Hard File ScannedOFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF YELM
REPORT AND DECISION
CASE NO.: BSP-05-0197-YL and SPR-05-0160-YL
APPEAL OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE BSP-05-0197-YL
APPLICANT/
APPELLANT: 3B&C, LLC
P.O. Box 875
Yelm, WA 98597
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval to create 6 commercial building sites through the
binding site plan process, and to construct a 5,600 square foot commercial building on one
of the building sites. The site encompasses 2 parcels. There are existing residences on
the site that will be demolished.
SUMMARY OF APPEAL:
The appellant is appealing the mitigation measures attached to a Mitigated Determination
of Nonsignificance for a proposed binding site plan to create commercial spaces for and
site plan review to construct a 5,600 square foot commercial building.
SUMMARY OF DECISION:
Request granted.
Appeal denied.
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 November 7, 2005.
Parties wishing to testify were sworn in by the Examiner.
-1-
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" - Submittal from the City
EXHIBIT " 3" - Map
EXHIBIT "4" - Map
EXHIBIT "5" - Map
EXHIBIT "6" - Document from Washington State Department of Ecology
EXHIBIT "7" - Responses to Mitigation Measures
TAMI MERRIMAN appeared, presented the Planning and Community Development
Department Staff Report addressing the binding site plan, and testified that the site is
located at the intersection of West Road and 103rd. The applicant filed an environmental
appeal because it wants to use alternate technology for stormwater due to the location of
Yelm Creek and the high groundwater table. The site plan shows the buildings proposed
on the west side of the internal plat road. The development will require the demolition of
the existing residence, and wetlands are more than 200 feet away. The City will evaluate
each building in accordance with the design guidelines as it is proposed. Conditions require
landscaping and corner enhancement.
GRANT BECK appeared and presented the findings and conclusions of the responsible
official on the environmental appeal and testified that mitigating measures were imposed
pursuant to SEPA review on stormwater drainage impacts because of high groundwater.
The City did not accept alternate technology, but required the bottom of the pond to have
an elevation of six feet above groundwater. The pond must also accommodate road
frontage stormwater. The appellant cited three reasons for the appeal: 1. The City didn't
identify the groundwater protection in the presubmittal hearing; 2. The requirements are
beyond the minimum regulations of the City; 3. The proposed vortex system is used
elsewhere and accepted. He determined that all of the issues fail and that the MDNS
should be approved. Concerning presubmittal, it is true that the City did not identify the
additional protection, but these are pre-meeting conferences and pre-review conferences.
The Examiner has previously ruled on this issue. The City is requiring the same condition
as it did in the Wal-Mart MDNS. The high groundwater is an emergent issue. We have the
same groundwater issue and the same condition attached. The high groundwater did not
emerge as an issue until after formal submittal. SEPA review fills in gaps left by legislation.
At the time of review the Critical Areas Ordinance had not been updated, but now it is
included within the code. The ordinance would require the additional protection if the
applicant submitted the site plan today. At the time of submittal a gap existed in the City
ordinances. Review is based on Thurston County regulations and the Salmon Creek
Interim Regulations. Condition 3B refers to an elevation of 335 feet, but such is not a
regulation. It is an attempt to help the applicant determine the groundwater. The flood
elevation must be determined. The aerial photograph determined the high groundwater
and the applicant must install the system six feet above the map elevation which results in
-2-
the 335 foot guideline. Measure 3C requires separate water infiltration. No capacity exists
for additional stormwater from the road in the development across West Road. Concerning
approved alternate systems, DOE allows alternate systems under stringent conditions and
the City has allowed such systems where they are very large and where there is financial
backing, reporting, and maintenance. The school has the same system the applicant
desires, but meets the requirements of the City. These types of systems are not
appropriate in a binding site plan where lots can be owned by various businesses or as an
association. Concerning the policy background, he reviewed past projects and the
condition has a scientific background as the entire City has been identified as an aquifer
recharge area. A policy of the old Critical Areas Ordinance requires treatment of projects
located on a critical aquifer. Emergent technology is not listed in the 1992 DOE Manual
adopted by the City.
ROBERT TAUSCHER, professional engineer, appeared and introduced Exhibit "5", a
confirmation that wetlands do not exist on the property. Concerning emergent technology
policy, the DOE web page shows approval under the general use level. Concerning vortex,
he can't see an extra reporting requirement to DOE which produced Exhibit "6" which
defines the criteria of the system. He designed the engineering for the school and DOE
required no additional reporting. Maintenance of the system requires a vactor truck and a
condition could require a contract with a provider. Also, vortex itself provides maintenance.
The maintenance must occur about every four months. The maintenance is site specific
and a program is set up for each site. The only cost is that of the vactor truck. The roof
runoff can be taken and directed to the infiltration galleries. It can stay out of the treatment
element. An alternative is a swale, but such would reduce the number of buildings. Another
alternative is a wet pond which would also cause the loss of a lot. A ground cartridge unit is
also an alternative, but it requires the same maintenance.
ERLING BIRKLAND appeared and testified that he has no questions or concerns with the
staff report except for the storm drainage issue. In many jurisdictions they can provide a
bond to ensure maintenance of the system. They can accommodate these requirements.
The City needs to address other technology then dumping water in a hole.
MR. BECK reappeared and testified that other options do exist such as a wet pond above
or below ground. Wet ponds below ground do not consume surface areas. The vortex
raises the elevation of the storm drainage as the City desires. The applicant can provide
over winter monitoring to provide assurance of the groundwater level.
MR. TAUSCHER reappeared to introduce Exhibit "7" addressing the Salmon Creek
requirements. Other options do exist, but they are trying to keep the cost of development
down. They looked at the best cost effective method. Other jurisdictions accept their
proposed method.
The Examiner then left the record open to November 22, 2005, for the applicant and the
City to further discuss the SEPA issues and for the City to respond to the applicant's
submittals. No one spoke further in this matter and the hearing was concluded.
-3-
NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the City of Yelm Community
Development Department
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION:
FINDINGS:
The Hearing Examiner has admitted documentary evidence into the record, heard
testimony, and taken this matter under advisement.
2. Notice of the date and time of the public hearing was posted on the site, mailed to
owners of property within 300 feet of the project site, and mailed to the recipients of
the Notice of Application and SEPA Determination on October 24, 2005. Notice of
the date and time of public hearing was published in the Nisqually Valley News in
the legal notice section on October 21, 2005.
3. The City of Yelm Responsible Official issued a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance on August 12, 2005. An appeal was filed.
4. The applicant has a possessory ownership interest in a rectangular, five acre parcel
of property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Road SE and
NE 103`d Avenue within the City of Yelm. The parcel abuts West Road for430 linear
feet and varies in depth between 577 and 474 feet. The southern tip of the parcel
touches NE 103rd Avenue. The applicant requests binding site plan approval to
allow creation of six commercial building pads and site plan approval for one, 5,600
square foot structure.
5. Improvements on the site include two single family residential dwellings and
accessory outbuildings, all of which will be removed. The site plan shows access
provided via a single road extending northeast from West Road and terminating in a
cul-de-sac near the north property line. Three building pads and associated parking
areas are located on each side of the internal road. The site plan shows Type 3
landscaping along the West Road frontage and Type 2 landscaping along the
balance of the perimeter. A portion of the northeastern property line extends closer
than 200 feet from the centerline of Yelm Creek, but no improvements are planned
for said area. The area within the shoreline jurisdiction will consist of Type 2
landscaping.
6. The site is located within the Commercial (C1) zone classification of the Yelm
Municipal Code (YMC). Section 17.26.010 YMC provides that the purpose of the
C1 classification is to identify appropriate areas for the location of business centers
to serve the needs of the community for convenience goods and services such as
food, drugs, household supplies, automobile servicing and other related uses.
-4-
Section 17.26.030 YMC sets forth 69 uses allowed outright in the C1 classification.
7. Section 17.26.060 YMC requires for the C1 classification a minimum parcel size of
5,000 square feet and setbacks from side property lines of ten feet, rear property
lines of 20 feet, and front property lines of 15 feet. Section 17.26.090 YMC limits
the height of buildings to 40 feet and Section 17.26.110 YMC sets forth off-street
parking requirements. The site plan will comply with all bulk regulations of the C1
classification.
8. All abutting parcels are located within the C1 classification; and parcels to the south
across 103~d Avenue and to the east along 103~d Avenue are improved with
commercial uses. The abutting parcel to the west is improved with a single family
residential dwelling. Improvement of the site as proposed fits well with the existing
commercial uses and future uses as contemplated by the comprehensive plan and
development regulations.
9. Conditions of approval require the applicant to improve the street frontage of West
Road SE to a commercial collector standard which requires an 11 foot wide travel
lane, five foot wide paved shoulder, vertical curb, planter strip with street trees, a
five foot wide sidewalk, and streetlighting. The applicant must also pay the
transportation facility charge of $750.00 per new p.m. peak hour trip and meet the
parking requirements set forth in Chapter 17.72 YMC. Compliance with said
conditions will ensure that the plat makes appropriate provision for streets, roads,
alleys, and other public ways.
10. The City of Yelm will provide both domestic water and fire flow as well as sanitary
sewer service to the site. The applicant must pay the connection fee for both water
and sewer.
11. The northeast corner of the site extends approximately 20 feet into the shoreline
jurisdiction of Yelm Creek, but no development will occur therein. Wetlands
associated with Yelm Creek measure more than 200 feet from the property line, and
therefore the site meets all buffer requirements for the creek and associated
wetlands.
12. The applicant must comply with all landscaping and screening requirements set
forth in Chapter 17.80 YMC to include perimeter landscaping and landscaping
necessary to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas. At the time of civil
plan review the applicant must present a detailed final landscape and irrigation plan
for approval.
13. The Yelm Design Guidelines place the site in a Mixed Use District. Design
guidelines require a development to define the street edge with building,
landscaping, or other features and to provide direct access to the building from the
frontage. Larger developments must increase pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
-5-
reduce negative impacts to adjacent properties, and upgrade the overall visual
quality of the City. Street corners require substantial landscaping, a decorative
screen wall, pedestrian access, and architectural cover treatments. The site plan
does not presently provide for enhancing the corner of West Road and 103ra
Avenue, but must do so prior to final approval. The applicant proposes to landscape
around the west, north, and east property lines. Sidewalks circulate through the site
and from West Road SE into the site, and pedestrian access exists to all building
pads. The pedestrian circulation and building design and details must meet all
criteria set forth on pages 8-10 of the staff report. Compliance with code
requirements will ensure that the site plan review for the first building satisfies all
criteria set forth in Section 17.84.020(C) YMC.
14. Prior to obtaining binding site plan approval the applicant must establish that the
request satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 16.32.065 YMC. Findings on each
criteria are hereby made as follows:
A. The site plan shows areas in the southern corner and along the northeast
property line retained in open space and perimeter landscaping along all four
property lines. Taxes will support parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools
and school grounds. As found hereinafter, constructing the storm drainage
system in accordance with the requirements of the SEPA mitigating
measures will ensure that the binding site plan makes appropriate provision
for drainage ways. Required improvements to streets, the payment of the
transportation facility charge, and the connection to public water and sewer
will ensure that the binding site plan makes appropriate provision for streets,
roads, alleys, other public ways, potable water supplies, and sanitary waste.
The sidewalks circulating through the site and from West Road will ensure
safe walking conditions and a safe location for a transit stop if desired in the
future.
B. The binding site plan will serve the public use and interest by providing an
attractive location for a commercial use consistent with the zoning and
comprehensive plan designation as well as surrounding uses.
C. Public facilities impacted by the businesses are adequate and available.
D. As previously found, the City will provide sanitary sewer service for the
project as well as water service.
SEPA APPEAL
15. On August 12, 2005, the City Responsible Official (RO) issued a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance following review pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). On September 2, 2005, Erling Birkland on behalf
of 3B&C LLC (appellant) timely filed an environmental appeal challenging mitigating
-6-
measure no. 3 which reads as follows:
3. Civil plan submission shall include an updated preliminary
stormwater plan that meets or exceeds the standards of the
1992 stormwater Manual as adopted by the City of Yelm.
The stormwater plan shall include the following elements:
a. Alternative technologies are not accepted.
b. The elevation of the bottom of the infiltration
gallery shall be a minimum of six feet above the
elevation of the high groundwater area as
identified by Thurston County (approximate
elevation 335), and must be 50 feet horizontally,
or 2 feet vertically away from the High Ground
water area, which ever distance is less.
c. Separate water quality treatment for roof runoff
shall be provided.
d. The stormwater system shall be designed to
accommodate stormwater generated by required
frontage improvements.
16. The appellant desires to use an alternative technology for the treatment of
stormwater prior to infiltration. The appellant proposes a vortechnics unit
manufactured by stormwater 360, Inc. which it asserts meets or exceeds many of
the traditional means of removing pollutants. The appellant further asserts that the
City has allowed the vortechnics unit in recently constructed schools. However,
according to the RO, the City has rarely allowed the use of emerging stormwater
treatment technology systems such as the vortechnics unit within the City. The City
has allowed Yelm Community Schools to use such technologies because the district
has the maintenance staff and financial resources to maintain the system and
complete status reports. In the present case, the applicant proposes a relatively
small, five acre project which will through the binding site plan process have six
different owners of different sections of the parcel. A condominium type ownership
is not appropriate to test emerging technologies, especially considering that the site
is located atop a critical aquifer.
17. Concerning Mitigating Measure No. 3(b) the appellant asserts that the City did not
disclose the required 335 foot groundwater elevation during the presubmission
conference. Section 17.84.050 YMC entitled "Preliminary Site Plan" provides:
Prior to applying for site plan review, a developer may file with the
SPRC (Site Plan Review Committee) a summary site plan, which
shall contain in a rough and approximate manner all of the
information required in the site plan application. The purpose of a
summary plan is to enable a developer filing the plan to obtain the
-~-
comments of the SPRC as to the applicability of the intent,
standards and provisions of this chapter to the plan.
Section 17.84.020(C) YMC requires the SPRC to review a site plan as follows:
C. The SPRC shall review a site plan and approve, or approve
with conditions, site plans which conform to the standards,
provisions and policies, of the site as expressed in its
various adopted plans including the applicable sections of
the shoreline master program for the Thurston region....
The YMC does not contemplate that the presubmission review requires the City to
identify all standards, provisions, and policies which will apply to a proposed plan.
According to Section 17.84.050 YMC, the applicant need only provide a "summary
site plan" which contains "in a rough and approximate manner all of the information
required in a site plan application". The notes from the preapplication meeting
specifically advise an applicant of that fact:
These comments are preliminary in nature and not intended to
represent final comments and/or requirements for the City of Yelm.
Until a complete application is made, the Community Development
Department can only attempt to inform the applicant of general
requirements as they appear in the form presented by the applicant
at the time of submission.
Thus, lack of disclosure of the 335 foot elevation during the presubmission
conference does not prohibit its imposition.
18. In its appeal the appellant questions how the City determined the 335 foot elevation
and what datum it used to derive the elevation. The appeal notes that the 1992
DOE Stormwater Manual adopted by the City requires three feet of separation
between the bottom of an infiltration facility and the seasonal high groundwater. The
appellant also notes that the City has not formally adopted the Salmon Creek
standards which require six feet of separation within the Yelm Creek area. However,
the City has identified high groundwater in the area and has also determined that a
minimum of six feet of separation is required between the bottom of an infiltration
facility and said high groundwater table to provide adequate protection for the
critical aquifer. The City Critical Areas Ordinance, amended subsequent to the filing
of a completed application, now requires the six foot separation. The City also
required the same six foot separation for the Wal-Mart Supercenter site. While
Mitigating Measure 3(b) refers to an elevation of 335 feet such elevation is not a
standard or regulation, but an attempt to assist the applicant in determining the
height of the groundwater. The applicant must determine the flood elevation and
install the system six feet above said system which results in the 335 foot estimate.
-s-
19. According to RCW 43.21 C.060, a portion of the SEPA statute, SEPA supplements
existing authority of all governmental agencies and allows decisionmakers to go
beyond their traditional criteria (ordinances) and exercise SEPA given authority to
make land use decisions based upon environmental considerations. The RO in
evaluating the environmental impacts of the binding site plan application determined
that existing ordinances did not provide adequate environmental protection for the
groundwater due to an elevated winter water table, and therefore imposed a greater
standard than required by ordinance pursuant to SEPA authority.
20. Our Courts have explained the purpose of SEPA review as follows:
SEPA is a procedural statute designed to ensure that local
governments consider the environmental and ecological effects of
major actions to the fullest extent. SEPA's purpose is to provide
decisionmakers with all relevant information about the potential
environmental consequences of their actions and to provide a
basis for a reasoned judgment that balances the benefits of a
proposed project against its potential adverse effects. Des Moines
v. Puget Sound Regional Council, 98 Wn. App 23 at 36; (1999).
In fulfilling its responsibilities under SEPA, the RO reviews the environmental
checklist and supporting documents and issues a threshold determination as to
whether any probable significant adverse environmental impacts will result from the
proposed development. Before requiring mitigating measures the RO must first
consider whether the development regulations of local, state, or federal jurisdictions
and enforcement thereof would mitigate an identified significant impact (WAC 197-
11-330; 197-11-660). The RO followed these procedures in issuing the MDNS in
the present case, but found that existing City storm drainage standards would not
provide sufficient aquifer protection. The RO therefore imposed mitigating measures
pursuant to SEPA authority requiring the six foot vertical clearance standard. Thus,
the RO has authority to impose the Salmon Creek standards even though not
adopted by the Yelm City Council to mitigate a probable significant adverse
environmental impact.
21. The appellant asserts that the drainage manual does not require the treatment of
roof runoff prior to infiltration and questions the adoption of such standards by the
City. The appellant also questions measure 3(d) which requires the stormwater
system to accommodate stormwater generated by required frontage improvements
on West Road based upon the existence of a stormwater collection system within
West Road. The RO imposed these measures because no capacity exists for
additional stormwater in the development on the southeast side of West Road.
These issues can be resolved through providing additional capacity for existing
systems or providing capacity on or off site. The appellant must accommodate
stormwater generated by frontage improvements.
-9-
22. RCW 43.21 C.075 entitled "Appeals" provides that where an agency authorizes an
environmental appeal under SEPA as does the City, the agency:
(d) Shall provide that procedural determinations made by the
responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight.
Our Washington Supreme Court interpreted the "substantial weight" requirement in
Wenatchee Sportsman v. Chelan County, 141 Wn. 2d 169 (2000), as follows:
A decision to issue an MDNS may be reviewed under the clearly
erroneous standard...A finding is clearly erroneous when, although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the record is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed... For the MDNS to survive judicial scrutiny, the record
must demonstrate that environmental factors were considered in a
manner sufficient to amount to prima facia compliance with the
procedural requirements of SEPA and that the decision to issue an
MDNS was based on information sufficient to evaluate the
proposal's environmental impact. 141 Wn. 2d 169 at 176.
The Examiner is not left "with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed", especially considering adoption of the required standards by the
new critical areas ordinance. Applying the "substantial weight" criteria, the City's
environmental analysis provides sufficient information to identify the proposal's
probable significant environmental impacts, and the MDNS adequately mitigates
said impacts to less than substantial.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented
by this request.
2. The applicant has established that the request for binding site plan approval and
site plan review approval satisfies all criteria set forth in the Yelm Municipal Code.
3. The appellant has not shown that the responsible official was clearly erroneous in
the issuance of the MDNS and in the imposition of Mitigating Measure No. 3. The
environmental appeal should therefore be denied.
4. The request for binding site plan approval and site plan review approval should be
granted subject to the following conditions:
The conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance are
hereby referenced and are considered conditions of this approval.
-lo-
2. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the City of Yelm
Development Guideline standards based on one space for every 300
square feet of gross floor area.
3. The applicant shall connect to the City water system.
The cost to connect shall include a fee of $1,500.00
per Equivalent Residential Unit (900 cubic feet per
month), subject to change. The number of ERU's will be
calculated on water usage based on engineers
calculations.
4. The civil plan submission shall include fire flow
calculations and demonstrate that the fire flow
requirements of the International Fire Code have been
met at the site. The civil plan submission shall
include a fire access plan showing all required fire
lanes and a striping plan for fire lanes. All fire
hydrants installed as part of the development shall
include hydrant locks approved by the Development
Review Engineer and the Public Works Director.
5 . The applicant shall connect to the City S.T.E.P. sewer system. The cost
to connect shall include a fee of $5,417.00 per ERU with a $145.00
inspection fee per connection, subject to change. The number of ERUs
required will be determined by approved water consumption calculations
submitted as part of the civil plans. Sewer connection fees are paid at
building permit issuance. Approved grease interceptors or oil interceptors
shall be provided on all side sewers serving areas which include the
potential for introduction of oils and greases into the sewer system. All
S.T.E.P. tanks shall be designed to the specifications of the City of Yelm
Development Guidelines, including a maximum depth to the tank invert of
6 feet below finish grade.
6. Upon completion of the onsite installation pursuant to the City's
Development Guidelines, the S.T.E.P. sewer equipment, appurtenances
and lines shall be conveyed to the City, and an easement provided for
maintenance.
7. The applicant shall design and construct all stormwater facilities in
accordance with the conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Non-
significance. A final stormwater report shall be included in the civil plan
submission.
-11-
8. The civil plans shall include a complete detailed landscape plan in
accordance with Chapter 17.80 YMC, including provisions for irrigation
and for maintenance of landscaping.
9. Landscaping is required.
o Type II landscaping is required along the perimeter property lines and
adjacent to buildings.
o Type III landscaping is required with all frontage improvements.
o Type IV landscaping is required in all parking areas.
o Type V landscaping is required in all above ground stormwater facilities.
10. Building elevations shall be consistent with the Yelm Design Guidelines
for the mixed use district.
11. The corner of West Road and 103rd Avenue shall include corner
enhancements consistent with the Design Guidelines for the mixed use
district that include the following elements:
o Landscaping enhancements
o A structural element designed to enhance the intersection and create an
attractive entry.
o The landscaping plan shall include the plan for corner enhancement.
12. Refuse collection and trash compaction areas shall be designed to contain
all refuse generated on site and deposited between collections. Deposited
refuse shall not be visible from outside the refuse enclosure. Screening shall
be of a material and design compatible with the overall architectural theme of
the associated structure, shall be at least as high as the refuse container,
and shall in no case be less than six-feet in height with a gate enclosure.
The fence shall be a solid material such as wood or masonry, and shall be
designed per the City of Yelm Development guidelines. Building plans shall
include architectural details of the enclosure.
DECISION:
The request for site plan approval to allow creation of six commercial building pads and site
plan approval fora 5,600 square foot commercial building at a site located at the northeast
corner of West Road SE and 103rd Avenue SE within the City of Yelm is hereby granted
subject to the conditions contained in the conclusions above.
The environmental appeal challenging the imposition of Mitigating Measure No. 3 in the
MDNS is hereby denied.
ORDERED this 22"d day of December, 2005.
-12-
STEPHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, JR.
Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED this 22"d day of December, 2005, to the following:
APPELLANT: 3B&C, LLC
Erling Kirkland
P.O. Box 875
Yelm, WA 98597
OTHERS:
Robert Tauscher
Jerome W. Morrissette
1700 Cooper Point Road SW
Olympia, WA 98501
City of Yelm
Tami Merriman
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
-13-
CASE NO.: BSP-05-0197-YL and SPR-05-0160-YL
WEST COMMERCIAL ROAD
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 forwhatever
reason.
The request must be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on January 4, 2006 (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
action as he deems proper. The hearing examiner may request further information which
-14-
shall be provided within 10 days of the request.
2. APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION: The final decision by the Examiner
may be appealed to the city council, by any aggrieved person or agency of record, oral or
written that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner, except threshold
determinations (YMC 15.49.160) in accordance with Section 2.26.150 of the Yelm
Municipal Code (YMC).
NOTE: In an effort to avoid confusion at the time of filing a request for
reconsideration, please attach this page to the request for reconsideration.
-15-
~,~~ Tip City of Yelm
~~
Community Development Department
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 479
YELM Yelm, WA 98597
WASHINGTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
YELM HEARING EXAMINER
DATE: Monday, November 7, 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-05-0239-YL & SHO-05-0240-YL (Yelm Creek Estates). A proposal
by Rainier General Development to subdivide 5.6 acres into 23 residential lots on
property located west of Crystal Springs Road, and adjacent to Yelm Creek on assessor
parcel numbers 22718330102 & 22718330304.
Case Number SUB-05-0257-YL (Golf Course View Estates). A proposal by Rainier
General Development to subdivide 2.16 acres into 10 residential lots on property
located on Longmire St. on assessor parcel number 21724420700.
Case Number BSP-05-0197-YL & SPR-05-0160-YL (West Road Commercial). A
proposal by 3B&C LLC to create building pads for future commercial development, and
Site Plan Approval fora 5,600 sq.ft. commercial building on assessor parcel numbers
64303601701 and 64303601702.
Case Number APP-05-0197-YL (Appeal of MDNS Conditions). Public Meeting to hear
testimony from parties of record, regarding an appeal of certain conditions of the
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued for West Road Commercial binding
site plan case number BSP-05-0197-YL.
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 Yelm
Agnes Bennick, City Clerk
DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE
Published in the Nisqually Valley News: Friday, October 21, 2005.
Posted in Public Areas: Wednesday, October 19, 2005.
o~
WAfNINOTOM
Staff Report
City of Yelm
Community Development Department
To: Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner
From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development
Date: October 17, 2005
Subject: Appeal of Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance BSP-05-0197-YL
Appellant: 3B&C, LLC
Location: 10336 West Road SE, Yelm, WA.
Proposal: Appeal Mitigation Measure 3(a, b, c, & d) of the MDNS issued for the
proposed West Road Professional Park.
I. INTRODUCTION
Erling Birkland, 3B&C LLC appeals mitigation measures attached to a Mitigated
Determination of Non-significance for a proposed binding site plan to create commercial
spaces for and site plan review to construct a 5,600 square foot commercial building.
II. BACKGROUND
3B&C LLC has applied for a binding site plan and site plan review to create a
professional business park on West Road in the City of Yelm.
The City of Yelm reviewed the SEPA checklist and issued an MDNS on August 12,
2005. The MDNS included the following mitigating measures being appealed:
3. Civil plan submission shall include an updated preliminary stormwater plan
that meets or exceeds the standards in the 1992 stormwater Manual as
adopted by the City of Yelm. The stormwater plan shall include the
following elements:
a. Alternative technologies are not accepted.
b. The elevation of the bottom of the infiltration gallery shall be a
minimum of six feet above the elevation of the high groundwater
area as identified by Thurston County (approximate elevation 335),
and must be 50 feet horizontally, or 2 feet vertically away from the
High Ground water area, which ever distance is less.
c. Separate water quality treatment for roof runoff shall be provided.
d. The stormwater system shall be designed to accommodate
stormwater generated by required frontage improvements.
III. ISSUES
The applicant appealed the City's issuance of the Mitigated Determination, specifically
conditions relating to the use of emerging stormwater treatment technologies and the
requirement that the bottom of the infiltration gallery be no less than 6 feet above the
high groundwater area.
The basis for the appeal is that some of the conditions of the MDNS were not disclosed
during the pre-submission meeting, that the Salmon Creek Standards have not been
adopted by the City of Yelm, that that the proposed stormwater system design meets
the 1992 stormwater Manual, and that the City has approved emerging stormwater
treatment technologies in the past.
IV. ANALYSIS
The Yelm Municipal Code does not contemplate that the pre-submission review
requires the City to identify all standards, provisions, and policies which will
apply to the proposed plan.
The Hearing Examiner previously found as part of the Rothwell appeal of the approval
of a site plan review application (APL-03-8361-YL) that pre-submission notes are not
binding. To reinforce this concept, it is the unbroken practice of the Community
Development Department place at the top of all pre-submission comments the following
language:
These comments are preliminary in nature and are not intended to
represent final comments and or requirements for the City of Yelm.
Until a complete application is made, the Community Development
Department can only attempt to inform the applicant of general
requirements as they appear in the form presented by the applicant
at the time of pre-submission.
This note was included on both the Planning and Civil Engineering notes for the
proposed business park.
The State Environmental Policy Act does not limit the Responsible Official to
adopted codes and regulations to mitigate potential environmental impacts.
The appellant notes that the 1992 stormwater manual only requires three feet of vertical
separation between the bottom of a infiltration gallery and groundwater and that the City
has not adopted the Interim Site Development Standards for New Development in
Salmon Creek Basin.
Page 2 of 4
As noted in the findings of the MDNS, however, the City identified that the proposed
development is located in a critical aquifer recharge area and adjacent to a potential
high groundwater flooding area. If, during a high groundwater event, the groundwater
elevation is higher than the required three feet of vertical separation as required by the
1992 stormwater Manual, the strong possibility exists of untreated stormwater entering
the groundwater, which is also a critical aquifer recharge area.
In order to mitigate this potential significant impact, the City looked to the standards in
the Interim Site Development Standards for New Development in Salmon Creek Basin,
adopted by Thurston County after high groundwater events in the mid 1990's. Adjacent
to an area of known high groundwater, this document establishes a screening threshold
for all development of 6 feet to known high groundwater. If the bottom of the infiltration
gallery is less than 6 feet above groundwater, over winter monitoring and additional
engineering analysis is required. If the bottom of the infiltration gallery is greater than 6
feet above groundwater, no other special standard need be met in order to protect the
aquifer.
In this instance, as with the updated Yelm Critical Areas Code, which was adopted by
the City Council on September 28, 2005, the City chose to require the 6 feet of
separation rather than having the project go through a years worth of ground water
monitoring before designing the stormwater system.
These conditions are reasonable and are designed to appropriately mitigate identified
probable significant impacts to the environment.
Allowing the use of emerging stormwater treatment technologies is discretionary
on the part of the City and is not always appropriate.
The appellant wishes to utilize a vortechs system by Stormwater360, Inc. as part of the
stormwater quality treatment component at the site. As noted in the appeal, the City
has rarely allowed an emerging stormwater treatment technology system to be used
within the City. Also as noted in the appeal, one of the few entities that the City has
allowed to utilize these technologies is Yelm Community Schools.
The City approved the use of emerging technologies for the School District because the
District has the maintenance staff and financial resources to maintain the system and
complete status reports on the operation of the system pursuant to the General Use
Designation issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology for the vortechs
system.
A small development such as the proposed business park, where the stormwater
system is likely to be owned and maintained by a condominium owners association, is
not the appropriate situation to test emerging stormwater technologies.
Page 3 of 4
Certain clarifications to the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance to
address questions raised by the appellant are appropriate.
Condition 3b indicates that the groundwater elevation is approximately 335 feet. This
elevation is approximate and was only cited in order to provide some indication of the
groundwater elevation to the application. The key requirement is that the bottom of the
infiltration gallery must be 6 feet above the high groundwater. The high groundwater
area will be established by the appellants surveyor, most likely through the use of the
high groundwater maps and aerial photographs of the high groundwater areas provided
by Thurston County.
Condition 3c requires separate water quality treatment for roof run-off. The intent of this
condition is to separate the roof run-off, which is assumed to be clean pursuant to the
1992 stormwater Manual, be directed to a drywell and not through the stormwater
system, in order to reduce the size of the stormwater system.
Condition 3d requires the development to accommodate storm drainage from frontage
improvements. There is no publicly owned stormwater system in the area of this
proposed development. The system the appellant refers to as being available to direct
stormwater from frontage improvements towards is a private system installed to
accommodate stormwater treatment from that development.
VI. CONCLUSION
The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance should be upheld.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Appeal Notice and Letter
Mitigated Determination of Non-significance
Hearing Examiner Decision - Rothwell Appeal
Pre-submission notes -Civil
Pre-submission notes -Planning
Page 4 of 4
Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
File Number SPR-05-0160-YL and BSP-05-0197-YL
Proponent: 3B&C LLC
Description of Proposal: Binding Site Plan and Site Plan Review to provide
commercial spaces for construction, and construction of 5,600 sq. ft. commercial
building with associated parking.
Location of the Proposal: 10336 West Road SE, Corner of West Road and 103`d Ave
SE., Tax Parcel #'s 64303601701 & 46303601702.
Section/Township/Range: Section 19, 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 Section 43.21 C.030 (2)(c) RCW. 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: August 12, 2005
Co adline: August 26, 2005
App I Deb `, •/3eptember 2, 2005
Grant Beck, Community Development Director
This, Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) is issued pursuant to Section 197-11-340 (2)
WAC. Comments must be submitted to Grant Beck, Community Development Department, at City of
Yelm, 105 Yelm Avenue West, P.O. Box 479, Yelm, WA 98597, by August 26, 2005, at 5:00 P.M. The
City of Yelm will not act on this proposal prior to September 2, 2005, at 5:00 P.M.
You may appeal this determination to the Yelm Hearing Examiner, at above address, by submitting a
written appeal no later than September 2, 2005 at 5:00 P.M. 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 Code (Title 17 YMC), Critical Areas Code (Chapter 14.08 YMC), Stormwater Drainage
Design and Erosion Control Manual, International Building Code, Critical Areas Regulations (Title 14
YMC), Road Design Standards, Platting and Subdivision Code (Title 16 YMC), and the Shoreline Master
Program.
DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE
Published: Nisqually Valley News, August 19, 2005
Posted in public areas: August 12, 2005
Copies to: All agencies/citizens on SEPA mailing list and adjacent property owners
Dept. of Ecology w/checklist
Attachment A
Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
SPR-05-0160-YL 8 BSP-05-0197-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 (June 7, 2005, Erling Birkland)
/ Wetland Reconnaissance (February 2005, Pacific Rim Soil & Water, Inc.)
/ Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report (May 2005, Jerome W.
Morrissette & Associates)
/ Transportation Impact Analysis (May 2005, Heathe & Associates)
2. The environmental documents indicate that the property is composed of soils and
substrates that are suitable for building and for stormwater infiltration. There is no
indication that there are any potential significant impacts to the earth (geology,
topography, soils).
3. There is no indication in any of the environmental documents that there will be any
potential long-term significant impacts to air quality from the proposed development.
4. The City of Yelm is identified as a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, a designated
environmentally sensitive area. Potential Impacts to groundwater quality and
quantity will be mitigated through measures that meet or exceed the standards in the
1992 DOE stormwater manual as adopted by the City of Yelm. In addition, the
northern portion of the property is identified by Thurston County as a potential high
groundwater flooding buffer area. Thurston County, in other areas of the County
that are potential high groundwater flooding areas, indicates in the Interim Site
Development Standards for New Development in Salmon Creek Basin that if there is
more than six feet of separation between the level of the high groundwater and the
bottom of any infiltration gallery, the project should be designed to the effective
drainage manual.
The City has adopted the 1992 Department of Ecology Drainage Design Manual,
which requires that stormwater generated from a parking facility be treated for oils,
sediments, and heavy metals before infiltration.
5. The environmental documents do not indicate that there are any priority species or
habitats or any endangered or threatened species on or near the property that would
be impacted by the proposed development.
6. The environmental documents do not identify a potential significant impact related to
the use of energy or natural resources.
7. The environmental checklist indicates noise generated from vehicles will be minimal.
8. The environmental checklist indicates that the site will be lit to provide a safe level of
Attachment A MDNS (SPR-05-0160-YL &BSP-OS-0197-YL)
lighting in the parking lot and around the building and that impacts will be mitigated
through design of the lighting plan and placing down shields along the property line.
9. The City of Yelm has adopted a concurrency management system as required by
the Growth Management Act. Chapter 15.40 YMC (concurrency Management) is
designed to ensure that the improvements required to support development are
available at the time of development. A concurrency determination may be issued
for a proposal as it relates to transportation issues when: the development provides
on-site frontage improvements; the project makes off-site improvements as
necessary to provide for the safe movement of traffic; and the project makes a
contribution to projects identified the six-year transportation improvement program in
the form of a Transportation Facilities Charge.
10. The Growth Management Act at Section 36.70.070 (6)(b) RCW states that a finding
of concurrency can be issued when required improvements are in place at the time
of development or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the
improvements or strategies within six years.
11. The City of Yelm and the Washington State Department of Transportation
("WSDOT") have established a minimum intersection level of service ("LOS")
standard of "D" for all intersections in the City's commercial zones, with the
exception of the intersection of Yelm Avenue and First Street NW where the
standard is LOS "F".
12. All intersections in the City are currently operating in compliance with the adopted
LOS standard and will continue to operate within the adopted standard after the
completion of the proposal.
13. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) submitted as part of the application indicates that
the project will generate an average of 563 vehicle trips per day, with a PM peak of
74 vehicles per hour. The TIA indicates that, with average growth:
The proposal will impact traffic movements at various signalized intersections,
including lowering the level of service and increasing wait times at the light at Yelm
Avenue and First Street (SR 507 and SR 510) and increase wait times at the
intersections of 103`d Ave and Yelm Avenue East, and West Road and 103`d
Ave.SE. Although the proposal has an impact on the level of service of these
intersections, the LOS will not drop below the City's adopted standards.
14. Section 14.04.055 YMC indicates that the principal guide in measuring
environmental impact is consistency with the land use designations of the
comprehensive plan and the development regulations designed to implement the
plan.
15.The checklist indicates that the proposal will not require addition fire or police
protection services.
16. Temporary construction impacts such as noise, light, water quality, and air quality,
are mitigated by requirements of the Zoning Code and Development Guidelines
relating to construction activities.
Attachment A MDNS (SPR-05-0160-YL & BSP-05-0197-YL)
Mitigation Measures
1. The developer shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the peak PM trips
generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based
on the proposed use at the time of tenant improvement at a rate of $750 per peak
PM trip.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for frontage improvements along West Road to
meet City Standards for a commercial collector to include a sidewalk, planter strip,
curb and gutter, a 5' paved shoulder and an 11' travel lane.
3. Civil plan submission shall include an updated preliminary stormwater plan that
meets or exceeds the standards in the 1992 stormwater Manual as adopted by the
City of Yelm. The stormwater plan shall include the following elements:
a. Alternative technologies are not accepted.
b. The elevation of the bottom of the infiltration gallery shall be a minimum of six
feet above the elevation of the high groundwater area as identified by Thurston
County (approximate elevation 335), and must be 50 feet horizontally, or 2 feet
vertically away from the High Ground water area, which ever distance is less.
c. Separate water quality treatment for roof runoff shall be provided.
d. The stormwater system shall be designed to accommodate stormwater
generated by required frontage improvements.
3. The civil plan submission shall include a lighting plan that maintains a light level of
0.1 candle-foot 5 feet off the edge of the property.
Attachment A MDNS (SPR-05-0160-YL & BSP-05-0197-YL)
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF YELM
REPORT AND DECISION
CASE NO.: APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL: SPR-03-8354-YL
APL-03-8361-YL
APPELLANTS: Mr. and Mrs. Steve Rothwell
1011 West Yelm Avenue
Yelm, WA 98597
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The appellants are appealing the conditions of their site plan review approval allowing the
after the fact conversion of a residential accessory structure to a dance studio.
SUMMARY OF DECISION:
Appeal denied.
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 January 16, 2004, at 1:00 p.m.
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
GRANT BECK appeared, presented the Community Development Department Staff
Report, and testified that site plan review (SPR) is necessary to convert a previously
constructed shop building to a dance studio. The city approved the SPR, but required that
the existing residential structures connect to City sewer and water. The appellant does not
appeal the requirement to connect the dance studio to public utilities. In addressing the
appeal issues, statements and requirements made in the pre-submission conference are
-2-
not binding. In this instance, the results of the conference included a note that the
requirements are preliminary in nature and the appellants were advised. The purpose of the
pre-submission conference is to advise applicants of the process and the general
requirements. However, the City does not consider any engineered drawings, but provides
an idea of the requirements. The city engineer noted in comments that the department did
not know about the water/sewer connection requirements. One of the reasons for the
connection requirement is the adopted plans of both Thurston County and the City. A
Group B water system currently serves the site and is regulated by City and Health codes.
He listed all of the appropriate sections of the Thurston County plan which names the City
as the primary water provider. The dance studio is a new development which constitutes a
commercial public use. The SPR is a discretionary permit which allows the placement of
conditions of approval. The regulatory authority is found in the staff report. The
requirements are based in health, safety, and welfare as the new sewer line will cross the
existing water line serving the two houses and will also be located within 100 feet of the
present drinking waterwell. The storm system is also located nearthe septic drainfield, and
the septic for the mobile home was installed in 1970. They have no septic permit for the
house as it was constructed in 1944. Section 17.84.050 of the code requires apre-
submission conference.
BILL TURNER, professional engineer, appeared on behalf of the appellants and testified
that they are not developers, but school teachers, and that Mr. Rothwell was selected as
citizen of the month. They constructed the new building, a 50 foot by 60 foot pole barn with
bays. They used one bay for a basketball court, one bay for storage, and the third bay for a
dance studio. They originally erected the building for personal use, but people came to
them and wanted them to expand the dance facility. The appellants felt that all they needed
was a B&O License. If they had known of the violation they would never have made the
change. They shut the business down immediately and came to the City to the resolve the
issues. The site plan pre-conference lets people know the City's requirements and what
they need to do to complete them. The whole reason is to familiarize people with the criteria
and let them know what they need to do. The City should have notified the appellants at the
pre-hearing conference and by not doing so failed to comply with the ordinance. The
appellants will have to expend substantial funds to connect to utilities. The appellants spent
substantial funds to comply with the presubmittal conference requirements. He referred to
Section 13.08.020 regarding sewers and noted that connection is totally at the discretion of
City staff. The ordinance doesn't specify when property owners have to connect, but only
specifies connection must occur 30 days from the date of a failing system. If they did not
have an approved functioning septic system, the City would have placed them on sewers
long ago. The State does not consider the water system public, and the Health Department
refers to it as a Group II only for administrative purposes. A relative lives in the second
residence and the well is exempt. Three buildings exist on the site; two residences and a
pole barn and they should be looked at separately. SR-510 is a severely congested road
and approval of the site plan will require dedication of right-of-way and the construction of
street improvements. The City will have to purchase the right-of-way if the project does not
go forward. The use provides activities for 40 to 50 children and involves them in dance as
opposed to video games and t.v.
-3-
Reappearing was MR. BECK who testified that the appellants were told of the requirements
for a dance studio. Their use constitutes a commercial activity and was treated as such
from day one. The administration of Group II water systems is part of the plan. Site plan
review requires a notice of application and comment period and is therefore a discretionary
permit.
MR. TURNER reappeared and testified that properties are connected to utilities when
developed. The appellants have lived on the site for a long time and will need to sell the
parcel in accordance with its commercial zone. A future owner will connect the site. They
would have to refinance the site to get the studio alone connected. The dance studio is a
desperately needed use.
No one spoke further in this matter and so the Examiner took the request under advisement
and the hearing was concluded at 1:35 p.m.
NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the City of Yelm Community
Development Department
FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION:
FINDINGS:
The Hearing Examiner has admitted documentary evidence into the record, heard
testimony, and taken this matter under advisement.
2. Appropriate notice was given.
3. This request is exempt from review under SEPA.
4. On May 5, 2003, the City of Yelm issued building permit no. 6967 to Steven and
Darlene Rothwell, appellants, authorizing construction of a "50 x 64 enclosed play
area". Mr. Rothwell signed the permit application affirming in part:
I certify that I have read and examined the information contained
within the application and know the same to be true and correct. I
also certify that the proposed structure is in conformity with all
applicable City of Yelm regulations including those governing
zoning....
The City classified the structure as a residential accessory use and a Group U
occupancy under the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) which includes private
garages, carports, and sheds. The City of Yelm Municipal Code (YMC) considers an
enclosed play area as an accessory use to an existing single family dwelling.
-4-
5. Shortly following approval, the City became aware that the appellants were
advertising dance lessons at the site to include a "summer special July and August
only $20.00 classes per month". A staff investigation revealed that in addition to
operating a dance studio from the "enclosed play area", the appellants had also
installed restroom facilities without obtaining building or plumbing permits,
connected the restroom tothe on-site well, and connected the building to the on-site
sewage disposal system without approval of the Thurston County Health
Department. The City issued an enforcement letter dated July 2, 2003, requiring the
applicant to obtain site plan review for the commercial use. Thus, less than two
months after obtaining the permit for an accessory, enclosed, play area the
appellants commenced advertising and operating a dance studio, installed restroom
facilities, connected said facilities to the existing on-site sewage disposal system,
and provided water to the site, all without permits.
6. In response to the City's letter the appellants submitted to site plan review, and their
application to convert a portion of the structure to a dance studio was approved on
December 3, 2003. The City issued the permit subject to the appellants complying
with a number of conditions which included:
A. Connect all existing structures to the City water system.
B. Abandon the existing well.
C. Connect all existing structures to the City sewer system.
D. Abandon the on-site septic disposal systems.
The appellants appeal the City's imposition of the above conditions.
7. The appellants' parcel is irregularly shaped, measures approximately four acres, and
abuts Yelm Avenue for 150 feet. Improvements on the site include a site built single
family residential dwelling, mobile home, and the recreation building. An on-site
drinking water well provides water to all three structures. The appellants agree to
connect the "enclosed play area" structure to City water and sewer, but object to
connecting the existing residential dwellings. The appellants therefore appeal the
four conditions set forth hereinabove.
8. The City of Yelm granted site plan approval for the Rothwell Dance Studio Case No.
SPR-03-8354-YL on December 3, 2003, and imposed the said four conditions along
with numerous other conditions of approval. On December 9, 2003, the appellants
timely filed a Notice of Appeal asserting four errors. Findings on all four alleged
errors are made hereinafter.
Appellants assert that the City violated the YMC by not specifically notifying them at
the pre-application meeting that they would have to connect the two existing
residential structures to City water and sewers. Appellants further assert that since
they were not so advised, the YMC precludes the City from imposing such
requirement.
-5-
9. Section 17.84.050 YMC entitled "Preliminary Site Plan" provides:
Prior to applying for site plan review, a developer may file with the
SPRC [Site Plan Review Committee] a summary site plan, which
shall contain in a rough and approximate matter all of the
information required in the site plan application. The purpose of the
summary site plan is to enable a developer filing the plan to obtain
the comments of the SPRC as to the applicability of the intent,
standards and provisions of this chapter to the plan.
Section 17.84.020(C) YMC requires the SPRC to review a site plan as follows:
C. The SPRC shall review a site plan and approve, or approve
with conditions, site plans which conform to the standards.
provisions and policies of the City as expressed in its
various adopted plans and ordinances including the
applicable sections of the shoreline master program for the
Thurston region....
The YMC does not contemplate that the pre-submission review requires the City to
identify all standards, provisions, and policies which will apply to the proposed plan.
According to Section 17.84.050 YMC, an applicant need only provide "a summary
site plan" which contains "in a rough and approximate manner all of the information
required in a site plan application". The notes from the pre-application meeting
specifically advise an applicant of that fact:
These comments are preliminary in nature and are not intended to
represent final comments and/or requirements for the City of Yelm.
Until a complete application is made, the Community Development
Department can only attempt to inform the applicant of general
requirements as they appear in the form presented by the applicant
at the time of submission.
Even so, written comments from the pre-application meeting notified the appellant
as follows regarding water and sewer:
The proposed site is not currently connected to a public water
system. Your site will be required to connect to the City of Yelm
public water system...
The proposed site is not currently connected to the City of Yelm's
STEP sewer system. Your site will be required to connect to the
City's sewer system...
-6-
Note: It is unknown at this time if the existing residence will be
allowed to continue on the current water and sewer system. These
options will be reviewed at the time of civil engineering review. If
the residence is required to connected [sic] to the public water and
sewer system, the well and septic system will have to be
decommissioned.
The SPRC did not fail to comply with the intent of the YMC as it specifically stated in
the pre-application comments that the City would make the decision regarding sewer
and water hook-ups for the homes "at the time of civil engineering review".
10. Appellants assert that the Washington State and Thurston County Health
Department requirements have classified the existing well as a shared well or two
party well and that it does not need approval as a Group B system. Furthermore,
testing shows the well clean and free of any contaminants. The appellants therefore
assert that while they must connect the commercial building to City water, the
existing well is adequate and legal for the existing dwellings. Section 246-290-
020(1) of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provides in part:
Public water system shall mean any system providing water for
human consumption...excluding asystem serving only one single
family residence....
WAC 246-290-020(5)(c) provides:
A Group B water system is a public water system that does not
meet the definition of a Group A water system....
The existing water system which serves the two residences on the site meets the
definition of a Group B system. Section 2.1.2 of the South Thurston County Urban
Growth Area's Abbreviated Coordinated Water System Plan (water system plan)
provides in part:
Over time, existing small public water systems should generally be
incorporated into the designated utility to ensure adequate fire flow
to protect structures and public safety and provide professional
water system operation and management....
Section 4.5 of the water system plan reads:
Minimizing the number of separate water systems is a long-term objective of
the Public Water System Coordination Act. Incorporating existing small
systems into municipal systems is consistent with this objective.
Thus, the policies of the water system plan clearly provide that small water systems
-~-
such as the existing Group B system will be incorporated into the municipal system.
The requirement of the SPRC that the applicant abandon the Group B system and
connect to the Yelm water system is consistent with said policies.
Furthermore, as previously found, Section 17.84.020(C) YMC requires the SPR to
ensure that site plans comply with "policies of the City" as expressed in its "adopted
plans".
11. Appellants assert that no "major building construction" will occur on the property,
and therefore the appellant's 3,200 square foot building does not meet the definition
of "new development". Section 17.84.010 YMC requires site plan review as follows:
A. Site plan review and approval shall be required prior to the use of land
for the location of any commercial, industrial or public buildin or
activity....
B. Exceptions from site plan review and approval shall be granted by the
site plan review committee, if: there is no addition of sauare feet or no
additional tenant....
The appellants' proposal falls squarely within the requirements of Section 17.84.010
YMC, and thus site plan review is required.
12. Appellants assert that no City ordinances or Public Works standards require them to
connect the existing residences to City water and sewer. As previously found,
Section 17.84.020(C) YMC requires the SPRC to ensure that a proposed site plan
conforms "to the standards, provisions, and policies of the City as expressed in its
various adopted plans and ordinances". The Community Development Department
Staff Report on pages 3-6 provides an exhaustive list of policies which support
connection of the entire site to City sewer and water.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented
by this request.
2. Section 2.26.090(A)(1) YMC authorizes the Examiner to issue decisions on appeals
from "orders, recommendations, permits, decisions, or determinations made by a
City official in the administration or enforcement of the provision of the zoning code
or any ordinance adopted pursuant to it". The City has shown that the SPRC did not
exceed its authority, did not misinterpret the YMC, properly notified the appellants of
the possibility of connection of both houses to city sewer and water, and properly
imposed Conditions 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B following its review of the appellants' site
plan in Case No. SPR-03-8354-YL. Therefore, the appellants' appeal should be
denied.
-8-
DECISION:
The appellants' appeal should be denied.
ORDERED this 3~d day of February, 2004.
STEPHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, JR.
Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED this 3~d day of February, 2004, to the following:
APPELLANTS: Mr. and Mrs. Steve Rothwell
1011 West Yelm Avenue
Yelm, WA 98597
OTHERS:
Bill Turner
4405 7th Avenue SE, Ste. 300
Lacey, WA 98503
City of Yelm
Tami Merriman
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
CASE NO.: APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL: SPR-03-
8354-
YL APL-03-8361-YL
NOTICE
1. RECONSIDERATION: Any interested party or agency of record, oral or
written, that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner may make a written
request for reconsideration by the hearing examiner. Said request shall set forth specific
errors relating to:
-9-
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 February 18, 2004 (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 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
-lo-
reconsideration, please attach this page to the request for reconsideration.
-~~-
MEMORAND UM
City of Yelm
Community Development Department
Engineering Division
Pre-Application Meeting
Date December 1, 2004
Civil Comments
These comments are preliminary in nature and are not intended to represent final
comments and or requirements for the City of Yelm. Until a complete application is
made, the Community Development Department can only attempt to inform the applicant
of general requirements as they appear in the form presented by the applicant at the time
of pre-submission.
Proponent: Erling Birkland, 3B & C LLC
Project: Construct a Commerical Business Park
Project Location: SE West Rd Yelm, WA 98597
Water
The proposed site is currently not connected to the City of Yelm's water system. An
existing 8" diameter water main is located at the intersection of 103~d Ave and West Rd.
This project will be required to connect to and extend the water main along West Road.
Following the water main extension the project will be required to extend the water
system into the proposed development for its use.
Commercial water connections are based on a consumption rate of 240 gallons per day
and are charged at a rate of $1,500 per a residential connection (fee subject to change)
inside city limits.
Irrigation Meter:
An irrigation meter shall be installed for the purpose of irrigation. An approved backflow
prevention device will be required for all landscape irrigation connections.
Cross Connection Control:
Washington State Department of Health, in WAC 246-290-490 states that all group A
water systems with 1000 or more connections are required by the department of health
to develop and implement a cross control connection program. This program requires
all commercial buildings and irrigation systems to have a back flow prevention device
installed on the water services. A list of approved devices can be located at the above
referenced Washington Administrative Code.
Sewer
The proposed site is currently not connected to the City of Yelm's STEP sewer system.
This site is served by a 2" STEP sewer main located in West Road.
This project will be required to install City of Yelm STEP sewer tank assembly(s) and an
oil/water separator(s) before the STEP tank as required. The City will review the
locations of proposed step tanks during land use approval.
Commercial sewer connections are based on a consumption rate of 240 gallons per day
and are charged at a rate of $5,417 per a connection (fee subject to change) inside city
limits. An inspection fee of $145.00 per a connection will also be required.
Fire
All projects need to have fire protection for the buildings. When reviewing proposals or
projects for compliance with the International Fire Code, the following need to be
addressed: Does the proposal have fire hydrant coverage? To meet this requirement
the building must have coverage by fire hydrants. All parts of the buildings must be
within 150'of a fire hydrant. Another means of meeting fire code may be by installing a
fire sprinkler system or utilizing fire lanes for fire truck access.
Stormwater
Developments with over 5,000 square feet of impervious surface are required to provide
stormwater facilities pursuant to the 1992 DOE Stormwater Manual. If stormwater
mitigation is required the types of stormwater mitigation may be wet ponds, bioswales
and filter strips. The stormwater disposal is 100% infiltration. There is 2 ways to
accomplish this: open ponds and underground galleries. The open ponds are
depressions that store stormwater and allow it to infiltrate back into the underground
aquifer.
Street Improvements
Frontage improvements will be required for this project. West Road is classified as an
"Commerical Collector" roadway. This classification of roadway will require the half
street pavement section of the roadway to be 16' in width, concrete curb and gutter,
planter strip and 5' sidewalk. The required right of way will be 28' in width. Driveway
location and distance from the intersection will be reviewed during the site plan review
process.
ADA Requirements
The American Disabilities Act required that facilities are ADA accessible. Facility
improvements will have to meet current code. Review of these improvements will be
determined upon further review of the civil and architectural plans.
February 3, 2004
Mr. and Mrs. Steve Rothwell
1011 West Yelm Avenue
Yelm, WA 98597
RE: APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL: SPR-03-8354-YL APL-03-8361-
YL
Dear Appellants:
Transmitted herewith is the Report and Decision of the City of Yelm Hearing Examiner
relating to the above-entitled matter.
Very truly yours,
STEPHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, JR.
Hearing Examiner
SKC/ca
cc: Parties of Record
CITY OF YELM
-1-
City of Yelm
~~/ ,~`' Community Development Department
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, WA 98597
wwswaroTOw
Pre-Application Meeting
December 1, 2004
These comments are preliminary in nature and are not intended to represent final comments and or
requirements for the City of Yelm. Until a complete application is made, the Community Development
Department can only attempt to inform the applicant of general requirements as they appear in the form
presented by the applicant at the time of pre-submission.
Proponent: Erling Birkland
Project Proposal: Construct Office Complex
Project Location: 10336 SE West Road
Zoning and Setbacks
The property is zoned Commercial (C-1 ), Chapter 17.26 YMC. This district allows
business and professional offices as a permitted use subject to site plan review.
Applications to develop, remodel or improve properties and structures within this zone
shall require review and approval of a site plan in accordance with Chapter 17.84 YMC.
Setbacks: Front property line 15 feet
Side property line 10 feet
Rear property line 20 feet
Parking
The requirements for off-street parking and their design shall be regarded as the
minimum; however, the owner, developer, or operator of the premises for which the
parking facilities are intended shall be responsible for providing adequate amounts and
arrangement of space for the particular premises even though such space is in excess
of the minimum set forth.
Chapter 17.72 Business and professional offices require one (1) space per 300 square
feet of gross floor area. Based on 57,200 square feet, 191 parking spaces would be
required. For parking facilities containing 25 or more spaces, a maximum of 25% may
be compact. 48 of these stalls may be compact.
Yelm Development Guidelines 4G.110 states; "in all commercial and industrial
developments, parking areas shall be so arranged as to make it unnecessary for a
vehicle to back out into any street or public right-of-way.
A parking plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for
review and approval a the time of application for site plan review. All required parking
areas must be paved, striped and landscaped.
Ingress/Egress
Ingress and egress at the site shall be consistent with the Yelm Development
Guidelines, section 46.140. Existing vehicular access to the site is on West Road. No
additional accesses may be created.
Landscaping: Chapter 17.80, Type I, II, III, IV & V
• Type I landscaping is intended to provide a very dense sight barrier and physical
buffer to separate conflicting uses, and land use districts. Type I landscaping is
required between this site and the residential use to the west.
Type I landscaping is characterized by a 15 foot landscape strip in which any
combination of trees, shrubs, fences, walls, earthen berms, and design features
provides an effect which is sight-obscuring from adjoining properties.
Type II landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets,
and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of
streets, parking areas, and building elevation. This landscaping is used around
the perimeter of a site, and adjacent to buildings. Type II landscaping would be
required along the perimeter of the site on the north, east, and south property
line.
Type II landscaping is characterized by an 8 foot landscape strip between uses
and a 5 foot strip around buildings of any combination of evergreen and
deciduous trees (with no more than 50 percent being deciduous), shrubs,
earthen berms and related plant materials or design features may be selected;
provided, that the resultant effect is to provide partial screening and buffering
between uses and of softening the appearance of streets, parking and structures.
• Type III landscaping is intended to provide visual relief where clear sight is
desired. This landscaping is utilized along pedestrian corridors and walks for
separation of pedestrians from streets and parking areas. Type III landscaping
would be required along West Road.
Type III landscaping is typified by a six foot landscaping strip with street trees for
a large overstory canopy along streets and pedestrian corridors and grass or
other approved vegetation for groundcover. Earthen berms with grass or other
vegetative groundcover and other design features may be worked into
landscaping provided the resultant effect of providing apedestrian-friendly
environment and visual relief where clear site is required can be achieved.
• Type IV landscaping is intended to provide visual relief and shade in parking
areas.
At least 24 square feet of landscape development for each parking stall
proposed. Each area of landscaping must contain at least 100 square feet of
area and must be at least six feet in any direction. Each planting area must
contain at least one tree. Live groundcover shall be provided throughout each
landscaping area. No parking stall shall be located more than 50 feet from a
tree.
• Type V landscaping is required in storm water retention areas, if required.
The floor and slopes of any stormwater retention/detention area shall be planted
in vegetation that is suitable and will thrive in hydric soils. The landscaping of the
stormwater facility shall be incorporated with all on-site landscaping.
A conceptual landscaping plan is required with the application for site plan review. Final
landscaping and irrigation plan is required as element of civil construction drawings,
with installation prior to occupancy.
The refuse area must be large enough to accommodate a dumpster and recycle bin.
Refuse areas must be screened with an enclosure of a material and design compatible
with the overall architectural theme. A six foot wall or fence shall enclose any outdoor
refuse collection point. The fence shall be a solid material such as wood or masonry.
Traffic
The City has adopted a Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) of $750.00 per PM peak trip.
The Code provides a default table that the applicant can use to determine new PM trips
generated. For an administrative office, the trip generation rate is 3.68 per 1,000 square
feet. A residence creates 1.01 new pm peak hour trips. This buildings previous use was a
single-family residence. A credit should be issued for the existing traffic generation. To
determine the projects impact and fee, use the following formula for the use proposed:
((Peak PM Trip Rate * Gross Floor Area)/1,000) * $750.00 =TFC
Example: 3.68 x 57, 200 =210, 496 _ 1, 000 = 210.49 x $750.00 = $157, 872.00
Credit one residence.
New residence: 1.01 x $750.00 = $757.50
Total: $157,114.50
If the applicant feels the proposed use would not generate the default number of trips as
designated in the TFC Ordinance, and analysis prepared by a Washington State Licensed
Engineer can be submitted to the City for review and consideration.
SEPA
An environmental checklist with a Traffic Impact Analysis is required.
A portion of this property is within 200 feet of Yelm Creek, which is a shoreline of the state.
Also, a portion of the property lies within the 100 year flood plain, and associated
wetlands. If development occurs within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction area, a
Shoreline Substantial Development permit is required. A wetland delineation is required to
determine the wetland setback requirements. No development may occur in the flood
zone.
Application and Process
Site Plan Review, Chapter 17.84, is an administrative process. Minimum application
requirements are located in Section 17.84.060 and are listed on the application form. The
Shoreline Substantial Development permit requires a public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner. A project of this size can expect completed review in approximately 18 to 20
weeks. Land use approval typically contains conditions of approval that the applicant must
complete prior to receiving a building permit. Upon satisfactory completion of all
conditions of land use approval, the applicant can submit building plans for approval.
Other
Design Guidelines -the attached checklist must be submitted at time of application, with
written responses on how each guideline requirement is proposed to be met.
DESIGN GUIDELINES -West Road, Yelm WA 98597
Pro'ect Review Checklist Guidelines
A licable Guidelines
Met
I.A. 1 Relate develo ment to edestrian oriented street fronta e.
I.A. 2 Relate develo ment to street fronts other than edestrian-oriented streets . X
I.B. 1 Minimize visibilit and im acts of service areas.
I.C.(1) Take advantage of special opportunities and mitigate impacts of large
develo ments. X
I.D. 1 Reduce im act of service areas and mechanical a ui ment. X
I.E. 1 Inte rate biofiltration swales and onds into the overall site desi n. X
I.F. 1 Enhance the visual ualit of develo ment on corners.
I.F.(2) Provide a paved pedestrian walkway from the street corner to the building
entrance.
II.A.(1) All pedestrian paths must correspond with federal, state and local codes for
handica ed access, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. X
II.A.(2) Provide adequate lighting at the building entries and all walkways and paths
throw h arkin lots. X
II.A. 3 Develo an on-site edestrian circulation conce t. X
II.B.(1) Provide a pedestrian path at least 60" wide (preferably 96" wide) from the
street sidewalk to the main ent X
II.B.(2) Provide pedestrian paths or walkways connecting all businesses and the
entries of multi le buildin son the same develo ment site. X
II.B. 3 Provide athwa s throw h arkin lots X
II.C.(1) Where street ROW is insufficient to provide adequate sidewalks buildings and
other site features must be set back from the public ROW to achieve at least
minimum sidewalk widths. X
II.C.(2) Where new streets are developed, provide sidewalks according to minimum
standards.
II.D.(1) Provide, where feasible, pedestrian circulation routes to adjacent uses and
transit.
II.D. 2 Inte rate nearb transit sto s into the tannin of ad~acent site im rovements.
II.D.(3) Encourage pedestrian paths from all transit stops through commercial areas
to residential areas within 1,200 feet
II.E. 1 Enhance buildin ent access. X
II.F. 1 Provide edestrian-oriented o ens ace at ke locations.
III.A. 1 Provide access roads throw h tar a lots with more than one street fronta e.
III.B. 1 Minimize drivewa im acts. X
III.C. 1 Meet re uirements for location of arkin lots on edestrian-oriented streets.
Continued
DESIGN GUIDELINES -West Road, Yelm WA 98597
Protect Review Checklist Guidelines
Applicable Guidelines
Met
III.C. 2 Meet re uirements for arkin lot desi n detail standards. X
III.D. 1 Minimize arkin areas throu h 'oint use and mana ement.
III.D. 2 Encoura a structured arkin .
III.D. 3 Reduce im acts of arkin ara es.
IV.A. 1 Incor orate human-scale buildin elements. X
IV.B. 1 Reduce scale of lar a buildin s.
IV.C. 1 Architectural) accentuate buildin corners at street intersections.
IV. D. 1 Enhance buildin s with a ro riate details. X
IV. E. 1 Retain on final facades.
IV.E.(2) Use compatible building materials. (See Building Material Summary
Matrix, 59 X
IV. F. 1 Treat blank walls that are visible from the street arkin or ad'acent lot. X
IV.G.(1) Locate and/or screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment so as not to be
visible from the street or from the round-level of ad~acent ro erties. X
IV.G.(2) Where practical, locate and/or screen utility meters, electrical conduit and
other service and utilities a aratus so as not to be visible from the street. X
V.F.(1) Use plant materials that are approved for use in downtown Yelm.
Pro onents ma use other )ant materials a roved b the Ci
V.G. 1 Develo a site landsca a desi n conce t. X
V.H. 1 Provide substantial site landsca in .
V.H. 2 Protect and enhance natural features. X
V.I. 1 Screen all arkin lots as re wired b Cha ter 17.80, Landsca in X
V.I.(2) An alternative to the required perimeter parking area landscaping plan may
be submitted.
V.I. 3 Provide internal arkin lot landsca in X
V.J.(1) Consider alternative building and parking siting strategies to preserve
existin trees.
V.J.(2) Consider the integration of pedestrian and bicycle paths with stands of
mature trees where feasible to connect ad'acent uses.
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: September 6, 2005
Re: APP-OS-0275-YL -Project Review for West Road Professional Park Appeal
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.
I:\APP Appeal\OS-0275 West Road Prof Park\Proj Rev Date Memo.doc
~oF 71~ CITY OF
~ YELM
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, WA 98597
3saa5e-eaos
RECEIVED ~***FIFTY DOLLARS & 00 CENTS
RECEIVED FROM DATE REC. NO.
3B&C LLC 09/02/05 38174
PO BO% 875
YELILI WA 98597 BUDGETARY
894 2296
JANINE
RECEIPT No. 3 817 4
AMOUNT REF. NO.
50.00 CASH
SEPA APPEAL
BSP 05 0197 YL
~7< ~ P~ Date Received
~~, T ~ City o f Yelm Fee G U
By .I
File No. -U 1 ~---
~ 'l~'erf Communit Development
y ~~i,~ ~ ~ o d~S
Department
NOTICE OF APPEAL
YELM
WASNINOTON ~~ ~ n
Fee: Staff Decision - $50.00
Hearing Examiner Decision - $100.00
(In addition, any professional service
charges per Resolution #358)
A Closed record appeal may follow either an open record hearing or an open record administrative
decision on a project permit application when the appeal is on the record, and no or limited new
evidence or information is allowed to be submitted. Appeals on Category I & II project decisions are
heard by the City Council. Appeals on Category III & IV project decisions as well as Category I & II
decisions which have been appealed to the City Council go to Superior Court and follow the judicial
review process set forth in RCW 366.70C. A Notice of Appeal must be filed within 14 days of
Notice of Final Decision.
PROJECT CASE NUMBER BEING APPEALED E3~ ~ D,~ D% /~' "~ ~ L_
DATE OF NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION /~~~-~~st- ~~ ZDD S
APPELLANT(S) e~~ C' ~ ~
Mailing Address %~ c~ • r3c~;x ~'~
City, State and Zip 1/~ci~, Gch, jj,S~~ i'
~~
Telephone ~ ~ ,~ ~ Z 2 ~' EMAI L G ct29T~ .~ z.+~ -z , ~~
SPECIFIC ITEMS OF DECISION BEING APPEALED (attach additional sheet if necessary):
ISCT i ~lTirIC~NE2~
I affirm that all answers, statements and information contained in and submitted with this application
are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also affirm that I am the owner of the
subject site or am duly authorized by the owner to act with respect to this application. Further, I grant
permission from the owner to any and all employees and representatives of the City of Yelm and other
governmental agencies to enter upon and inspect said property as reasonably necessary to process
this application. I agree to ay all fees of the City that apply to this application.
Signed - ~ -.__.-Date. ~'~1' D
~_ ~ ._ \ /
~~~ ~;~ 2 ?(~I15
CITY OF YELM
~~i~y
105 Yelm Auenue West (360) 458-3835
PO Box 479 (360) 458-3144 FAX
Yelm, WA 98597 www.ci.yelm.wa.us
tf ~ d~' .. ,..
Mr. Grant Beck, Community Development Director
Date: 31 August 2005 5~~;=
City of Yelm '
105 Yelm Avenue W.
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
Re: Appeal of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
File Number SPR-OS-0160-YL and BSP-OS-0197-YL
This letter is to formally appeal specific items identified in the published document of "Mitigated
Determination ofNon-significance" File Number SPR-OS-0160-LY and BSP-OS-0197-YL, signed by
Grant Beck, City of Yelm Community Development Director.
The following comments are an appeal of items 3 a, b, c and d as stated in the "Mitigating Measures" of
the published document:
Item number 3 states that the Civil plan submission shall include an updated preliminary stormwater plan
that meets or exceeds the standards in the 1992 stormwater Manual as adopted by the City of Yelm. The
stormwater plan shall include the following elements:
a. Alternative technologies are not accepted.
The City of Yelm has allowed alternative technologies for treating stormwater in past projects, most
recently the Yelm High School, Yelm Middle School and Ridgeline Middle School. Alternatively,
Thurston County, City of Olympia, City of Tumwater and City of Lacey have all allowed "Alternative
Technologies" to be used for the treatment of stormwater prior to infiltration. The proposed Vortechnics
unit meets or exceeds many of the traditional means of removing pollutants and would be suitable in this
application.
We are requesting the City consider the use of effective alternative technologies that are currently being
employed and approved with other projects in the City of Yelm and its neighbors.
b. The elevation of the bottom of the infiltration gallery shall be a minimum of six feet above the
elevation of the high ground water area as identified by Thurston County (approximate
elevation 335), and must be 50 feet horizontally, or 2 feet vertically away from the High
Ground water area, which ever distance is less.
1. The 335 elevation was not disclosed during the pre-submission conference with the City of Yelm.
2. How was this elevation determined, and what datum was this elevation derived from?
3. The 1992 DOE stormwater manual indicates that three (3) feet of separation is required between the
bottom of the infiltration facility and the seasonal high ground water as determined from soil logs. J.W.
Morrissette and Associates conducted 3 separate soil logs on site (see Preliminary Drainage & Erosion
Control Report) and did not observe any evidence that would suggest that the ground water was any
higher in elevation than 100" below existing grade. This was recorded in the test hole lowest in elevation.
4. Has the City formally adopted Salmon Creek Standards within the Yelm Creek area? This additional
criteria was not disclosed at the pre-submission conference.
c. Separate water quality treatment for roof runoff shall be provided.
The Drainage Manual does not require that roof runoff be treated prior to infiltration. Is this criteria
adopted by the City of Yelm? Previous projects within the City of Yelm have not required separate
treatment of roof runoff.
d. The stormwater system shall be designed to accommodate stormwater generated by required
frontage improvements.
Currently there is a stormwater collection system along West Road. We understand that the City's system
was designed to handle the stormwater requirements for area located within the street right-of--way and
includes a treatment and disposal component. Would the City consider the additional runoff for the
improvements located in the street to be conveyed into the established collection system situated along
West Road?
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Messages can be left at either 360-894-2296 or
360-458-3277.
Sincerely, ~- -
~--Er ' g it
3 & C LLC
PO Box 875
Yelm WA 98597