, I sent a letter to City Administrator Shelly Badger advising the City
of the Applicants' rights with respect to the City's threatened inverse condemnation. Since the
City has not carried out its various threatened unlawful acts, the Applicants did not have to
exercise their legal remedies described in our August 13, 2002 letter. A copy of that letter is
attached to this letter/memorandum as Exhibit "R," which is incorporated and made a part
hereof by this reference.
The reason we are including this information in this letter/memorandum is to make the
Examiner aware of the recurring efforts advanced by the City prior to and during the permitting
process to: (i) influence; (ii) intimidate; and/or (iii) force the Applicants to succumb to the
City's: (a) suggestions; (b) demands; and (c) threats.
Although the City ultimately withdrew the unlawful language from the Revised MDNS,
its acts and omissions associated with the subject Application have resulted in several months of
delay in the permitting process. The Applicants will be reviewing and considering the extent of
the damages they have already suffered as a result of the significant delays.
[1226465 v12.docJ
July 11, 2003
Page 9
STAFF REPORT
1. Compliance with Regulatory Controls. In the staff report in the "Conclusion
and Staff Recommendation" section on page 15, Staff states that subject to Staff's proposed
conditions that the requested approvals are consistent with applicable law including the:
1.1. City of Yelm's and Thurston County Joint Comprehensive Plan;
1.2. City of Yelm's Development Guidelines;
1.3. Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Master Program for Thurston
County;
1.4. City of Yelm's Subdivision Code; and
1.5. City of Yelm's Zoning Code.
2. Regulatory Requirements and Recommended Conditions. The Applicants
object to or have questions with respect to the following: (i) Findings; and (ii) proposed
Recommended Conditions.
2.1 Findin 4 on page 7: The Applicants point out that Finding Number 4 on
page 7 of the Staff Report is interesting information with respect to the Yelm Comprehensive
Transportation Plan, but it is not applicable to this Application. The following is a replication of
Finding 4 on page 7:
Finding - The Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan
establishes the following policy regarding right-of--way .. .
To retain existing right-of--way and to identify, ac uire and
preserve rights-o f way.
The City intends to use the recommendations from this
Transportation Plan to identify current and uture
transportation system needs. The City will identify specific
transportation system needs. The Citv will identi f~speci~
transportation corridors and alignments and locate and
protect needed ri, ht~s-o~y as soon as possible Some
methods that will be used to acquire and preserve ri htg s_of
way include:
• wiring dedication of rights-off y as a condition for
development when the need for such rights-o~y is
linked to the development;
• Requesting donations oughts-of-way to the public;
[1228465 v12.docJ
July 11, 2003
Page 10
• Purchasin~~ri, ht~s-o,~wa~by paving 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
or property improvements to preserve sufficient right-o„f
way to allow or expansion o roadways • and development
o~speci ac guidelines regarding the installation and
maintenance o~y landscaping within the public right-off
way. (Emphasis added.)
There are four (4) methods described in the Yelm Transportation Plan for acquiring and
preserving rights-of--way. The following is a brief discussion of the non-applicability of each of
those methods:
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
1. "Requiring dedication of rights-of--way as a condition for development when the
need for such rights-of--way is linked to the development." This method does not apply because
there is no connection or link to the development. The Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor was
planned without regard towards this Application. There is no applicable law that would support
a claim that the impacts resulting from the construction of the plat proposed by this Application
would justify the construction of the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor. Plus, the City is not asking
for dedication of aright-of--way as a condition for development. Therefore, since no requirement
of dedication as a condition of development is being sought, this method cannot apply.
2. "Requesting donations of rights-of--way to the public" - To the best of my
knowledge, no request for a donation has been made by the City, and no offer of donation by the
Applicants has been advanced. Moreover, the Applicants are unwilling to consensually donate
any property to the Y2/Y3 Transportation Comdor. Therefore, this method does not apply
either.
3. "Purchasin rights-of-wa~y paying fair market value" - No offer to purchase
the subject property sought for the possible development of the Y2lY3 Transportation Corridor
has been made by the City. Moreover, the Applicants are unwilling to consensually sell only a
portion of their property to the City because of the devastating affect an elevated state highway
would have on the marketing of the remainder parcels. Moreover, no offer to purchase under the
[1228465 v12.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 1 1.
threat of condemnation has been advanced by the City either. Thus, this method also does not
apply.
4. "Acquiring Development Rights and Easements from Property Owners" - To the
best of my knowledge, the Applicants have not been asked to grant any development right or
easements to the City. Nor would our clients be willing to do so consensually, if asked.
Accordingly, this method along with each of the others simply is not applicable to this
Application.
We also point out that the last paragraph in proposed Finding No. 4 on page 7 is not
applicable because: (i) the first part of the second sentence applies to preservation of existing
rights-of--way for future "expansion of existing roadways"; and (ii) the second part of the second
sentence applies to guidelines regarding the "installation and maintenance of landscaping within
a public right-of-way."
There is simply nothing included in the proposed Finding No. 4 on page 7 that provides a
basis for the proposed conditions of approval on page 8.
In light of the foregoing, the Applicants respectfully request that the foregoing Finding be
deleted in its entirety since it has no relevance to this Application.
2.2 Findin~~age 7: Since the foregoing finding is not applicable to this
Application, the Applicants also respectfully request that Finding No. 5 on page 7 also be deleted
in its entirety. The following is a replication of Finding 5 on page 7:
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.
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.
The information contained in the foregoing finding is totally irrelevant to this Application. The
City has no legal authority to impose its will on the Applicants by attempting to force them to
redesign their plat to accommodate a potential future elevated highway for which there is no
funding or certainty whatsoever.
[ 1228465 vt 2.docj
July 11, 2003
Page 12
In a newspaper article published on February 17, 2003, after interviewing Yelm City
Administrator Shelly Badger, News Tribune reporter Debby Abe, when referring to the Y2/Y3
Transportation Corridor, wrote: "If the state or federal government ever provides funding, the
City's long-range plans call for an alternate route to go around Yelm's downtown and connect
Highways 510 and 507." A copy of that article is attached in its entirety as Exhibit "S," which
is incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference.
Moreover, the Applicant points out that the adoption of either the two (2) proposed
revised site plans would be devastating to the financial feasibility of the project. In the one
scenario, there would be a loss of 18 lots, which is a 17% loss of density. In the other scenario,
there are supposedly 106 lots, which would only be a loss of 2 lots. However, according to the
Applicant's engineer, several of the proposed lots under that scenario are simply not buildable
because of their size and configuration, especially corner lots. Many other lots are made more
expensive to develop and undesirable because of pipe stem or flag lot accesses. Plus, the overall
widths and square footages of the lots are reduced to a degree that gives rise to marketing
concerns in a rural environment.
2.3 Conclusion on page 8: The Applicants respectfully request that the
conclusion on page 8 that states the following be deleted in its entirety:
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.
The applicants have no legal obligation to set aside any portion of their property for a possible
future use that is unfunded and uncertain. Although the Applicants have no desire to sell their
property in its current undeveloped condition, they offered to do so as an accommodation to the
City. The City rejected the offer.
It is also instructive to note that on: (i) August 2, 1999, the Canal Estates
preliminary plat was approved; and (ii) April 13, 2001, the City approved the final plat of
CANAL ESTATES. A copy of the Canal Estates preliminary plat approval is attached as
"Exhibit "T," which is incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference. A copy of the
CANAL ESTATES final plat is attached as Exhibit "U," which is incorporated and made a part
hereof by this reference.
A review of the CANAL ESTATES final plat and the Y2/Y3 Transportation
Corridor map shows that no set aside or special accommodation was required. A copy of a
Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor project location map is attached as Exhibit "V," which is
incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference. It appears that approximately one-third of
the 26 lots would be affected if the Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor project is ever funded and
undertaken.
[ 1228465 v12.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 13
Finding No. 10 of the approval of the CANAL ESTATES plat, states in relevant
part the following:
The preferred alternative for the Y-3 transportation corridor runs
from east to west along the southern property line and 120' deep.
The route is currently being analyzed through an environmental
assessment with the final adoption of the transportation corridor to
occur in the late summer or early fall of 1999. Because the
comdor is not adopted at this time, the City can not require the
developer to alter the site lay-out to accommodate the future right-
of-way.
Staff has reviewed the lay-out with consideration of the future Y-3
comdor and believes that through traffic control (one-way street)
that the infrastructure constructed for the project will not have to
be physically altered.
The future acquisition of right-of--way for the Y-3 corridor will
include lots 1-9. Acquisition of right-of--way can not begin until
the corridor is adopted by the City Council and funding is
available.
The foregoing language presumes that the adoption of a transportation plan in
conjunction with a comprehensive plan provides lawful authority to "require the developer to
alter the site lay-out to accommodate the future right-of-way." In Perry Shea's Technical
Memorandum dated May 13, 2003 attached to the Staff Report, he cites RCW 36.70A.070 as
authority for such a requirement, which is repeated below:
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)
RCW 36.70A.070 refers to the duty of local jurisdictions to require developers of
property to mitigate the impacts of their projects in order to assure that the level of service of an
affected transportation facility does not decline to an unacceptable standard. That language has
no relevance to the instant situation where the City wants to force the developer to make
accommodations for a possible future state highway improvement that may or may not ever
come to fruition. It is tantamount to the City saying to a nearby or adjacent property owner in
[1228465 v12.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 14
unincorporated Thurston County, "Someday we may annex your property so we want you to
comply with our rules when you develop your property."
The other sad scenario is to consider the abuse that our clients have suffered to
date because of the City's bullying over this issue. The City somehow expects that it can force
our clients to do what it commands our clients to do with their own privately owned property to
suit the City's desires even though the Application before the Examiner fully complies with all
lawful regulatory requirements.
2.4 Proposed Conditions of Approval 6.A. on page 8: The Applicants
respectfully request that the proposed conditions of approval identified as 6.A. on page 8
repeated below be deleted in their entirety:
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 he 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.
[1228465 vt2.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 15
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.
The argument advanced by the proposed conditions is that there is legal authority arising out of
the "Comprehensive Plan as it relates to transportation and, specifically, the 510/507 Loop." As
is demonstrated above, there is simply no such authority that justifies the proposed conditions.
A review of applicable Growth Management Act ("GMA") provisions revealed that
while the GMA may impact the proposed development, the impacts arising out of the GMA may
give rise to takings compensation. Under RCW 36.70A.010, the legislature:
Finds that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a
lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the
conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the
environment, sustainable economic development, and the health,
safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It
is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local
governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with
one another in comprehensive land use planning. Further, the
legislature finds that it is in the public interest that economic
development programs be shared with communities experiencing
insufficient economic growth.
The GMA lists planning goals for the "purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive
plans and development regulations." RCW 36.70A.020. Among others and in no order of
priority, such goals include transportation, protection of private property rights, and assurance of
adequate public facilities and services to support development. Public facilities include
36.70A.030. Definitions, (12) "Public facilities" include streets, roads, highways, sidewalks,
street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary
sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools.
According to the Washington Supreme Court, local discretion in developing
comprehensive plans and development regulations tailored to local circumstances is bounded by
the goals and requirements of the GMA. See King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth
Management Hearings Bd., 142 Wash.2d 543, 14 P.3d 133 (2000). The GMA establishes a
general framework in which local governments are required to plan in accordance with certain
[1228465 v12.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 16
guidelines; the GMA does not have site-specific effect at a project level. Timberlake Christian
Fellowship v. King County, 114 Wn. App. 174, 61 P.3d 332 (2002).
According to the Washington Attorney General's office, the GMA does not prohibit
adoption of plans and regulations that may negatively affect private property interests. RCW
36.70A.280, see Op. Atty. Gen. 1992, No. 23 attached as Exhibit "W," which is incorporated
and made a part hereof by this reference. However, private property shall not be taken for public
use without just compensation; such rights shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory
actions. RCW § 36.70A.020(6).
Although a developer may be required to set aside land for infrastructure necessary to
support new development under RCW 36.70A.070 and the project may have to be designed to
meet certain development requirements, we could not find any law that would mandate sufficient
land to be set aside for a state highway without just compensation.
On a related tangential issue, the Washington Supreme Court may find eminent domain
for future speculative projects to be suspect. In State ex rel. Washington State Convention &
Trade Ctr. v. Evans, 136 Wn.2d 811, 842-43 (1998), the court noted the following (emphasis
added):
So too a New York State Commission report published in 1972
reiterated the nearly universal view that courts have taken a "dim
view of control of private property by the government for the sole
purpose of making a profit by resale ... [and] not only deem it
highly improper but also question the constitutionality of the state
using the power of eminent domain to take for a future speculative
use." 2A Nichols on Eminent Domain, sec. 706[7][d], at 7-186
(quoting Report, New York State Commission on Eminent Domain
46, 47 (1972)). Accord E. L. Strobin, Annotation, Right to
Condemn Property in Excess of Needs for a Particular Public
Purpose, 6 A.L.R.3d sec. 6[b] at 311 (In general, American courts
have viewed recoupment schemes with disfavor.); Robert H.
Freilich & Stephen P. Chinn, Transportation Corridors: Shaping
and Financing Urbanization Through Integration of Eminent
Domain, Zoning and Growth Management Techniques, 55 UMKC
L. Rev. 153, 205 (1987) ("The exercise of excess condemnation
solely for recoupment purposes has consistently met with judicial
disapproval. ").
In light of the foregoing comments regarding the influence of the GMA in the instant
case, we want to emphasize two (2) things: (i) the purpose and restrictions of the GMA; and (ii)
the City's police power.
~, 228465 ~, 2.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 17
Purpose and Restrictions of GMA.
First, the overall purpose of the GMA is to deal with growth and related issues, including
transportation. However, the GMA specifically requires private property interests be considered
and compensation paid for property taken for a public purpose. The City primarily does not
want to become embroiled in takings litigation. Despite being dated, the 1992 AG opinion
points out what a city would not want to be required to defend. Also attached is an excellent
description of the landmark Dolan case. See Exactions For Transportation Corridors After Dolan
V. City Of Tigard, 29 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 247 (1995) attached as Exhibit "X," which is
incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference.
City's Police Power.
Second, it may be important to recognize the limitations of the City's police power.
According to one set of commentators:
In order for a police power exaction to be upheld, it must be shown
that it confers a special benefit (benefit over and above that
conferred on the general community) on the developer. Courts
have adopted three tests for determining special benefit: (1) the
'specifically and uniquely attributable' test; (2) the 'reasonable
relationship' test; and (3) the 'rational nexus' test. The 'specifically
and uniquely attributable' test has evolved in Illinois and holds that
the needs for the exaction be specifically and uniquely attributable
to that particular development. A majority of jurisdictions have
adopted the 'reasonably related' test. This test holds that so long as
the exaction is 'reasonably related' to the needs created by the
development, the action will be upheld. A middle ground has
emerged in the 'rational nexus' test, promulgated in a number of
jurisdictions. In Wald Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, the
court adopted a moderate 'rational nexus' approach which looks to
the benefits conferred upon the development and requires a
balancing of the prospective needs of the community against the
property rights of the developer.
Robert H. Freilich & Stephen P. Chinn, Transportation Corridors: Shaping and Financing
Urbanization Through Integration of Eminent Domain, Zoning and Growth Management
Techniques, 55 UMKC L. Rev. 153, 172-73 (1987).
The Washington Supreme Court considered a case that involved a similar situation. The
developers purchased several tracts of land for the purpose of developing it and reselling it.
Several years later, the State declared that the developers' land was within the boundaries of a
highway project and that it intended to acquire the developers' land for the highway. Because of
the devastating effect on the value of the developer's property after the State announced its
[1228465 v12.doc]
July 11, 2003
Page 1.8
intention, the developers filed an inverse condemnation action. A year later, the State
commenced a condemnation action. After the two proceedings were consolidated, the trial court
awarded the developers the depressed value of the property. The Washington Supreme Court
reversed and remanded the case holding that just compensation required valuation at a time
earlier than the trial date. The Court's decision considered the fact that the marketability of the
land was adversely affected by the State's surveys, public announcements, and hearings. Lange
v. State of Washington, 86 Wn.2d 585 (1976).
The Lange court defined property as used in the constitutional phrase as follows:
Property is a thing consists [sic] not merely in its ownershi and
possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment and
disposal. Anythin~ which destro s any of these elements of
propertv. to that extent destroythe propertv itself. The substantial
value of propertv lies in its use. If the right of use be denied the
value of the propertv is annihilated and ownership is rendered a
barren right. (Emphasis added.)
The foregoing makes clear the emphasis that Washington's highest court places on a property
owner's right to have the unrestricted lawful use of his or her land.
Although we could not find any case in Washington that was directly on point with the
instant case, we found a very similar case in the Maryland Court of Appeals. The following is
the case summary:
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellee developer submitted a
subdivision plan with residential lots within aright-of--way for the
proposed relocation of a state route. Because the plan did not
comply with Howard County, Md., Code § 16.113(b)(2) that such
road right-of--ways be reserved, appellant county did not approve
it. The local planning appeals board affirmed, but the Circuit
Court for Howard County (Maryland) reversed. The county sought
review.
OVERVIEW: The county argued that the reservation of a right-
of-way in a subdivision for a proposed state road constituted a
valid exercise of police power and was not an unconstitutional
taking of property without compensation. The county further
argued that the ordinance did not deprive the developer of all
beneficial use of the property and that possible diminution in value
of the property did not render the regulation a taking. The
developer asserted that Howard County, Md., Code § 16.113(b)(2)
[1228465 v12.doc)
July 11, 2003
Page 1.9
constituted an unconstitutional taking of property without
compensation because there was no time limitation on the
reservation of the property and there were no benefits or payments
to the developer. The court affirmed that § 16.113(b)(2)
constituted an unconstitutional taking and not merely a valid
exercise of police power. The court found that the ordinance could
be upheld if there was a reasonable nexus between the exaction
and the proposed subdivision. Because the duration of the
reservation was unlimited and did not permit the developer any
effective use of the propertyplaced in reservation the court held
that the ordinance constituted and unconstitutional taking without
just compensation. (Emphasis added.)
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the lower court judgment that
the ordinance was an unconstitutional taking of the developer's
property.
Howard County v. JJM, Inc., 301 Md. 256 (1984).
The Howard County court was disturbed by the facts that: (i) the duration of the
reservation of the land was unlimited; and (ii) there was no obligation or requirement that the
reserved property ever be acquired by the state. Id. at 281.
The court also cited a voluminous number of cases that supported its holding that since
the subject property already had sufficient access to public roads, there was not a sufficient nexus
between the proposed plat and the right-of--way to be reserved through the property.
The Howard County case is distinguished from the instant case in one important respect.
Howard County had a statute requiring developers to "reserve within a proposed subdivision
such part(s) of the right-of--way for a new state road designated on the general plan and included
in the state's twenty-year highway needs inventory which is located within the subdivision." In
the instant case, there is no such statute. The only authority offered by the City of Yelm is an
unsupported and erroneous claim that the transportation plan element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan justifies the imposition of the proposed conditions. For the foregoing
reasons, the Applicants cannot agree to the unlawful attempts of the City to: (i) restrict the use of
their property; or (ii) diminish the value of their property by reducing density; and, (iii) render
the finished lots less desirable and marketable by threatening to take the property for an
unfunded and uncertain proposed future project.
A complete copy of the Howard County case is attached as Exhibit "Y," which is
incorporated and made a part hereof by this reference.
[ 1228465 v 12.doc[
July 11, 2003
Page 20
SUMMARY
The Applicants have established in the record that: (i) a density of 3.85 units per acre is
allowed outright by YMC § 17.12.020 A.1.; (ii) the Application complies with all of the
required findings set forth in RCW 58.17.110; (iii) the Application complies with the City of
Yelm's Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Code, Development Regulations and Environmental
Regulations; (iv) the City does not have lawful authority to "require the developer to alter the site
lay-out to accommodate the future right-of-way"; and (vi) the Application complies with all
applicable local and state regulatory requirements.
The Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner: (i) consider the comments made
and the issues raised in this letter/memorandum; and (ii) approve the Application for the Plat as
submitted and as clarified by this letter/memorandum.
Respectfully submitted by,
TLB:bf
Enclosures
cc: Bob Benum
Terry L. Brink
Bob Coyne
Jim Crippen, P.E., Apex Engineering PLLC
Grant Beck, Community Development Director, City of Yelm
Brent F. Dille, Esq. City Attorney
[ 1228465 vt 2.docj
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit "A" Site Plan dated July 17, 2002
Exhibit "B" Conceptual Landscaping Plan dated September 20, 2002
Exhibit "C" Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan dated October 28, 2002
Exhibit "D" Conceptual Utility and Grading Plan dated July 17, 2002
Exhibit "E" Shoreline Development Plan dated July 17, 2002
Exhibit "F" Mitigated Determination ofNon-Significance dated February 7, 2003
Exhibit "G" E-mail to City Attorney Brent Dille dated February 12, 2003
Exhibit "H" Second a-mail to City Attorney Mick Phillips dated March 4, 2003
Exhibit "I" Third e-mail to City Attorney Brent Dille dated Apri122, 2003
Exhibit "J" Fourth e-mail to City Attorney Brent Dille dated May 6, 2003
Exhibit "K" E-mail received from Grant Beck dated May 7, 2003
Exhibit "L" Fifth e-mail to Grant Beck dated May 14, 2003 responding to his May 7,
2003 e-mail
Exhibit "M" Revised MDNS dated May 23, 2003
Exhibit "N" Traffic Impact Analysis dated October, 2002
Exhibit "O" E-mail received from Yelm School District dated May 8, 2003
Exhibit "P" Notice of Complete Application dated November 22, 2002
Exhibit "Q" Chapter 17.12 YMC
Exhibit "R" Letter to Ms. Badger dated August 13, 2002
Exhibit "S" News Tribune Article dated February 17, 2003
Exhibit "T" Approval of CANAL ESTATES preliminary plat dated August 2, 1999
Exhibit "U" Final Plat of CANAL ESTATES dated April 13, 2001
Exhibit "V" A copy of a Y2/Y3 Transportation Corridor project location
Exhibit "W" Attorney General's Opinion letter No. 23, 1992
Exhibit "X" Loyola Law Review Case 1995
Exhibit "Y" Howard County v. JJM, Inc. case
[1228465 v12.doc]
06!::!05 05:17 FAr 259 470 0599 APEY ENGINEERING 1001/00~
TO: Grant Beck
COMPANY Ciry of Yelm
ADDRESS
DATE: June 22, 2005
REGARDING: Mt_ Shadow Preliminary Plat
F1LE/TASK: 29177/1
BY: ^ MAIL
^ OVERNIGHT
^ COURIER
® FAX
BusnvESs
BUSINESS FAX 360-45S-3144
TOTAL PAGES: 3
~~
Engineering
PLEASE FIND TIC FOLLOWING ATTACHED:
COPIES DATL NO. DESCRIPTION
A 06-22-0~ 2 Letter
WE ARE TRANSMITTING ~'HE FOLLOWING:
® For your approvsUrcviaw/comment ^ For your use ^ Returned for corrections
COMMENTS=
Please see attached suRge_~tions_
COPY TO: Bob Bcnum
Terry Brink
Geoff Sherwin
SUNDER: jlo
>?MAII,: a axen~ineerin .net
FAX NUMBER: 253-539-5061
353-G20-6565
2601 South 35`'' Street, Suite 200
Tacoma, Washington 93409
(253)473-4494
Fax: (253) 473-OS99
06/2?/05 05:17 FA.Y ?50 470 0599 _ APES ENGINEERING 1Q 002/000
Reference: Mt. Shadow Preliminary Plat
City Identification #: SUB-OS-0011-YL
File #29177/1
Dear Grant:
Thank you for the MDNS and Staff Report on Mt. Shadow. Bob Benum, Terry Brink,
Geoff Sherwin, and Y offer the following comments for your consideration.
MDNS - no comments_
Staff Report -comments:
Transportation and Site Access
About the middle of page 5, a paragraph starts: "In order to show consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan as it relates to transportation and specifically the SRS 10 Yelm Loop, the
applicant has agreed to the following mitigating conditions..."
First checkmark: We suggest adding the impacted lot numbers in order to clarify the
condition. We request it to be re-written as follows: "No building permit
will be issued for any lot impacted or partially impacted by the SRS10 Yelm
Loop Corridor [Lots 50, 51, and 61-71] until building permits have been
issued for every lot outside the corridor."
Second checkmark: This condition is somewhat confusing as written. We request that it be
re-written as follows: "That portion of the SRS 10 Loop Corridor within
proposed Tract B, an area of approximately I.83 acres, shall be dedicated to
the City for road right-of--way purposes."
Landscaping
Paragraph 3 on page 8 under the Landscaping section should be revised to require landscaping
along the Wilkerson Road frontage at the back of lots 36-43 [not 49] to make the condition
consistent with staff-recommended Condition #1 on page 9, and with the frontage improvements
described under the Transportation and Site Access section at the bottom of page 5.
Staff Recommendations
#6: Again, in order to add certainty to the condition, we request that the impacted Iot numbers be
added. The first senCencc would then be revised to read as follows: "No building pernut will be
issued for any lot impacted or partially impacted by the SRS IO Yelm Loop Corridor [lots 50, 51,
and 61-71] until building permits have been issued for every lot outside the corridor." The
second sentence would remain as written_
06/22/05 05:17 FA_Y 25~ 47a 0599 APEY ENGINEERING 1Q00~/000
#7: In the interest of clarifying this condition, we suggest that it be re-written to read as follows:
"That portion of the SR510 Loop Corridor within proposed Tract B, an area of approximately
1.83 acres, shall be dedicated to the City for road right-of--way purposes."
#16: The first sentence is acceptable as written. We request that additional descriptive language
be added to the second sentence, which would make it read as follows: "The Homeowners'
Agreement shall include provisions for the assessment of fees against individual lots for the
maintenance and repair of the private stormwater facilities for each such lot."
#22. The limits of landscaping to be required along the Wilkerson Road frontage as described in
this condition are not consistent with Condition 1 above or with the frontage improvement
suggested under the Transportation and Site Access section at the bottom of page 5. We request
that the second sentence in this condition be revised to read as follows: "Type II landscaping
shall be required along the Wilkerson Road frontage at the back of lots 36-43."
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Grant, if you wish to discuss these matters
or any aspect of the Mt. Shadow application, please do not hesitate to call me at 253-473-4.494,
ext. 1172.
Since ely,
Jame H. Gripper, P.E.
Proje t Manager
C: Bob Benum
Terry Bunk
Geoff Sherwin
JHC/j to
Mitigated Determination of Non-significance
File Number SUB-05-0011-YL
Proponent: Bob Benum
Description of Proposal: Subdivide approximately 20 acres into 82 residential lots.
The project includes the construction of stormwater facilities, interior streets, and street
improvements to Wilkenson and Canal Roads.
Location of the Proposal: The project site is located west of Wilkenson Road and
north of Canal Road, bounded on the north by the Centralia Power Canal.
Section/Township/Range: Section 18, Township 17 North, Range 2 East, 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 Attachment A
Lead agency: City of Yelm
Responsible Official: Grant Beck, Community Development Director
Date of Issue: June 13, 2005
C men adline: June 28, 2005
;- App i~De i e• July 5, 2005
,~ ~~
:'
`' Grant Beck, Community Development Director
,,
This Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (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., July
5, 2005.
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),
International Residential 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, June 10, 2005
Posted in public areas: June 13, 2005
Copies to: All agencies/citizens on the SEPA mailing list and adjacent property owners
Department of Ecology
Attachment A -Mitigated Determination of Non-significance
SUB-05-0011-YL
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 January, 2005, prepared by Apex
Engineering)
• Traffic Impact Analysis (dated January, 2005, prepared by Heath &
Associates)
• Preliminary Storm Drainage and Erosion Control Report (dated January,
2005, prepared by Apex Engineering)
2. The traffic impact analysis submitted as part of the subdivision application was
based on 80 lots and indicates that the project will generate 847 vehicles per day
of average weekday traffic, with a PM peak of 88 vehicles per hour. The project
would not decrease the level of service at all but two of the intersections studied.
The level of service at the intersections of Wilkenson and Canal and Wilkenson
and NP Road would decrease from the projects traffic. 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. 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.
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. 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.
04/15/05 07:42 FAx 259 479 0599 APEY ENGINEERING 1Q 001/002
v
TO: Grant Beck
COMPANY: City of Yelm
ADDRESS PO BoR 479
Yelm, WA 95597
DATE: 04/15/05
REGARDING: Mountain Shadow
FTLE/TASIC: ?9177/0
BY: ^ MAIL
^ OVERNIGHT
^ COURIER
® FAX
BUSINESS: (360) 455-5408
BUSINESS FAX: (360) 458-3144
TOTAL PAGES: 2
~ngin~erinq~
PLEASE FIND THE FOLLOWING ATTaci1ED:
coP1ES HATE No.
WL- ARE TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING:
^ For your approval/review/comment ®For your use
DESCRIPTION
^ Re[urned for corrections
COMMENTS: Grant,
Here is ow preliminary boundary exhibit for the preliminary pla[ of Mountain Shadow_ We are requesting to keep our original
hearing date for the plat at this time. Please contact the if there are any questions.
Thar, ~eCeIVG~
Geoff
APR 1 5 2005
COPY TO: Bob Benum
FAX NUMBER: 539-8061
SENDER: Geoffrey P. Sherwin, P.E. _
EMAIL_ Sherwin@a exen 'necrin .net
2601 South 35'" Street, Suite 200
Tacoma, Washington 95409
(253)473-4494
Fax: (?53)473-0599
04/15/05 07:42 FAY 259 47a 0599 APEY ENGINEERING
1Q 002/002
PRELIMINARY BOUNDARY EXHIBIT
~~_
„~~ - PO{~R CA
` ~ ~ SAU p~£~ ~£N '-~1FR D
l~j ~N~ _T~'R~NE -. fEp 2O6
~~_ _
\ ~ _` ` ~~-~LO~q` ~P p~E'01`'"_,_`~~~~ 100
\ ~_O~ANK
~ ~
_,~`~--~
PRELIu1NIAR'Y 90~JNDAAY
~ 20.55 ACRES
27
NOS:
THE PURPOSE OF THIS EXHIBIT IS TO
SHOW APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY THE NORTHERLY
L1MIT OF THE AREA SHOWN IS THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE DEEDED RIGHT ~
OF WAY FOR THE CENTRALIA POWER
CANAL PER DEED X208639.
SCALE ~" = 200'
MOUNTAIN SHADOW
JOB X29177
4-13-05 DMH
i
i
i
i
~~
Received \
APR 1 ~ 2005 \
O
N
mN
zo
O A
m v~
Q o
~ o
w
~7'' m m
s m
A
\ ~
T~ _
V ~
y w
w
m~ m w
= m
s ~
0
~s z
min ~"
N A N
Nya a
o m , ;D
2 N ~
L F~
v~ z I
~ C =1
O ~ -i
0
D
r
m o
.. o
z
T
m
m
~ N
O
O
v v
A 31
° °
A A
t a
r o
i i
~ ~
Z
D
n
s
H
m
O
0
ti
r
r
N m
C7
z
0
/ a
+
/ / /
/ d
' ,/ /
/
/ ra / / / i N
w
/
aoa/ // o ~ o
o
I /
/ / A
/ / b/ N N
/ •~pOj
1
/
O
~ m O~ A O
o ll
/
/
~ n
/ /'+. i
~ ~ _ N 0°28'03" E 1326.25'_ y11.KEN50N RonD _ _ _ _ o
~~~-
glZ
ptl0 N
.....
5 0.28"03" M 1105
07' c
.
t8
w
' m
l LY .II 5
\~ I ni ro a
a
~ m
A u a o
:. 1 ~^ - C
b
\\ \
\ \ I
\\
' \.
v.
mmo mz=o `\
moo pz~vmi ~ G9! '~s.
Oi t0/~ A O a C I /yC °S //O
K Vl 2 \\ rOry \`~!
y D Z O
x z r ~ ,y `/.
m o z z c~ ~ \ oql c.
m m cmi~ v ~ ~ yF /S,
9 B>
~°_ ~ m m I \\ Z E
'~9/ l .\.
u+z ~~oa y
o~ x v i z I \ o
m m T ~- \
a y m ~ ~ ~
-o o ~; w
of vo~ai+ ~
~ z m i ~ o ~ \
~o~ ~naz
o ~ ~ (,/1
~ ~ X a m ~ \
z m m v ~ (7a \
m r m ~
z m a z m
N O O l/1 C7 r (n
~~ ~1 N 2; ~ ~~ O m
< -- n x m -» I ~ o y
m z o o m z
z a z <
o < on --
m n z ~ ~
°r u+a a I
--~ a ~ r -~
o m v r ~
m oa
r Z r ~
y m m
z v
N
`\.
w
0
~°J
4 i/`
V ~/
o° ,'O
.~
O " ~n
tom ~~
0 ~
a
~~ ~~
~~H
,'tip
cn
~~ .
D '~
r ~
r-~ O
G7 -O
Z O
3 U1
m m
Z !~
(n
CJ~
O
n
m
N
N
a
t0
ti
~~~
~~ x bp;~
N ale,./
v ~
4 :u W ;~ O
N ~!:/ ~
w `" ~ ro
'w; _
a
~ i
O
T
A
s
i
~ '~
N,':
a
H
m,,l
t/
Z
0
/V
O
N
m
`\
~ ~ \ ~
r P
a o
~ m
~
r
~ m
T m I C
\ aB
\ \. ~ O I O
\ 90.
\ \
\
\`- I ~
~ -' \
~~OS•L N 0°32"57 E
- --3 SV-- _-- \\ - ~._ 205.35--'--
~ o
~~~ - ~
+ i
~ w
^~ N
N
N pp
~ 'O
O
Cl °
OQ
OOTy~
~T+I .9 r
AnA~~
Dy3w
~aNxm
~i0'n cmm
~Tr.l1L
zromm
=m~0~
o=Nmo
yOrpS
?y~mz
'~m~m
m y
a
_~ ~
r o
N O n
O 3 m
N ~ ~
D ~
n
Z A
m a Z
N
x z
~o
O r
Z ti
o z
2
'0
O
A
to
~ O
m a
m
N
V
N'
• -
r
w
O
~D
ll~
O
m
_ ~ X
~m =
O ~ ~ W
2
A r ~ ~
O O `+
2 ~ O ~
-i
xvo
mom
mA
aA~
A9
DSO
cN~
min°
O Z m
om
~zm
~ D
O
. 00
<^
~-~
~ z
a
r ~~
m in
O J
Z o _l
T
m
m
-i ^
0
D
i
I
~ I HJ
Z
O
n
O
i
N
m
Q
3
O
NSEN RD SE ~ ~
y~~•~
_ y `^'
o ~
~ ~ N
~ O
.O ~
0
_ ~
1326.25 - - -- ~_
T V -4 _ Oi
J, ~ 3
o -'+
m
a
r
ti ~
m i
_ O ti
. i
O .o
o + r o
- N
.. ,-.~ ,...fgg074
N ??' ~ BfAq
~7~ -~q~~
Og •, f ._
r1
~ 35 Ob N3'.
0
3
0
N
0
0
Z
.-~
0
O
O
3
0
N
0
0
0
L
a
i
'9ZZ ~J ._
~~ I \
L O J • p
G
i
L
X + '
~~-
Y
I p
O
~ • J N
O
_
F
O ~_
^
-.
I
ti f?'°_ _,
~9Z£ i~--= -- -~
O~
T ~-
J
w
• m
~O O
I ~ ~N.
~
ti ~
N
M b~ ~~ Z _
~
n
u " ~
¢ ~
- - - i ----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
I f
I W
0
I a
i
W
..............................
~C p
L S
W
W
LL
r ~ O ,,,,
~~ 1f1 W
J
Z Q
U
1A
U °
00
pQOQ >
0 6 S
F
.W.. O
~~~
y~'im
mSo
VIW
~i~
urS~i
6 r i1W.=yi
N Q m
K W
W 6 W
~r
5~~~
0°1$~~ ~_
V U~
~~~~~
~~~
~~~
~~~~
U
O
a a
m N
N
N ~
M ~
t0 ~ _ ~v
\\ 1~•g0 25. ~
\~.\ S, -
- Z
O
~ W
W
N
Q
f
O
a
~
N_
Q
~
LL
O '
a a
0 o
~ o o ~
0 ~, o=
~~
~.
M
~ 3 W
m
r
J
. x
N
_
= N
D:
W N
~
U °z o
X ~ = a ~~
N
W f- a o
~-
N
2
o
2 J
lC
N
i
r
4
°
\ _ 1
~-'" ~ i
0
2'\\ \ oz~
--6 ~' \ 1 W W Q
f\~/ \ J2J
OI
e
w
:~
P
~ O
OI
w '--~
V!
(~
0
W
l/-)
O
0_
Z
W
Z
(.~
< D d W
I
0
F~ J Q Q r
O
\ Q Q {A J
r
\ 1
~ acio >o
~ Z Q
N H
\ Q !Y 3 = H N
\
~
- Z W S >
\
+ N 1 K ~+
~. ~
~ Z 2 V1 LL ~
O VI
\
\ ~ I J V fA
W Z Q O
W Z
\ f V 1 W W W
WZ
\
\ .
..
N t Q Wd Q ZO Q J
S Z Q VI U O >-
\\ (n O
\ Y O
m W Q K
\ W
~ Q VI d
a
1 Q W 2 0~
\ m~
~ °
a
`\ c
.t W f-
`_
\ wove ¢ a a
\ \ ¢ o z ¢ LL
g aa~ z vUi°
\
obs 1 a °
` /
/~ z i
St b \\
~
\ W
~ N U ~ W U1
~y~
/ inzo wcK
'~.\ Q~ 1 > VI Q ~ C W
\ y
/.-s /j -ins- z a ov
b~
~F/ 1 ~ ~
o
~
S ~
oa c
i
~ = m ~ ~
\ i
m
~ \
\ 1
\
\
O `-\ \
N
~
~ \
\
O
II I \
\
`
.\
o
~ J
Q
b~
oiy
o~
^ Bs.
n r
J
~O
• O
m O
~/ ,
ryh,
ti/
tp~, ,
h%
i i
h
1~ 5
0'
ary~ ~~•
~ v
~O- 1c4
V r
O C
~ ~" a o m
a c m + o
~
Y a
M
v
~ ~_
N
N
+
t0
~ N
r
~
+
ti ~
~P..
Y
/'
~ I \
-- -~ W \
f ~
a n ~ - 1
°a
8 ~ O N \ •.
00 ~
-„ ~ r
.f-. - ~~` ,,~
a0 , S 11.3',1+"..E...~--~-
b ......
,LO'S0i1 11 „f0,8Z.0 5 ~. - 216.8•
`p11/,t, AOAO
0-Otl NoSN3~iI~ ,SZ'9Z£I 3 £0,92.0 N ~ ~
„
........ . ..... . ............. . ............... . /~ .r
/ /.
/ /, `+. /
m . /--~,, .~/~. // 1
N N /rte/ // I
K J /~ /~O~O//
/ / \. /
// /`~i/
/ / /
/ //
s!'or / /
G
O
N f..
,,.
W
LL
O Z
W
J
Q~
1
O
i°n o
z
-~
N
O C
Z W
~n s
~W O
~~
~.
+'~
a~~
-J W
viW
H
N
NW
N i~
Q
W
o=
R •-..
4
N N
. j
< Z
C ~
< C
J
~u
O W
r ~
6850-fL4 (fSZ) 70/! 46ri-f L4 (fSZ)
8L4L-60498 ~78u14oW1~ 'ouwooy
OOL KV5 'wss wws w9L ~ $$~~$~$(~ ~~~'8 ~+(~J.{~ -
f1E68 VM'elI1TN.Vld
JII
"~
~ Bw~aaw6u3 / oElst Xoe ~'d ~ ,.
NI
NNNa~~I ~
1N~1"1~ ~ I ~ ~
~~
~ ~ F
~ 4
~
/
`
~
' .
4
~ ~
~
~~ Houa~, w4~u -- MOOb
HS NId1NllOW ~-uLL ~ ~ ~ 3
3
~~
o~
i~. 3
~~
_ ~t
Q
z'
~.
~.
a
~e ~
ay o
~$ ~'
~ ° v~
~~
w.~on~
eesota (roz) :xve 46»-£c4 (ssz)
8L4L-60488 ~18NWW1~ 'eu»ool
OOZ eNeS '41SC N^eS 1092 9599'SY'8(~1 YWY~BB 606'bW +NLLd
f1f.B8 dM ~1T'IVdAfld I
„.1 r
. .
/
~6uiaaau~6u~
oe~ee xoa Lei RR~'
. .l.N~l1~ ~ I ~ rl
M
.) 4
~
~
MOOdHS Nlh'1N(lOW
- k
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~
~~ Nouaa~a -aoreN3a w+,,~ ~
11LL
3~
o:
i~. 3
~S
~~
~~
~~
~.
Q
°s
a~
~!lHON
r~
~s~ i.
F~ ~~~ x
YJ~
~y _' ~y
Z 1tlR'! n
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300
February 3, 2005
Ms. Tami Merriman
Community Development Department
City of Yelm
PO Box 479
Yelm, WA 98597
Dear Ms. Merriman:
` ~ Your address
r ~~ 4~~ ~ is in the
``~~ - watershed
'~F®
~'~ J
~~~
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the notice of application for the Mountain Shadow
Subdivision project (Land Use Case Nos. SUB-OS-0011-YL and SHO-OS-0012-YL) located at 9211 and
9045 Wilkenson Road Southeast as proposed by Bob Benum. We reviewed the environmental checklist
and have the following comments:
WATER QUALITY: Margaret Hill (360) 407-0246
Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. These control
measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other pollutants into
surface water or storm drains that lead to waters of the state. Sand, silt, clay particles, and soil will
damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants.
Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of Chapter
90.48, Water Pollution Control, and WAC 173-201A, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the
State of Washington, and is subject to enforcement action.
During construction, all releases of oils, hydraulic fluids, fuels, other petroleum products, paints, solvents,
and other deleterious materials must be contained and removed in a manner that will prevent their
discharge to waters and soils of the state. The cleanup of spills should take precedence over other work
on the site.
Coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) and State Waste
Discharge General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities is required
for construction sites which disturb an area of five acres or more and which have or will have a discharge
of stormwater to surface water or a storm sewer.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments please contact the appropriate
reviewing staff listed above.
Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office
(AW: Mountain Shadow Subdivision)
cc: Margaret Hill, WQ
Bob Benum (Applicant)
~~~
,~ i
SAN ~ 4 rt1~g~
YELM COMIVIUNITY SCHOOLS
Where all students can learn and grow
Erlin~ Birkland
Director of Facilities
January 20, 2005
Mr. Grant Beck
Community Development Director
City of Yelm
PO Box 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
RE: SUB-05-0011-YL & SHO-05-0012-YL
Mountain Shadow
Dear Mr. Grant:
Yelm Community Schools requires mitigation agreements for all subdivisions.
Please include the mitigation provision as part of the SEPA requirements.
Should you have any questions please call me at 458-6128.
Sincerely,
~~
Er . Birkl d
Facilities Director
Yelm Community Schools
YELM COMMUNITY SCHOOLS IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AND FOLLOWS TITLE IX REQUIREMENTS
107 First Street North, P. O. Box 476, Yelm, Washington 98597, (360) 458.6128, FAX (360) 458-6434
City of Yelm
~',,/ ~`''~ Community Development Department
PO BOX 479
YELM, WA 98597
YELM 360-458-3835
WASHINGTON
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
Mailed on: January 19, 2005
PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION: Mountain Shadow
9211 & 9045 Wilkenson Road SE
LAND USE CASE: SUB-05-0011-YL and SHO-05-0012-YL
An application submitted by Bob Benum, P.O. Box 73130, Puyallup, WA 98373, for the above referenced
project was received by the City of Yelm on January 11, 2005. The City has determined the application to
be complete on January 18, 2005. 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 the Community Development Department at 360-458-3835.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivide 19.93 acres into 80 single family lots
ENVIRONMENTAL and OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION: An
Environmental Checklist, Shoreline Management Substantial Development permit application, Traffic
Impact Analysis, Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan, and Tree & Vegetation Preservation Plan were
submitted with the application.
Additional Information or Project Studies Requested by the City: No additional information is
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 Tami Merriman, 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 3, 2005.
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. Additionally, there will be a 14-day public comment period if an
environmental determination is issued. Opportunities for 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\SUB Full Plat Subdivision\OS-0011-YL Benum Mt. Shadow Pre\Notice of ApplicaQion.doc
~
~
g 4~
~ ~
~
~
~ "
~ ~ H
y
i~
~ ~~
@@ c
; ~
~
~ g
~
3
~
~ ~
~
r~
g
$
~F~ 9"y~
_ _,~' y
rn
~ ~ z
N ~
N Ss1
HO
~o
a
~ ~ ~
z
VID
o~ ~
~~
my R .«o. ~h ~
n n
~~
n
Dm
~
g` \
~ ~ a
,,.'s
~ ~.
.9 ~
/
„~
y~/ p
/ ~
j
d /
a+~ ".
fd
~ i ~.
d.~ $ ~1
l0 f
t~ ~_
~ ~_ ~-
~ ur~~ ~~n
~~ ~°~
a~ ~~x
~ g~ o~
H~ ~~~
~~ ' ~~ ~~~~~~~~LG~
~ a~ ~Y
~ ' ~s~a~~ s~ d
~ $ ~~~A ~r~~~~$4~~~ ~
o ~'~ ~ -?~~ o-`3
~~n ~ ~~ ~~m~~- "~~8~ ~
SF ~~ en~ a~R~
~~ ~ ~B~a ~~~~ ~~
P ~ rn
gs q>
6 ~ `~
6
s n
e~
t~ ~
'v ° ~ ~zo}
t \
~8
~ ~. ~.
~°' a
1 ~ a ro'
~y ~ R
Y'~ a b $~
.Q\~
h ~`
s. ~ ~
d~ \~
§ / /
g? ~ ~~ ~.)
~$~.
i'
E ,, ~~ .. , /\d
" A~
Mss 3---.a--
~~-~ yq
/ j h ~~ =~x'S V~O~a
ss 'H' m 3
~~-
~-~-~-T~-k-r-
o
~~
a ~ ~
~ o
~~ z
~ ~~
~~ ~
~. ~ H
~ ~ ,~"
~ /~
~ II~~
I
I f~
~~~~
~~
i ~ ~/~i ~
~ I
~~4 /,
I I
L "~ I
~ g
s ,a. ~ ~
~ ~/ s
ro
Rio' 3 ~ i I
a~ ` I /
/~ ~l
/ ' ~/
~ ~
/~".~r "~" I~~ %b
~ ~/ Q
~~/
~/ ~ ~ l7
~~ _.. H "ti
i .~ 0 7
-~~' // h/ O "y" 1~1
-~ ~ ~
z
~~ /
~ r off., b
i, y ~
s / ~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ y
yCy ~ y
c Vl ~ ICI
~ // ~ Z
A
H
/~~\ O C ~
~ ~ ~~ O
~n H
z
G9
~~~py^
~~~_~
~~~~~
8K
g
m ~ k>
~f~x~~~~~ ~ ~
; F
g§
~~~~~~~
r~gg§f~x~~i
~~
I
I ~ ~ ~~~
gds
4e~ g
~
~
§
p
a~~3}~~p
1f
I
~ gg
a
FF
5~~~~~IS~Y
gg~
~
~g;~
~ qq
34$
~~~ I
m
$ P
g~t
~Isp~~gp~
~ ~efl
~
~C ~~`p;
8
~~ ~
~
g
g
° 3 + I
~ _
~ m MOUNTAIN SHADOW' ~~
e~ PRELIMINARY PLAT `~ 2
° l
~1
f
i
i chin ~
o ~
e
~~
1~ ~
ng
ceer
ngl
~ ro~M:a° ,'.',`":os`~:°,°v
11n).rs-..i. W~"9iniim-osss 'n,r~
asswo-ue.w,.cxNOrwmm
~m+. ro~sweeexuw
H
~~~
e
~~
~7 ~~
n
2i
A~
N
~ ~
~~
~Y
9~$
R
M,sr~,e,~p: /in
pEgaj' K SAQVE[4
oruvm L:5.9R/EGq
a¢a®
eEC iB r ~ a 26
dscra
wre 9 Q7-o
eca.F i~• igOT
City of Yelm
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, WA 98597
(360) 458-3835
(360) 458-3144 FAX
Memorandum
To: SPRC
From: Roberta Allen, Administrative Assistant
Date: January 19, 2005
Re: SUB-OS-0011-YL -Project Review Schedule for Benum Mt. Shadow Preliminary Plat
and SHO-OS-0012-YL
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.
January 19 -Notice of Application distributed -begin 15 day comment period.
February 16 -SPRC Environmental Review. Department comments/mitigation requirements for
Environmental Review.
February 23 -Environmental Determination issued by Planning Department. Begin 14 day comment
period followed by 7 day appeal period.
March 16 -Environmental Determination appeal time expired.
March 30 & April 6 -SPRC project review. Department comments/conditions of approval for staff report.
April 18 -Complete Staff report for public hearing.
April 19 -Public Hearing Notice to Paper/Mailing/Post site.
May 2 -Public Hearing in front of Hearing Examiner.
May 15 -Hearing Examiner approval completed.
L1SUB Full Plat Subdivision105-0011-YL Benum ML Shadow Pre\Proj Rev Date Memo.doc
January 10, 2005
Ms. Tami Merryman
105 Yelm Avenue West
Yelm, Washington 98597
Reference: Mountain Shadow Preliminary Plat
File #29177/0
Dear Tami:
eK
Engineering;
Enclosed, please find the submittal items needed for the Mountain Shadow Preliminary Plat
Application and the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Application. Items are in
the requested order as in the Preliminary Plat Application instructions. At this time, the client has
not proposed any covenants. We look forward to working with you on this application.
Preliminary Plat Application:
• Application for preliminary Plat (12)
• Environmental checklist (12)
• Transportation Impact Analysis (3)
• List of property owners within 300 feet w/mailing labels and maps (2)
• Vicinity map (12)
• Map of sewer main, storm and other utilities (12)
• Stormwater report and conceptual drawings (3)
• Preliminary plat drawings and grading plans (12)
• Reduced size copy of preliminary plat, both 8 'h X 11 and 11 X 17 (12)
• Tree and vegetation preservation plan (3)
Shoreline Management Substantial Development Application
• Application (12)
• Development plans (12)
If you need any additional copies, please call me at (253) 473-4494, Ext. 1256.
Since y
ames E. Kirkebo, III
Project Planner
JEK/jlg
Enclosures
c: Benum Enterprises
Attn: Mr. Bob Benum
I/29177/docs-rpts/docs_tk011005
2601 South 35th, Suite 200
Tacoma,Washington 98409
(253) 473-4494
Fax: (253) 473-OS99
N'
g
~~g~ ~ ~
~~~ ~
~~
~m
r o -,
rn° ~ i
Q
orD- ~~
mD m~j ~
~~ n~ T
.~~~~~ ~
J'µ
`-~-
~-
~~~~-=
~ /~ N
I~
~+~ H a, bb
~ \~\) ~PygJj n ~~" ~ fl
v~Q' O 1. ~~M b~L.!
5d p] Yn' d :,mod ~ i` u, ~ d W
.i 00
h ~ z~~~ ~ ~~~~f~
~~ ~~'sf klNM Z'h a^rn
d ~ ~.~~''b ~ $
a~ o:°
n, ~.
~.y~ Q~ y m d a 'jJRy]01 ynaM7 I~ ~"
~~r
~~ ~ ~ '~o' o~ o~- ~~
0
~ ~~~~ ~'
E ~ a~ ti
cs~`~z. o~ `~>
~. ~
., ~ a „
~ ~ ,.,
~ <
~° ~oA ~~o
xe ~zz~ ~zz
Old+ ~~ 7q~ yw N rq~ HV
x y~ y
"zx~° zz~y°y
h7~ M~&
Cl ' y d•
~~ ~~~
~~ ~~a
~~ ~~=
~~ ~~~
lJ
a
o
qy
~i }~5,i
~~
~~
~~
H
x
I/ N
~'U ~ yK
~q
~~~ ~ ~~~3~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~
~~. ~~
a >
m$§ak~~~e ~~ ~4~ ~ fi r'
Bp c~ Agg ~'
'~a!° Iii o
s
~o ~..~ ~~
NO
~~go~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_$ ~~
N~
~,
''~
/'°
. -,~
I!;~a~
._i/~'~
~~i~ ,~.
I
.~
~~~
~• /
'~
~:~.
~~ ~~~
/~jji~
w ~~ ~b
%~'~
n ~~
O~
r~ z
~°
~~
Hy
~~
~ r~
y~
°z~
~~
o~
~\ /` zz°
cn H ---
,~ \ ~ ~c
~v
_~ ~ ~]
y~
o~
z~
~~
O ~d
~ r
N
~ ~
~ ~
~d
r
0 y
F
1TT1.E ~ PROJECT MAWAC~R+ <//M CR/PPEN g~ryq
~ m r MOUNTAIN SHADOW, I~ ~~ ~ ~ rEVra oriow Gn o~oN ~E!SAR/Et<1
a.~Kr PRELIMINARY pI:AT d ~. ~ Q ~ ~~
O , Engineering "~ ~ eEC ie r ~. R Q,E
V •n P.O. BOX73130 ~, No u DFJL NO
I~ zsoc sw,cn 3scn, spice zoo PUYALLUP,wASenxrroNSS+n 9.27 O
Tatomo, Woshington 98409-7479 (233)845-s55s ~~-
(2F7) 473-a49a FAX: (M3) a73-0599 A77TI:1~9t.BOBBENUM ~ ~~ ~+A~ Ia /ODD
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION PROCESS
A Preliminary Plat application gets an SUB land case file.
A Preliminary Plat Subdivision requires a Public Hearing and Hearing Examiner
action, and SEPA.
Public Hearin the tice of Application d the Notice of Public Hearing
goes to the isqually Valley News, d~Fie 0' adjacent property owners.
.~ o
Notice needs to be made 10 days prior to the Public Hearing.
The SPR Memo, with the project review dates, goes to the normal SPR
Distribution list, as well as Applicant/Owner so that they have the SPR schedule.
The Project Review List gets the Notice of Application.
NOTE: All current and delinquent taxes must be paid prior to approval.
R:\Forms & Procedures\Prelim Plat\PrelimPlatApp Process.doc