Loading...
Hard File ScannedOFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF YELM REPORT AND DECISION CASE NO.: APP-05-0578-YL APPLICANT: I-5 Signs, Mike Hier 8751 Commerce Place NE Lacey, WA 98516 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The appellant is appealing the administrative decision denying a sign permit application. 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 July 11, 2006, at 9:00 a.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 GARY CARLSON, Building Official, appeared and testified that the project began as a staged development on June 14, 2004. The NAPA business opened in a new facility and then the existing building was demolished. Then Walt's moved in, but has not as yet opened. He reviewed the 30% rule and noted that the block letters over the door are not under appeal. The City has recently hired a code enforcement officer to enforce the sign code and apply it equally throughout the City. He agrees that the appellant has proposed an attractive sign. The awning and marquee signs have an identical definition and the -1- difference doesn't matter as the sign can only measure 30% of either. He introduced Exhibit "2", photographs of the site. MIKE HIER appeared and testified that he is the appellant and represents I-5 signs. The sign code penalizes the owner and he noted that the vantage point in Exhibit "2" is the same. If the photographs were taken farther down Yelm Highway, one would lose sight of the sign. They are asking an interpretation of the code as their sign is an awning sign which would conform with other interpretations the City has given for the same reasons. It is a way to interpret the code to get what they want. The Rite-Aid sign exceeds the 30% limit and he questions how the City could have granted a permit. They could interpret the marquee definition to allow it. MR. CARLSON reappeared and testified that the City adopted its sign code in 1996 and amended it in August, 2005. He started with the City in 1999 and the Rite-Aid sign was already approved. Said sign is a feature consisting of part of the building and wall and is not an awning, but a wall. They have the same standards now that they had in 1996. MR. HIER reappeared and confirmed that the City amended the code two years ago, but the size standards are the same as in 1996. He had photographs of several signs in his appeal. No one spoke further in this matter and so the Examiner took the request under advisement and the hearing was concluded. NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the City of Yelm Community Development Department FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION: FINDINGS: 1. The Hearing Examiner has admitted documentary evidence into the record, heard testimony, and taken this matter under advisement. 2. This request is exempt from review under SEPA. 3. Appropriate notice was provided pursuant to the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC). 4. The central issue presented by this appeal is whether Sections 15.24.180 and 15.24.280 YMC regarding signage area allowable on the face of an awning was correctly interpreted by the City of Yelm, Community Development Department, when it denied the appellant's sign permit application. -2- 5. On May 2, 2006, the appellant applied for a City sign permit for Walt's Tire Factory. The appellant's sign permit application form requests a permit for one awning sign with dimensions of 12 x 3.5, or a total area of 42 square feet. 6. The application was denied on May 18, 2006, by Larry Hanson, City of Yelm Code Enforcement Officer, because the sign, as proposed, does not meet the requirements set forth in Section 15.24.180 YMC. 7. The appellant asserts that the City of Yelm, Community Development Department, incorrectly interpreted Section 15.24.180 YMC regarding the signage area allowable on the face of an awning when it denied his sign permit application. The appellant asserts that other awning signs within the City exceed the requirements set forth in Section 15.24.180 YMC, and claims that Section 15.24.180 YMC had to have been interpreted differently for those sign permits to be issued. 8. The City asserts that Sections 15.24.180 and 15.24.280 YMC clearly prohibit marquee signs and awning signs from exceeding thirty percent (30%) of the total area of the marquee or awning. The City argues that although Section 15.24.280(C) YMC does use the word "marquee", it relies on the definition of "awning" in Section 15.24.020 YMC, and therefore the YMC clearly intends that awning signage be likewise limited to thirty percent (30%) of the awning frontage. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented by this request. 2. Section 15.24.020 YMC defines an awning and marquee as follows: "Awning" means a shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building. "Marquee" means a permanent roofed structure attached to and supported by the building and projecting over public property. 3. The sign permit application form designates that the proposed sign is to be an awning measuring 12 feet by 3.5 feet, or 42 square feet. The proposed sign meets the definition of awning sign as set forth in Section 15.24.020 YMC. Thus, the proposed sign is classified as an awning sign and is subject to the regulations prescribed thereto. 4. Section 15.24.180 YMC establishes standards for signage on awnings and marquees as follows: -3- Signage will be allowed on awnings and marquees in Commercial and Industrial zones of the City. Such signage shall be limited to 30% coverage of the face of the marquee or one square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee, whichever is less. The signage area shall be calculated on the basis of the smallest rectangle, circle, or spherical figure that will enclose the entire copy area of the sign. Any such calculations shall include the areas between letters and lines as well as the areas of any devices which are intended to attract attention. Signage areas shall be included in the overall calculation of total allowable for the building. 5. The awning face of the proposed sign measures forty-two (42) square feet which exceeds the thirty percent (30%) maximum coverage requirement for awning and marquee signs. Thus, the proposed sign does not conform with the requirements set forth in Section 15.24.180 YMC. 6. Preexisting nonconforming signs are subject to enforcement actions by the City of Yelm. Thus, their existence is not relevant to this appeal. Furthermore, nonconforming uses are not precedent for other uses. Jefferson County v. Seattle Yacht Club, 73 Wn. App 576 (1994). 7. Section 15.24.280(A), (B), and (C) YMC state clearly how different configurations of wall signs are to be calculated. A. Flush-mounted wall signs: One square foot for each lineal foot of store (occupant) frontage (main front of entry). One identifier sign for businesses with a separate delivery access will be allowed, not to exceed two square feet. B. Marquee sign: One square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee or 30% coverage of the face of the marquee, whichever is less. C. Awning sign: One square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee or 30% coverage of the face of the marquee, whichever is less. -4- The methods for calculating signage as defined in Sections (B) and (C) above are identical to each other. While the calculation for awning sign in Section (C) uses the word "marquee", it relies on the definition of awning in Section 15.24.020 YMC. Thus, it can clearly be construed that the intent of Section (C) was for the signage to be likewise limited to thirty percent (30%) of the awning face or frontage. DECISION: The City of Yelm, Community Development Department, properly denied the appellant's sign permit application. The appeal of I-5 Signs and Mike Hier of the City of Yelm, Community Development Department's decision to deny the appellant's sign permit application is hereby denied. ORDERED this 26th day of July, 2006. S ~ K. CAUSSEAUX, JR. Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED this 26th day of July, 2006, to the following: APPLICANT: I-5 Signs, Mike Hier 8751 Commerce Place NE Lacey, WA 98516 City of Yelm Tami Merriman 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 -5- CASE NO.: APP-05-0578-YL NOTICE 1. RECONSIDERATION: Any interested party or agency of record, oral or written, that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner may make a written request for reconsideration by the hearing examiner. Said request shall set forth specific errors relating to: A. Erroneous procedures; B. Errors of law objected to at the public hearing by the person requesting reconsideration; C. Incomplete record; D. An error in interpreting the comprehensive plan or other relevant material; or E. Newly discovered material evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing. The term "new evidence" shall mean only evidence discovered after the hearing held by the hearing examiner and shall not include evidence which was available or which could reasonably have been available and simply not presented at the hearing for whatever reason. The request must be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on August 9 , 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 -6- action as he deems proper. The hearing examiner may request further information which shall be provided within 10 days of the request. 2. APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION: The final decision by the Examiner may be appealed to the city council, by any aggrieved person or agency of record, oral or written that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner, except threshold determinations (YMC 15.49.160) in accordance with Section 2.26.150 of the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC). NOTE: In an effort to avoid confusion at the time of filing a request for reconsideration, please attach this page to the request for reconsideration. -~- OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF YELM MEMORANDUM DECISION DISMISSING APPEAL NO. APP05-0621-YL The appeal of Rebecca Galbreath of the City of Yelm Responsible Official's decision to issue a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance following review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for site plan review for two four-plex, multi-family dwelling units Case No. SPR-05-0540-YL came on for a hearing as regularly scheduled at 9:00 a.m. Tuesday, July 11, 2006. The City provided proper notice of the hearing, but the appellant failed to appear and upon the motion of Grant Beck, Responsible Official, the Examiner dismissed the environmental appeal. DATED this 25th day of July, 2006. TEP E K. CAUSSEAUX, JR. Hearing Examiner -Z- ~~,~~ T"Fp City o f Yelm ~ Community Development Department I05 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 YELM Yelm, WA 98597 WASHINGTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YELM HEARING EXAMINER DATE: Tuesday, July 11, 2006, 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Yelm City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave. W., Yelm WA 1. PURPOSE: Public Meeting to hear testimony from parties of record, regarding an appeal of a sign permit application denial. Case #APP-05-0578-YL Appellant: I-5 Signs, Mike Hier Applicant: Walt's Tire Factory 2. PURPOSE: Public Meeting to hear testimony from parties of record, regarding an appeal of a MDNS issued for amulti-family development of two four- plex units, SEPA # 05-0540 Case #APP-05-0621-YL Appellant: Rebecca Galbreath Applicant: Bryan McCammant Representative: Riipinen Surveying The City of Yelm Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to hear testimony from parties of record regarding the appeals listed above. The Hearing Examiner will make a decision on the matter within 10 days after the meeting. Parties of Record may testify at the meeting on Tuesday, July 11, 2006. 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) 458-8496. 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, June 30, 2006 Mailed and Posted in Public Places: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 O~ TNg ~~ STAFF REPOR T City of Yelm Community Development Department To: Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development Date: July 3, 2006 Subject: Appeal of Staff decision, APP-05-0578-YL Applicant: I-5 Signs Mike Hier 8751 Commerce Place NE Lacey, WA 98516 Location: Walt's Tire 509-B Yelm Avenue East Proposal: Appeal of Staff Definition of Marquee Sign and Awning Sign Area Determination I. Introduction Mike Hier of I-5 Signs, Inc. appeals an administrative decision to deny a proposed sign application for a newly constructed tire sales store. II. Background I-5 Signs applied for a sign permit to construct an awning sign for the newly constructed Walt's Tire Store, which is part of a new multi-building business complex located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Yelm Avenue East (SR 507) and Clark Road. The site was formerly the location of a single building containing NAPA Auto Parks, but was issued a site plan review approval on June 14, 2004 to construct a new building for NAPA and a second building to contain an automotive shop. The new building for NAPA Auto Parts was constructed first, while the old NAPA building was still in use. This phasing plan was approved by the City for the benefit of the business in order to allow them to remain open until the new structure was complete. NAPA opened their new building October 13, 2005, and performed a phased demolition of the existing building, parking lot improvements, and is now near completion of the second building on the property, to be occupied by Walt's Tire. The appellant applied for a sign permit representing Walt's Tire Factory on May 2, 2006 (Exhibit A). The application was denied on May 18, 2006 (Exhibit B) by Larry Hanson, City of Yelm Code Enforcement Officer, as the signage proposed is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 15.24.180 YMC. The specific basis for the denial is that the sign image is larger than the 30% allowed for an awning or marquee sign. Staff Report Page 1 of 3 Concurrently on May 2, 2006, Plumb Sign applied for and received approval on May 12, 2006 (Exhibit C) for a wall sign meeting the requirements of the sign code for Walt's Tire Factory. III. Issues Mr. Hier filed an appeal on May 25, 2006, and lists three basis for overturning the decision denying the sign permit, summarized as follows: 1. There are existing non-conforming signs in Yelm. 2. The sign is not an awning sign, but rather a marquee. 3. The sign is well-crafted and attractive. IV. Analysis The Yelm Sign Code at Section 15.24.020 YMC defines an awning and marquee as: "Awning" means a shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building. "Marquee" means a permanent roofed structure attached to and supported by the building and projecting over public property. The Code at Section 15.24.180 YMC establishes standards for signage on awnings and marquees as follows: signage will be allowed on awnings and marquees in commercial and industrial zones of the city. Such signage shall be limited to 30 percent coverage of the face of the marquee or one square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee, whichever is less. The signage area shall be calculated on the basis of the smallest rectangle, circle or spherical figure that will enclose the entire copy area of the sign. Any such calculations shall include the areas between letters and lines as well as the areas of any devices which are intended to attract attention. signage area shall be included in the overall calculation of total allowable for the building. The Code at Section 15.24.280 YMC establishes additional standards for awning and marquee signs as follows: A. Flush-mounted wall signs: one square foot for each lineal foot of store (occupant) frontage (main point of entry). One identifier sign for businesses with a separate delivery access will be allowed, not to exceed two square feet. 8. Marquee sign: one square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee or 30 percent coverage of the face of the marquee, whichever is less. C. Awning: one square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee or 30 percent coverage of the face of the marquee, whichever is less. Non-conforming signs do not establish a precedent for how the clear language of the sign code should be interpreted. There are existing non-conforming signs throughout the City as well as some signs which were placed without permit or approval and are subject to enforcement actions by the City. The City just recently updated the Sign Code in 2004, and shortly after hired a Code Enforcement Officer to help regulate and enforce the Sign Code. Since at least that time, the provisions of the code have been interpreted and applied in a uniform manner. There is no regulatory difference between an `awning' and a `marquee'. The appellant argues that he is being penalized by staffs interpretation of what is a marquee, and what is an awning, however this is a distinction without a difference. Even though the proposed sign is correctly classified as an awning, the standards for awnings and marquees are the same. • Section 15.24.180 YMC specifically includes both awnings and marquees in the title, and that signage shall be limited to 30 percent coverage of the face of the marquee or one square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee, whichever is less. • Section 15.24.280 (A), (B) and (C) state clearly how different configurations of wall signs are to be calculated. A. Flush-mounted wall signs: one square foot for each lineal foot of store (occupant) frontage (main point of entry). One identifier sign for businesses with a separate delivery access will be allowed, not to exceed two square feet. B. Marquee sign: one square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee or 30 percent coverage of the face of the marquee, whichever is less. C. Awning: one square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee or 30 percent coverage of the face of the marquee, whichever is less. Sections B. and C. are clear copies of each other with the intent that neither a marquee nor an awning will exceed 30% of its area in signage. Although the awning section C does use the word `marquee' it relies on the definition of the word awning in Section 15.24.020 YMC and it can be clearly construed that the intent was for the signage to be likewise limited to 30% of the awning frontage. V. Conclusion The business owner has not been denied the right to the full extent of his signage or the use of an awning, and the Community Development Department has approved additional signage under a separate permit and is willing to approve a combination of awning and wall signage to give the business owner full advantage of signage allowed under Chapter 15.24 YMC. The last appeal issue relating to the quality of the sign is not relevant under any provision of the sign code and is not addressed. The appeal should be denied. o~~~ THE pip City o f Ye l m Date Receiv d • L 7 By File No. - °' Community Development Department ~~ Y E LM NOTICE OF APPEAL ~~` ~'~~L WASNINCTON ~ ~/~, 51~~6 c~ 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 DATE OF NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION APPELLANT(S) ~~ 1 ~<'~ >"l ~?~Z Mailing Address City, State and Zip Telephone 360 - ~ `~~ 32c)p EMAIL ~~ ~ l ~~eSr! N ~Gahz SPECIFIC ITEMS OF D-E{-CISION BEING AIPPEALED (Jattach additional sheet if necessary): I l~l~C.[' j(~' ~L'~~.1 i ri? ti.s d-4 t{"it~. C Q Cl ~ ~V]~L ~'i ~~ " ~, T xi ~J~x6~.~':>~~ 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 pay all fees of the City that apply to this application. Signed c~ ~ `"~ ~'~ Date ~/2~~~ ]05 Yelm Auenue West (360) 958-3835 PO Box 979 (360) 958-3144 FAX Yelm, WA 98597 www.ci.yelm.wa.us Y ~- of Tip CITY OF ~ ~ YELM YePm, WAX98597 RECEIPT No. 4 ~ 2 4 8 360-458-8403 RECEIVED ****gIFTY DOLLARS & 00 CENTS RECEIVED FROM DATE REC. NO. I-5 SIGNS INC 05/25/06 42248 8751 COHHERCE PL DR. NE LACEY NA 98516 BUDGETARY AMOUNT REF. NO. 50.00 CHECK 66536 HICHELLE Re: Walt's Tire Factory Awning and Sign permit Appeal for reconsideration of our request. I am requesting a review of our request by the hearing examiner based on the following considerations: I question the interpretation of YMC section 15.24.180 regarding signage area allowable on the face of an awning. This section notes ordinance 576 dated 1, 1996. I believe I found examples of other awnings around Yelm which must have been granted permits and which were installed later than 199b. An obvious example is the Rite Aid awnings. The graphics on those exceeds 30% and by the interpretation we received on our permit application, they would not have been approved. There are photos of those and other awnings around town which seem to have been interpreted differently. I would also point out a few other sections of the code which are pertinent to the interpretation. 15.24.280 A, B, and C. These show the basic sign area allowed for building signage (generally 1 square ft. of signage per lineal ft. of frontage). There is a specific exception for "marquee" signage. The interpretation here seems to be that a "marquee" is the same thing as an awning fascia. There are other interpretations which can be (and apparently have been) made. One could interpret that the intention here is to allow up to 1 square ft. of signage per lineal ft. of building frontage but not to allow someone to plaster signage all along a marquee or awning face in an unsightly manner. Our request could be interpreted that we want to provide a nice awning over the entrance to Walt's Tire Factory and that we want to apply a sign onto the face of that awning. Both the awning and the signage could be approved per code but not together per the present interpretation. I have included a page which shows the awning and graphics we are proposing super imposed onto the building. Also shown are superimposed pictures of other options which would be far more expensive and unsightly but would be approved per the present interpretation. The present interpretation does not take into account the intent of the code. Another section in the code which should be considered in making an interpretation is 15.24.020 -Definitions. Specifically the word, Marquee. I wondered at the use of this word when Larry told me we could have no more than 30% sign area on the awning "marquee". In my experience, awning faces are not marquees. Marquees are something different. The wording in the sections referenced above leaves room for the present interpretation but it also leaves room for other interpretations. Again I will mention the photos included in this appeal, of existing awnings within Yelm which were constructed after 1996 and must have received a different interpretation in order to be permitted. The code defines Marquee as "a permanent roofed structure attached to and supported by the building and projecting over public property." Marquee Sign is defined as, "any sign attached to or supported by a marquee." If one uses this definition for "Marquee" everywhere it appears in the code, it could be interpreted that an awning could be a marquee if it extended over "public property". The awning we are proposing and the awnings I noted, like Rite Aid, are not over public property. It is conceivable that those other awnings with signage on more than 30% of their facades were interpreted not to be on public property and therefore not subject to the restrictions of a "marquee". They would still be limited to the allowable sign area for other building signage. Please consider my arguments and the information I am providing herein. Our request is modest and it seems there are good precedents for an interpretation different from the current denial of our permit. ~-^ .w..~~... .www „~ According to the present interpretation this is not allowed According to the present interpretation these would be allowed, .._ k ~~ ~~. ~, According to the present interpretation, the awning on the right would not be allowed C~~~~ ~ According to the present interpretation, these Rite Aid awnings would not be allowed. ~~ ~°~ ~n ~, . ;-~ ~~ awnings ~~ ~- o ~ ~ ~ o o C° ~ c ~ ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ° o a -~ c -+- ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ c~ o ~ ~ ~ o . ~- ~ ~ m ~ _ ~ -~ ~ -.~ m o ~~ ~ -.F. Q ~ Q ~. ~ C ~ ~' ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ c~ cQ r ~~-- 3 ~ ~~~~~ ~~_ ~ , ~~. ~~ ~~. .~ _ . ~_ CITY OF YELM SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Project Address: ~~~ C~ ~VP.X~UL ~ - Zoning; Current U Proposed Use: Type/Number of Sign(s) (wall, monument, lighted, etc.): I ~ r~, n ~ • . Dimensions of Sign(s): i ~ X :3 ~ ~ ~~ #~.x~ c;,re.c. - y~ s~. Ek Building Gross Floor Area (sq. ft): ,~U~ 5a •~k Building Height: ~U Existing Signage (if any) and dimensions: APPLICANT Last Name First Name ADDRESS ~~ SI (" ~m ~er~ ~ • ~ L EMAIL ~s b' tSc~CS~• ~~a~ CITY L~ i._z.a..r STATE V -ZIP ~/ 6'~7 TELEPHONE ~ ~ ~4 , ~`~ -7 BUILDING OWNER '_s i 1 ~"~ u~- ADDRESS I~C`~ aV.i?X-1 y ~~ cis r-- EMAIL +<c a~ ~ I S"`~d~s ~ y ~~ " <<~~.~-, CITY Y-el m STATE t~v~-"" ZIP "I~~`~`i'~ TELEPHONE .~"~-4S-`i . a~-c ~, BUILDING TENANT c~ -t `S - ~ ~ ~-cx- ~ ~ 1 ADDRESS 13 ~ ' ~y~n~ e F= . E AIL CITY '1~~-1 ~ ~ STATE t.,v'/-~ ZIP ~'~ ~/ 1 TELEPHONE ~s~ . S-` ...29 ~{UQ SIGN CONTRACTOR :~-S ~' i v, '~ r~'~h «c•/u~~TELEPHONE `5~'z' ~ ~-iS` r-~`"t ~,"~ ADDRESS ~~~ Lwi-iYt-lerce. 1- 1-. EMAIL CITY Lacc.-~ STATE ~ ft ZIP `I,~S l W FAX `5 0 . ~s ~ • C~4 r5~ CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE # :I-FL vESi iS-f ~EXP DATE' ~c-CITY LICENSE # 1 hereby certify mat the above information is correct and that the construction of the above described sign will be in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations of the State of Washington and the City of Yelm. ~.~ ~~ Applicant's,.$ign~ture Date Owner / ontta o /Owner's Agent /Contractor's Agent /Tenant (Please circle one.) All permits are non-transferable and will expire if work authorized by such permit is not begun within 180 days of issuance, or if work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days 105 Yedm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Parcel #: 2 ~ ~ ~ `l 3 ~ Z~~ 0 1 % Z~ g (360) 458-3835 (360) 45 ~/~ ~~ Aiwl~ / ~ DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES LICENSED AS PROVIDED BY LAW AS _ ELEC CONTR SIGN EC`04"~ ~IES~~~151;03s ,~0~30~2:006 EFFEC'I`~ ~DATE~ ~ ~ 09~23~1985 T FIVE SIGNS INC 8751 COMMERCE PL DR NE LACEY WA 98516-1326 F625-052-(H)0 (8/97) State of Washington County of Thurston I certify that this is a true and correct copy of a document in the possession of I-5 Signs, Inc. (IFIVES115103), as of this date. ~P~~~~-a~ ~~~ ~~ ~~y~woa ~„o •~~„ ° U NOTARY "' ' ° PUBUG ° N~~ A ~~ ~a, , ~~dF UVP+~~~ 4'.4....x. . My appointment expires Q2 / -~~ Notary public in and for the State of Was ~ t Residing in _.. _ , f3 X51 ['l1Mi'~1!~RG1= Fi_ i,iF ', AT Z OiiT (l l= ~ OVJIv , LiCE~LL ~~ lfl7'1 h,;~ ,VI .f' NUMBER LIC:: ~_ f"i -_ ~JG~ri rNE-GiG~15;3t1:G1 Ci Oc ,.ic. h,,.a _,. ~'~X ~y ~P~, i~ ,_5' - = { - = ~' - - - - - -.i 9 ~ ~ G~153~!:~! 171~ti/GI F, ~r1a;~iUFACTII~INt j ~S:G~I C; t (~ I F U'1 I F, S C A ha( tui A N I..At:F`r WA TY ORDINANCE #342 STATES LICENSES MUST BE NEWED BY THE 1ST OF FEBRUARY EACH YEAR. 5if~516 TO INSURE PROPER RENEWAL OF YOUR LICENSE RETURN THIS PORTION ~A A N IJ F A C T i 1 N I N G ~__ ~-_r ~---~~ r Pl 17 6 LICENSi~~iG PEROL7 JAIL, 1, 2~? 47 h Of~ F2CM TO DEC, 1, 20 ~ ~ r. ~`,'~ i- i~ 2!~~6 ~~ ~ ~~- _ i r~,_ - ~1F11nG1,v7! 11IQI$IG1~ ?S,UaY1 _- - ~ i ~AiViIFAC;T~1FtiIVC Y 1i I _- FOR YOUR RECORDS * KEEP THIS PORTION ~ e~~ive tv1AY 0 2 2006 m N ~ ! // ~ om A = i = T Gl O ~ N Q V ~ ~ c~ D mC ~~m m wn P~ Z G1 m F y ~r ?nA o A ~~ ~R° Z A ~ 0 0 ~o~ N Z o m m y S z _ s ~ ' Zn~ oo > X^' '' ~ n / ~ V v n~ °n 5h7 ~ ~ mz a~ yn c ~ 0~;, oa ~~ C ~ 2 1'1 p ~ ~ a O ~ C m A~ O O N -i ~ D o -~ m _ w 3 °D ~ m "' ~ Cn Z m .o O7 C m T v m n fll ~ T ~ ~ n o ik ik ik a N m ~ ~ Z 'N"I m ~ C D Cl ~ _ C ~ N - I Qo _1 O x X N Ul m X m N -I Z Z ~ _' , ~ O ~ m ,~.. r~ z - p .~, Z y w r s~, ~tF i ~ , ~ ~i . ~. e,. 8'-O" MIN. GROUND CLEARANCE N ~~ Z z -~ c n C r z O ~„ m ~ X mO~'x ~ ~ ~ w D z wzG)N cJ N ~ -~ r ~ X O W D ~ z n Q m ~ ~ J '~` ~ N ~ ~ m m w ~ ®~ z ~ ~I (m N N ` ' m m ~ m ~ O D cn n ~ ~ w Z D ~ m D $i d 2APHiC SCALE p to m ',° ,-l~Y~f - ~tilil---y ( W FEET ) h ~ 20 ft SITE PLAN LEGEND A PORTION OF SECTION 7s, TOWNSHIP n NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, W.M. CffY OF YELM, THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1 1°c -o EXISRNC P011ER PLYE m Ewsnrlc PowFR vauLr m EXISnNC N BOX a EXISiWG IELEPIIONE RISER -EXISDNG SIGN b' ME HIDRAt1T ExISDNC CHAIN LINK FENCE S u6N; ^ E'AISDNC CATCH BASIN EXIS RNG BUILDIIIC EXISIINC CURB Ewsnl+c voLwux -- -,.~ _ EwsnNC lo' cavrcuR INTERVAL _ _ _ ~,r _ _ _ EXISDNC I' CCfIIWR IN IERVAL EXISTING CONCRETE SIRUCNRE EXISIWG ROAD EDGE OF PAVEYENr ~_p_ EXIS nNG GAS UNE EXISIWG WA IER UNE W-~- SOU THwFSr SS - DOSIWG WATEA UNE AGE 2 EAST, IID SECRCN 19, :IfCE WEST ALCNC iTERLY J.78.7 HERLY RI(71r OF G IHE Popli OF 71GN7 OF WAY RI171i OF WAY GF BEGINNING PROPOSED INFlL71L1nON TRENCH r ~ ~J PROPOSED BUFFER PROPOSED PAVEYENr PROPOSED SANITARY SEMER UNE PROPOSED PARKING SIRIPINC B PROPOSED STEP SYSTFAL --- PROPOSED IXIRUDED CORE ~~ ~ PROPOSED STORY UNE r PROPOSED CATpi BASIN V PROPOSED VAl1EY ~` `~~ ~P~ROV~® D ~ w ~ ~ ~ c ~ j1- ~ ~ •~ ~ \ ~\; ~ ~ ~ _ .... \ s ~ \ __~ ~ ss \ ~ \ ~ ~ \ ~ \~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ \ ~ ~\ \ y\ SNR@fG S \ \\y ~. ~J'n PROPOSED STEP SYS IFY LANK - EJOST FENCE ro BE REAIOVID- ~D.Q%fJ NE _ Ski,. ~ ~ i~ > >: / / .y ~' BUILDING 1. ~''~ 6300 SO. FT. x~ ~ '~~. FF-342.00 ^~ ~ a ~\ , ~~ E / , ~\ ~ '`9 ~~i ~~~~~~~ ~~ Imo, BUILDING 2 3162 SO. F~ FF-34150 ~I~ ~< = ~~-' f~ ~~~ ~ ~ ,.TJ_~_____ ~_r , R1GHi IN u 1 ~ \~ I~ \~ ~\~ I oa a EXISIRM SIGNS 1 I I I I ~ I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I J I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I ~E~ c.~.~.c.c si~„w ~OZ wR'~s 7"'~i[ t .ri0c7 ae y, ~/ / I ~~`_~ I ~.~ B' HIGH Cf1A1N -~ - ~- I UNK REFUSE ~ I I AREA I I ',i I I 1 I ~ I I ~ i ~~'A--~ : / " _ .moo , :~ o~,~~T'~p City of Yelm ~' Community Development Department 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 YELM Yelm, WA 98597 WASNINCTON May 18, 2006 Mike Hier I-5 Signs, Inc. 8751 Commerce Place NE Lacey, WA 98516 Dear Mike: After review of the sign permit application you submitted on behalf of your client, Walt's Tire Factory, to install an awning sign at 1308 Yelm Avenue East, the Community Development Department has determined that the permit application is not consistent with the City's Sign Code and can not issue the permit at this time. Specifically, the sign, as proposed, is inconsistent with Section 15.24.180 YMC, which states: Signage will be allowed on awnings and marquees in commercial and industrial zones of the city. Such signage shall be limited to 30 percent coverage of the face of the marquee or one square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee, whichever is less. The signage area shall be calculated on the basis of the smallest rectangle, circle or spherical figure that will enclose the entire copy area of the sign. Any such calculations shall include the areas between letters and lines as well as the areas of any devices which are intended to attract attention. Signage area shall be included in the overall calculation of total allowable for the building. As this determination terminates the review process, an appea filed within 14 days from the date of this letter, pursuant t Integrated Project Review Process. Any appeal must be in fact I objections, and include the appeal fee of $50.00. Sipcer /J ,~~ i ~ ". I of this decision can be o YMC, Chapter 15.49, writing, contain specific i / . . C ~)z Larry Hanson, Code Enforcement Officer \, _ impartment of Community Development (360) 458-3835 (360) 458-3144 FAX www.ci.yelm.wa.us ~X ~n~~ 1c,~~'C" City of Yelm Community Development Department Building Division Phone: (360) 458-8407 Fax: (360) 458-3144 Applicant: Name: Plumb Sign Inc. Address: 909 S. 28th Street Property Information: Site Address: 509 Yelm Ave E. Assessor Parcel No. 22719342901 Contractor Information: Name: Address: Contractor License No: Project Information: Project: Walt's Tire Description of Work: Sign on side of building Sq. Ft. per floor: (1st) 0 Heat Type (Electric, Gas, Other): Fees: Item Building Permit -Other TOTAL FEES: City: Tacoma Subdivision: Contact: City: Expires: Permit No: SIGN-05-0558-YL Issue Date: 05M212006 (Work must be started within 180 days) Receipt No: 42052 Phone: 253-473-3323 Ext 10 State: WA Zip 98409 Phone: State: Zip: Business License: (2nd) 0 (3rd) 0 Garage 0 Basement 0 Lot: Item Fee Base Amt Unit Fee Unit Rate No. Units Unit Desc 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 $1,000 520.00 APPROVED /I Applicant's Affadavit: OFFICIAL USE ONLY ~ 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 i # Sets of Prints: Yelm regulations including those governing zoning and land subdivision, and in addition, all covenants, easements and restrictions of record. If applyin as a contractor, I futher certify that I am currently ~ registered in the State of Washington. Final Inspection: i Date: Signature J~ Date ~ / ~~ I By. Firm ~ ~' ~xh~t b~~~- C CITY OF YELM SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Project Address: 509 Yelm Ave . E . Parcel # ~J,A.. 22719342901 ~ .;,~ Zoning; Current Use: Tire Sales Proposed Use: Type/Number of Sign(s) (wall, monument, lighted, etc.): (1) Wa 11 Sig n Dimensions of Sign(s): 3 ' 4 " x 12 ' 11/10/07 06.2245.00 Building Gross Floor Area (sq. ft): .j. /G ~. Building Height: /~' Existing Signage (if any) and dimensions: 0 for this b u s i n e s s If Grand Opening Sign(s) (limited to 14 days): Dates: From ~ To If Special Event Sign(s) (limited to 14 days, 4 times per calendar year): Dates: From - To - Previous Date(s) Displayed This Calendar Year: BUILDING OWNER Wa t s Tire ervice ADDRESS 509 Yelm Ave. E. EMAIL CITY Ye m STATE ZIP TELEPHONE 360) 400-9258 BUILDING TENANT a s ire a c o ry -- ADDRESS 509 Yelm Ave. E. EMAIL CITY Yelm STATE ZIP TELEPHONE SIGN CONTRACTOR Plumb Signs Inc. TELEPHONE - x ADDRESS 909 S. t St. EMAIL Connie@plumbsigns.com CITY Tacoma STATE ZIP 98409 FAX 2 - CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE # EXP DATE CITY LICENSE # PLUMBSI077QS I hereby certify that the above information is correct and that the construction of the above described sign will be in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations of the State of Washington and the City of Yelm. 5/2/06 Applicant's Sig ture Date Owner /Contractor /Owner Agent /Contractor's Agent /Tenant (Please circle one.) All permits are non-transferable and will expire if work authorized by such permit is not begun within 180 days of issuance, or if work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days APPROVED 105 Yelm Arenue Wiest /'O Box 479 i'ehn, 4YA 98597 Tire Sales ~V (.360) 4.58-383.5 (360) 4.58-3744 TAX r~iou~.ci.velm.u•a.us ~}- ~L- Re: Walt~s Tire Factory Avvnin`~ and Si`jn permit Appeal for reconsideration of our request. I am requesting a review of our request by the hearing, examiner based on the following considerations: I question the interpretation of ti''~IC section 15?-1.1 SO regarding signage area allowable on the face of an awning. This section notes ordinance {76 dated 1, 1996. I believe 1 found examples of other awnin~,s around 1"elm which must have been granted permits and which were installed later than 1996. An obvious example is the Rite Aid awnings. The graphics on those exceeds ,0° o and by the interpretation we received on our permit application, they would not have been approved. There are photos of those and other awnings around town which seem to have been interpreted dit~erently. I would also point out a few other sections of the code v~fiich are pertinent to the interpretation. 15?4?SO A- B, and C. These show the basic sign area allowed for building signage (<~enerally 1 square ft of signa~,e per lineal ft. of fronta~ze). There is a specific exception for "marquee ~ signage The interpretation here seems to be that a "marquee" is the same thine as an awning fascia. There are other interpretations which can be (and apparently have been) made. One could interpret that the intention here is to allow up to 1 square ft. of simage per lineal ft. of buildin, frontage but not to allo» someone to plaster signage all along a marquee or awnin face in an unsightly manner. Our request could be interpreted that we want to provide a nice avanin`~ over the entrance to ~~~alt's Tire Factory and that we want to apply a si`_n onto the face of that awnine. Both the awning and the si~7nage could be approved per code but not together per the present interpretation. I have included a page which shows the awning and graphics we are proposing super imposed onto the buildin,. Also shown are superimposed pictures of other options which would be far more expensive and unsightly but would be approved per the present interpretation. The present interpretation does not take into account the intent of the code. Another section in the code which should be considered in making an interpretation is 15.^4.020 -Definitions. Specifically the word. Marquee. I wondered at the use of this word when Larry told me eve could have no more than 3U° o sign area on the awnins! "marquee". In my experience, awning faces are not marquees. ~~arquees are something different. The wording in the sections referenced above leaves room for the present interpretation but it also leaves room for other interpretations. Again I will mention the photos included in this appeal, of existing= awnin,Js within Yelrn w hich were constructed after l 996 and must have received a dit~erent interpretation in order to be permitted. The code defines Marquee as "a permanent roofed structure attached to and supported by the building and projecting over public property." ;\~[arquee Sian is defined as, "any sib=n attached to or supported by a marquee.'- If one uses this definition for "i~'(arquee" everywhere it appears in the code, it could be interpreted that an awning could be a marquee if it extended over -public property". The awning ~~e are proposing and the awnings I noted, like Rite .did, are not over public propem~. It is concei~~able that those other awnings with signage on more than ~0°,0 of their facades were interpreted not to be on public property and therefore not subject to the restrictions of a -`marquee'. They would still be limited to the a1lo~sable si~,n area for other building signage. Please consider my arguments and the information I am providing herein. Our request is modest and it seems there are good precedents for an interpretation difTerent from the current denial of our permit. ~N ~ m o a ~ m cmn z Z ~= .o =oZ m~Z"Z ~ Po ~~ od n ~~ w n n A '~~a O v .per .Zt y cRp '~ Z N o !^ ZD~ 00 ~m '~ ~`'~, 0 Arai ~^ Fn $a :C 6~'rJ c~i~Z am H ~(7 ~~ C °a ~ y H z Z m ~ n z ~ N ~ o ao D r 3 m ~' -i N .Do ~ `" Z C m m ~ m D Cl ~ m T ~ ~ n o i i ~ D N m Z ~ ~ O Z ~ m Z1 ~ ~ ~ n~ c0 ~N r Qo O X X N U1 x ~, , z , z ~ ~ I~ I° I,, ~° G ~~ fr 8'-O" MIN. GROUND CLEARANCE Z Z T~ N C -I C D r N m vo m Z DZ r "' O a ...+ /\ m X N Z n C r v z z O ~„ m m m X_ r~riOwx ~ ~ ~ w l~wzG)N D ~ ~xfp~ O ~ D ~x Z f n O m ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ l ~ N ~ ~ m ao ~ ~ ® . O Z I z I m - N N `/ /\ m m ~ ~ D ~ cn O n ~ Z m ~ o m w ~''/ 0 > M Z .` ~ p ~ v ~ ~ Q °c ~ ~ N O N N ~ Q y Q C ti ~ ~ ~ ~ t m v rn ~MJ ~9 Na _ ~ U ~ ~ ~ (jam} ~. ~ \ ~~ -~ ~~ W R ~_ ~ ~ C N ~ ~ t U C ~ Eau ~ z ~~m C~'u N Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ v ~ = ~a E a ~; p M N ` ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ti C ~ M ~- ~ ~ ~ ` C a v v ~ C ~ 'a J OD ~ ~C fl. ~ U ~ Q1 ~ ~ ~ M T '~ v Y - °a' ~~ E ~~} ~oF T~ p S TAFF REPOR T City of Yelm YELM Community Development Department wnaMi-~cTOw Case Number: SPR-05-0540-YL Applicant: Bryan McCammant Property Owner: Ronald McCammant Agent: Rick Roberts, Riipinen Surveying, Inc. Request: Demolish existing residence and construct two four-plex dwelling units. Action: Approval of the Site Plan Review with conditions Findings of Fact Site Plan Review The applicant wishes to demolish an existing residential structure, and construct two four-plex dwelling units. A Notice of Application was mailed to local and state agencies, and surrounding property owners on May 1, 2006. Section 17.84.020 (C) Yelm Municipal Code allows the Site Plan Review Committee to approve a proposal when the site plan conforms 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. Property Characteristics The property is located at 903 Crystal Springs Road, Yelm, WA 98597, and is identified by assessor tax parcel number 33020000100. The surrounding area is residentially zoned with existing residential uses. The property is identified by the Yelm Comprehensive Plan Map as Moderate Density Residential (R-6). All residential uses, including multi-family dwellings are allowed at a density not to exceed 6 units per acre. The site is approximately 1.27 acres, which allows up to 8 dwelling units. The site is adjacent to Yelm Creek, which includes associated flood zones and wetlands. The applicant has proposed the project to be constructed more than 300 feet from Yelm Creek, which is greater than the Shoreline Jurisdiction Area, is outside of the 100 year flood plain, and also meets the largest critical area buffer as required in the City of Yelm Critical Areas Code. The City of Yelm will provide police protection, water service, and sewer service. Fire protection services are provided by The SE Thurston Fire/EMS District (Thurston County Fire Protection District #2). Concurrency Chapter 15.40 YMC requires the reviewing authority to determine that required urban infrastructure is available at the time of development. Concurrency with sewer infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section 15.40.020 (B)(1) YMC when the project is within an area approved for sewer pursuant to the adopted sewer comprehensive plan for the city and improvements necessary to provide city standard facilities and services are present to meet the needs of the proposed development. Concurrency with water infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section 15.40.020 (B)(2) YMC when the project is within an area approved for municipal water service pursuant to the adopted water comprehensive plan for the city and improvements necessary to provide city standard facilities and services are present. Concurrency with transportation infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section 15.40.020 (5)(c) YMC when the project: • Makes on-site and frontage improvements consistent with city standards and roads necessary to serve the proposed project consistent with safety and public interest; • Makes such off-site facility improvements, not listed on the capital facilities plan, as are necessary to meet city standards for the safe movement of traffic and pedestrians attributable to the project; • Makes a contribution to the facilities relating to capacity improvements identified in the adopted six-year traffic improvement program, in the form of a transportation facility charge. Concurrency with school infrastructure is achieved when the developer provides a letter from the local school district that the school facilities impacted by the proposed development are present, or are on an approved and funded plan, to assure that facilities will be available to meet the needs and impacts of the proposed development. July 12 2006 Page 2 of 9 State Environmental Policy Act The City's SEPA Responsible Official issued and published a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance on June 5, 2006, based on WAC 197-11-158. The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance was issued with the following conditions: 1. The developer shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new residential P.M. peak hour trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based on .60 new peak hour trips per residential unit. The proponent will be responsible for a TFC of $450.00 per dwelling unit which is payable at time of building permit. Credit should be given for the existing single- family dwelling. 2. Temporary erosion control systems to be approved by the City of Yelm. 3. The developer shall dedicate the Shoreline Jurisdiction area as open space. 4. The developer shall enter into an agreement with Yelm Community Schools to mitigate project impacts to the School District. The Responsible Official's issuance of a Mitigated DNS for this project was appealed, but was dismissed by the Yelm Hearing Examiner as the appeallants did not appear at the duly advertised public hearing. Critical Areas The site is located adjacent to Yelm Creek which is a shoreline of the state. A shoreline substantial development permit is required when the development is within 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The development proposal is outside of the Shoreline Jurisdiction area, and does not require a shoreline substantial development permit. Yelm Creek has a known flood zone and wetlands associated with it. The Yelm Critical Areas Code describes buffers for riparian areas, flood zones and wetlands. The greatest buffer for a critical area is 300-feet. The applicant proposes all development to occur more than 300 feet from these areas. Transportation Yelm is a small compact community most directly affected by two state highways, SR 510 and SR 507, which bisect the community. These state routes are used by local residents for transportation throughout the City, and for access to commercial and residential areas throughout the community as well as serving regional traffic. July 12 2006 Page 3 of 9 The updated Transportation element of the Yelm Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of improvements designed to avoid the need to significantly widen existing streets, and particularly Yelm Avenue. New development impacts the transportation system in Yelm and, unless the improvements identified in the transportation plan are constructed, the City would need to require developers to pay the cost of internal street widening. The City has adopted a Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) of $750.00 per pm peak trip. The concurrency chapter of the Municipal Code provides a default table that is used to determine new peak PM trips generated by a proposed use. Amulti-family dwelling unit creates .60 new pm peak hour trips. A credit should be given for the previous residential use. The property fronts Crystal Springs Road, which is classified as a Neighborhood Collector Street. Frontage improvements shall be required, and are a mitigating condition of the MDNS. Water Supply The City's Water Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as being within the water service area and the property is currently served by City water. The individual units are required to connect to the water system. The current fee to connect to the City water system is $1,500.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit (each ERU equals 900 cubic feet of water consumption per month). The City of Yelm is dedicated to providing the best quality water possible to its consumers. Section 246-290-490, WAC, requires that the City take measures to ensure that contamination does not occur as a result of cross contamination. An irrigation meter may be installed for the purpose of irrigation. A backflow prevention device will be required for all landscape irrigation connections between the irrigation system and the water meter. Sewer System The City's Sewer Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as being within the sewer service area, and the site is currently served by City sewer. The current fee to connect to the City sewer system is $5,569.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit (each ERU equals 900 cubic feet of water consumption per month). July 12 2006 Page 4 of 9 Stormwater Impervious surfaces create stormwater runoff which, when uncontrolled and untreated can create health, safety, and environmental hazards. The City of Yelm has adopted the 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual, which requires all development to treat and control stormwater on site. The applicant has submitted a preliminary stormwater plan which includes a conceptual design for the treatment and infiltration of the stormwater. A final stormwater plan is required as part of civil plan application submission. Stormwater facilities require continued maintenance to ensure they remain in proper working condition. Parking The City of Yelm Development Guidelines, Design Guidelines, and Municipal Code address parking regulations from many aspects, including, but not limited to the design of lots, the number of stalls required, pedestrian pathways within lots, and safety. The requirements of off-street parking and loading facilities 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 or its arrangement is in excess of the minimum set forth. Residential dwelling units require two stalls per unit. A total of 16 parking stalls are required. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a minimum of one (1) handicap accessible stall for parking lots up to 25 stalls. Fire Fire protection to the buildings must be provided per the International Fire Code. The specific requirements for installation of additional fire hydrants and fire lanes will be determined during civil plan review. The International Building Code (IBC) provides occupancy ratings for different types of uses. The fire coverage and sprinkler system for the proposed use must meet IBC requirements. Open Space The Growth Management Act establishes a goal for open space and recreation that states "encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational July 12 2006 Page 5 of 9 opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks" [RCW 36.70A.020(9)]. Chapter 14.12 YMC provides guidelines for the retention and creation of open space within the City. This chapter requires a minimum of ten percent of the gross area of a multi-family development be dedicated as usable open space. Appropriate uses of dedicated open space include: • Environmental interpretation or education • Parks, recreation lands, or athletic fields • Footpaths or bicycle trails The property is bordered to the west by Yelm Creek and its associated wetlands and flood plain. The applicant is proposing to dedicate the shoreline jurisdiction area and flood zone area as required open space. This meets the open space requirement, as well as protection of the shoreline and flood zone areas. Landscaping Landscaping and screening are necessary to provide screening between compatible and incompatible land uses, to safeguard privacy and to preserve the aesthetic assets of the City. Chapter 17.80 YMC requires all development to provide on site landscaping. 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. The west perimeter of the site shall be left in its native state to protect the Yelm Creek Shoreline, and its associated flood plain and wetlands. 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 is required as part of road frontage improvements. Type IV landscaping is intended to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas. Refuse The City of Yelm Development Guidelines, Design Guidelines, and Municipal Code provides guidance for refuse storage and screening. Refuse areas are required to be assessable by LeMay, screened with a material and design compatible with the overall architectural theme of the associated structure, at July 12 2006 Page 6 of 9 least as high as the refuse container, and must be at least six-feet in height with a gate enclosure. No refuse container is allowed between a public street and the front of a building. Refuse collection areas must be designed to contain all refuse generated on site and deposited between collections and refuse should not be visible from outside the refuse enclosure. Conclusions of Law A. The Site Plan Review Committee has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented by this request. B. The applicant has established that the request for site plan review approval satisfies all criteria set forth in Section 17.84.020 (C) YMC, meets all requirements of the Moderate Density Residential zoning classification, and meets all other requirements of the Yelm Municipal Code. Therefore, the site plan should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance are hereby referenced and considered conditions of this approval. 2. Street frontage improvements shall be required. Frontage improvements shall be consistent with the City of Yelm's Development Guidelines. Improvements for Crystal Springs Road shall be consistent with the section "Neighborhood Collector". 3. The applicant shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new P.M. peak hour trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based on amulti-family dwelling which creates .60 new pm peak hour trips. A credit shall be given for the previous residential use. 4. Each dwelling unit shall connect to City water service. The connection fee and meter fee will be established at the time of building permit issuance. All conditions for cross connection control as required in Section 246-290- 490 WAC. 5. Each dwelling unit shall connect to City sewer service. The connection fee will be established at the time of building permit issuance. 6. The applicant shall design and construct all stormwater facilities in accordance with the DOE Manual, as adopted by the City of Yelm. Best Management Practices are required during construction. 7. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the City of Yelm Development Guideline standards. A minimum of sixteen (16) stalls is required. Accessible spaces shall be provided pursuant to the ADA. July 12 2006 Page 7 of 9 8. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the International Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Yelm, and may include FDC's, fire hydrants, and/or fire lanes. 9. The Yelm Creek Shoreline area, and land 300 feet from the ordinary high water mark, shall be left undisturbed and dedicated as open space, with an easement dedicated to the City of Yelm for stream restoration and protection. 10. Landscaping of the site is required. a. Type II landscaping is required along the perimeter of the site, and adjacent to buildings. Natural vegetation in the shoreline area to remain undisturbed. b. Type III landscaping is required with frontage improvements. c. Type IV landscaping is required in all parking areas. d. A final detailed landscape plan is required as part of civil plan review and approval. 11. Refuse collection 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. C. The Site Plan is valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of this approval. The applicant may request asix-month extension on the approval, if the request is made in writing prior to the expiration date of this approval. If you need additional information or assistance, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. Decision The request for site plan review approval is hereby granted subject to the conditions contained in the conclusions above. P~ this' ~~. day of July, 20(~. grant Bec~! Director of Community Development Site Pla~}~ eview Committee City of,Yelm July 12 2006 Page 8 of 9 Appeal Site Plan Approval is a Type II Administrative land use approval. An appeal of this decision can be filed within 14 days from the date of this approval, pursuant to YMC, Chapter 15.49, Integrated Project Review Process. Any appeal must be in writing, contain specific factual objections, and include the appeal fee of $50.00. July 12 2006 Page 9 of 9 <~ ~ 3 jo is ~~,~~ Tip City o f Ye l m w~c`,`.~.~~ ~--~ 9 41 r~~' Community Development Department `~"~`~ 105 Yelm Avenue West L~~~ P.O. Box 479 YELM Yelm, WA 98597 WO SMINGTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YELM HEARING EXAMINER DATE: Tuesday, July 11, 2006, 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Yelm City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave. W., Yelm WA 1. PURPOSE: Public Meeting to hear testimony from parties of record, regarding an appeal of a sign permit application denial. Case #APP-05-0578-YL Appellant: I-5 Signs, Mike Hier Applicant: Walt's Tire Factory 2. PURPOSE: Public Meeting to hear testimony from parties of record, regarding an appeal of a MDNS issued for amulti-family development of two four- plex units, SEPA # 05-0540 Case #APP-05-0621-YL Appellant: Rebecca Galbreath Applicant: Bryan McCammant Representative: Riipinen Surveying The City of Yelm Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to hear testimony from parties of record regarding the appeals listed above. The Hearing Examiner will make a decision on the matter within 10 days after the meeting. Parties of Record may testify at the meeting on Tuesday, July 11, 2006. 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) 458-8496. 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, June 30, 2006 Mailed and Posted in Public Places: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 OF T~ ~' ~° YELM W4SHINGTON Staff Report City of Yelm Community Development Department To: Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development Date: July 3, 2006 Subject: Appeal of Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance APR-05-0540-YL Appellant: Rebecca Galbreath Location: 903 Crystal Springs Road, Yelm, WA. Proposal: Appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued for the proposed McCammant four-plex units. I. INTRODUCTION Rebecca Galbreath appeals mitigation measures attached to a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance for a proposed site plan review to construct two four-plex multi- family dwelling units. II. BACKGROUND Bryan McCammant has applied for site plan review to demolish an existing dwelling unit and construct two four-plex multi-family dwelling units. The property is zoned Moderate Density Residential (R-6), and the proposed development is allowed in the R-6 zone, based on site plan review approval. The City of Yelm reviewed the SEPA checklist and issued an MDNS on June 5, 2006. The MDNS included the following mitigating measures: 1. The developer shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new residential P.M. peak hour trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based on .60 new peak hour trips per residential unit. The proponent will be responsible for a TFC of $450.00 per dwelling unit which is payable at time of building permit. Credit should be given for the existing single-family dwelling. 2. Temporary erosion control systems to be approved by the City of Yelm. 3. The developer shall dedicate the Shoreline Jurisdiction area as open space. 4. The developer shall enter into an agreement with Yelm Community Schools to mitigate project impacts to the School District. III. ISSUES The appellant appealed the City's issuance of the Mitigated Determination, without listing any specific condition that is being appealed, and without clear identification of potential significant impact that should trigger the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The following analysis will respond to the six general issues listed in the appellant's statement. IV. ANALYSIS 1. How will the developer mitigate transportation impacts? Shouldn't the mitigation be in place and approved prior to development? Shouldn't mitigation be reviewed and accepted by neighbors? Chapter 15.40 Yelm Municipal Code (YMC), concurrency Management provides measures to assure mitigation for impacts to public facilities. Using the concurrency code, it is the City's responsibility to review and condition site plan review approvals to assure that all respective code requirements are met. The Washington State Growth Management Act and the SEPA environmental review requirements allow the public to review the City's determinations to assure a public process during development review. Specifically for traffic impacts, Section 15.40.020(B)(5) YMC lists three ways to assure concurrency. These measures include on-site frontage improvements, off-site improvements if needed, and financial contributions in the form of a transportation facilities charge (TFC). These items are all concurrency issues which can be implemented as part of a site plan approval, and are not required to be listed as SEPA mitigation measures. The TFC charges are listed in the MDNS, however the on-site frontage improvements are listed as a condition of approval of the Site Plan Review application. The amount of traffic generated from the site at build out does not require a transportation impact analysis per the City of Yelm's Transportation Plan, and no off-site improvements were identified that were significant and attributable to the proposal. 2. Developer claims that the quality and extent of the underground aquifer is unknown at this time. Shouldn't there be a study to determine the extent of the aquifer prior to development? How will the developer make sure that oils, grease, and fertilizers be kept out of the aquifer? The Site Plan Review Committee during review of the SEPA checklist noted that the underlying aquifer is extremely sensitive. This is the case for all of the City of Yelm. Staff comments also noted that the project will be on City sewer service, and that stormwater treatment will be pursuant to the Department of Ecology 1992 stormwater manual. Staff Report Page 2 of 4 3. Developer claims that no waster materials will enter ground or surface water, and that all run off will be treated. How? Is there on-site treatment standards that he will be required to install? The applicant shows on the site plan, a proposed underground stormwater treatment facility. This final stormwater treatment plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval for construction. The City of Yelm has adopted the 1992 Department of Ecology stormwater manual, and all impervious and pervious surface areas will be treated. Again, the site will be connected to City sewer service. 4. The developers answers to the transportation impacts are wrong. He claims that there will be 16 cars added to the site, but only 15-20 trips per day. The applicant's answer regarding trips per day was not computed correctly. It appears that he used the peak hour trips generated, not the daily trips generated. Staff comments on the SEPA checklist note that there will be .6 new pm peak hour trips per unit. This equates to 4.8 new pm peak hour trips for the 8 proposed units. The City bases its trip generation numbers on the "pm peak hour trips" listed in The Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation manual, as adopted in Table 15.40.030.6.1 YMC. 5. Developer claims that there are no proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts. This seems critical that the answer be yes, and those measures be addressed prior to development given the cumulative impacts of traffic in Yelm. Based on the City of Yelm's concurrency code, the required frontage improvements, and the TFC charges per unit adequately mitigates the impacts from this development. 6. The parcel is 1.27 acres in an R6 zone. The site includes a creek critical area and FEMA Flood Hazard area. Critical Area Buffer for this creek is 50 to 100 ft. The 50f ft buffer added to the critical area amounts to 0.2 acres. At 100 ft the area involved is .33 acres. These areas are no build areas and amount to 1 to 2 lots. As such, the property can only support 6 lots by my estimation. Section 17.06.260 YMC defines gross density as "the permissible number of dwelling units that may be developed on a specific amount of gross area, measured in number of dwelling units per gross acre", and Section 17.06.410 YMC defines a lot as "a platted or unplatted parcel of land unoccupied, occupied, or intended to be occupied by a principal use or building and accessory buildings, together with all yards, open spaces, and setbacks required by this title." The code clearly states that density is calculated on the parcel to include all areas, including setbacks, and open spaces. Staff Report Page 3 of 4 VI. CONCLUSION The City of Yelm is the lead agency for purposes of SEPA. In this situation, the responsible official for threshold determinations is the Community Development Director [Section 14.04.030 YMC). The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) appealed here is a negative threshold determination, a procedural decision under SEPA. Pursuant to Section 43.21 C.075(3)(d) RCW procedural determinations of the responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. Section 197.11.158 WAC (1) states "In reviewing the environmental impacts of a project and making a threshold determination, a GMA city may, at its option, determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the GMA city's development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for some or all of the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project. Specifically, Section 197.11.158(5) states "If a GMA county/city's comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations adequately address some or all of a project's probable specific adverse environmental impacts, as determined under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the GMA county/city shall not require additional mitigation under this chapter for those impacts. The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance should be upheld. LIST OF EXHIBITS Appeal Notice and Letter Mitigated Determination of Non-significance, and SEPA Checklist Staff Report Page 4 of 4 Department NOTICE OF A.PF Fee - ~ flefn Denni.md /.~ it /. ~~V i CITY OF YELIUI ~ ~2-S 3 S Fee: Staff Decision - $50.00 Received Hearing Examiner Decision - $100.00 (In addition, any professional service JUN 2 6 2006 charges per Resolution #358) ~, .3 0 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 Ciry 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 DATE OF NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION APPELLANT(S) ~ i~ Mailing Address City, State and Zip (/lJ Telephone a ~ EMAIL SPECIFIC EMS OF DECISION REIN APP LED (attach itional sheet if necessary): ~~ ~ ~ G 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 applica ~ I agree to pay all fees of the City that apply to this a plication. Signed ~ Date r ~ V t' 105 Yelm Auenue West PO Box 979 Yelm, WA 98597 (360) 958-3835 (360) 958-3194 FAX www.ci.yelm.wa.us ~,\ 5 G1,1~~ APPEAL TO DEVELOPMENT OF RON McCAMMANT'S CRYSTAL SPRINGS SITE OF TWO FOURPLEXES AND SIXTEEN PARKING SPACES. ATTENTION: GRANT BECK 1. How will the developer mitigate transportation impacts. Shouldn't the mitigation be in place and approved prior to development? Shouldn't mitigation be reviewed and accepted by neighbors? 2. Developer claims that the quality and extent of the underground aquifer is unknown at this time. Shouldn't there be a study to determine the extent of the aquifer prior to development? How will the developer make sure that oils, greases, and fertilizers be kept out of the aquifer? 3. Developer claims that no waste materials will enter ground or surface water, and that all run- off will be treated. How? Is there on-site treatment standards that he will be required to install? If not, then his answer is bogus. 4. The developer's answers to the transportation impacts are wrong. He claims that there will be 16 cars added to the sight, but only 15-20 trips per day. That doesn't compute. The developer is not being forthright about the transportation impacts and I believe you should call him on that- especially given the already cumulative transportation impacts that projects in Yelm is creating. 5. Developer claims that there are no proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts. This seems critical that the answer be yes and those measures be addressed prior to development given the cumulative impacts of traffic in Yelm. Rebecca Galbreath (~~~~~ ~~ Ci/ ~9/~ Gi~frs~-~.C SP,~-~.~ S Sfi .v~J ~ o ~- Y''~"7 ~P C 7. ~l/ ~j ~~/ ~ ~~5~ ~ - ~~(G~. The parcel is 1.27 acres in an R6 zone. The site includes a creek critical area and FEMA Flood Hazard area. Critical Area Buffer for this creek is 50 to 100 ft. The 50 ft buffer added to the critical area amounts to 0.2acres. At 100 ft the area involved is 0.33 acres. These areas are no build areas and amount to 1 to 2 lots. As such, the property can only support 6 lots by my estimation. ON z ~ LiJ ~ ~M M l'~ I d' ~ U O W Z x ~ U a m w m w ~ Z~ ~ c a m o ch z~ L N ~~ ,+ tp ~ m H ~ W 4 ~ C9 AR to w N A ~ H ¢ ~ ~ H i x c ~o G0 A W ~ i V ~ i m a a a o 0 ~ x ~ H H a w ~w~ ~t O ~ °: o -'~ W •'G 01 W ~~~~ W ~p;4u'f CL N ~ * °,~ ~, V~ ~}r * ~~ z ,~.o 0 ~x3m W i ~R~E r (~ ~ ~ V ~.``~ ~ w as ~ a ao H a; ~ u~ ~~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ ~ a ~` ~ d' x s' V~tld ,\~, ~ SEPA N0: 05-0540 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Proponent: Bryan McCammant Description of Proposal: Demolish existing residence, and construct two four-plex multi-family units. The project includes the construction of stormwaterfacilities, on-site parking, and street improvements to Crystal Springs Road. Location of the Proposal: The project site is located at 903 Crystal Springs Road, North of Yelm Avenue West (SR 510). Section/Township/Range: Section 19, Township 17 North, Range 2E, W.M. Threshold Determination: The City of Yelm as lead agency for this action has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Conditions/Mitigating Measures: SEE ATTACHED Lead agency: City of Yelm Responsible Official: Grant Beck, Community Development Director Date of Issue:- June 5, 2006 Comment Dead~~~ June 19, 2006 ~Appeat'~eadlin~~/ June 26, 2006 ~i i ~~ ~ (~ Grant Beck, Community Development Director This Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance (MDNS) is issued pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11-340 (2). Comments must be submitted to Tami Merriman, Community Development Department, at City of Yelm, 105 Yelm Avenue West, P.O. Box 479, Yelm, WA 98597, by June 19, 2006, at 5:00 P.M. The City of Yelm will not act on this proposal prior June 26, 2006, 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 June 26, 2006 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), Storm water Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual (DOE), Uniform Building Code, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (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, Friday, June 9, 2006 Posted in public areas: Monday, June 5, 2006 Copies to: All agencies/citizens on SEPA mailing list and adjacent property owners Dept. of Ecology w/checklist ATTACHMENT SEPA Case Number 05-0540 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 (January 2006, Bryan McCammant) 2. 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. 3. Chapter 14.12 YMC requires the dedication of open space for all residential development. Section 14.12.050 YMC lists four (4) attributes for qualification of open space. The applicant proposes to preserve the Shoreline Jurisdiction area as open space. 4. The Yelm School District has adopted a school mitigation requirement based on the demand that new residential units create for additional school services and facilities. Additional demands on the school system will be mitigated through the requirement that the developer enter into a mitigation agreement with the District. Mitigation Measures 1. The developer shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new residential P.M. peak hour trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based on .60 new peak hour trips per residential unit. The proponent will be responsible for a TFC of $450.00 per dwelling unit which is payable at time of building permit. Credit should be given for the existing single-family dwelling. 2. Temporary erosion control systems to be approved by the City of Yelm. 3. The developer shall dedicate the Shoreline Jurisdiction area as open space. 4. The developer shall enter into an agreement with Yelm Community Schools to mitigate project impacts to the School District. ~`.. oF~pA~ City of Yelm Conununity Development Department p~ ~; ~J~~~iE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Community Development Fee Date Received By File No. Instructions: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help identify impacts from your proposal, to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal if it can be done, and to help the City decide whether an EIS is required. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for any proposal with probable significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City will use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant and require preparation of an EIS. You must answer each question accurately, carefully and to the best of your knowledge. Answer the questions briefly, but give the best description you can. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need for experts. If you do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid delays later. If the space provided is too small, feel free to attach additional sheets. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the city staff can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. You may be asked to explain your answers or provide additional information for determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Nonproject Proposals Only: Complete both the checklist (even though many questions may be answered "does not apply") and the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. CITY OF YELM CITY USE ONLY FEE: $150.00 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE RECD BY: FILE NO. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if any: Construct two four-plex units at 903 Crystal Springs road 2. Name of applicant: Bryan McCamment 3. Address, phone number and email address of applicant and of any other contact person: 20407 Cascade DR.E. Bonney Lake, WA. 98391 253-862-8928 4. Date checklist prepared: 12-29-05 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Yelm 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Summer of 2006 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. There is on environmental information, There is however Yelmcreek at the far west West end of the property more then 200 feet away. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. no 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Approved building permit and sepa checklist 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. 'Applicant plans to build two four-pexes on 1.274 acres. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. You need not duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. To locate the property, take SR507 northeast. Then tum left on SR510 to Edwards street. Tum left, Edwards will turn into Crystal Springs. Site is located at 903 Crystal springs. _ ..- B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Site is flat with a gradual slope to the creek. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 2to5% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Gravelly loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No 2. Air e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading will be minamul. Only soil that will be removed will be for foundations. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, constnaction, or use? If so, generally describe. no g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction such as asphalt or buildings? Less then 20% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: "' - ~° Silt fencing will be provided creek side, r ~~ ~ ~ ` ~ ` ° :'~ , ~~ a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile exhaust, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction there will be very little emissions other then the coming and going of supply trucks. The completed project will emit normal residential emissions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None 3. Water a. Surface Water 1) Is there any surface water body or wetland on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds)? If yes, describe type and provide names. State what stream or river it flows into? Yelm Creek is located at the east end of the property. Yelm Creek flows Into The Centralia Canal to the Nisqually River. a 2) Will the project requi ~ any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 300 feet) the , , ~ . ~~ _~ described waters . If yes, please describe and attach available plans. - ,~~~ ,, No `~ /'`` ~`- `l ~~~` 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. none ~ ~-~~,~ ~r `~\ "a';S 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give ~~ ^ ~,;~ general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ~e, No r v 1 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note elevation on - • the site plan. ~ ~~• ~ -; •```.. No `;, =~ 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. ~~~-• No • ~~~ ,, ~~ -'~~ b. Groundwater: • v ` ~~ _~ 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater?; ~ ~ , ' ~ . ~~ ~'. ~\ •1` Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if own. ; ~° Not Known 11 ~ti„~r,~ y '`'~ -~,'~ p ~ " \~ ~ t~k ~" We ~~ .-~~• ! ~, 2 Describe the under) in a uifer with re and to ualit and uantit , sensitivi ~~\' Y 9 q 9 q Y q Y tY~ protection, recharge areas, etc. , ,•~~ Not known at this time • '~ ~~` ~,1:~, ~ ~; )~~ 1j,~ ~•,~. ~~ ~ ~ C 3) Describe waste material that will be discharged into or onto the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (such as domestic sewage; industrial byproducts; agricultural chemicals). ~ :?~. _ •~ Project will be on sewers. NO waste material will be discharged. ~~- ~,. ~~ ~f/ , I ~.~ ,, ~J ~'"~,~ `'~~~ •~~ c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water will be collected in a city approved storm system. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No, all nan-off will be treated accord to city standards. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Approved system 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _x deciduous tree: alder, maple, oak, aspen, other _x _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _x_ shrubs _x_ grasses pasture crops or grains wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Only grasses located around buildings and assess will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A landscaping plan will be submitted with plans. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, ducks, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, shellfish, other: b. List any priority, threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. ~~ NONE c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NONE d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: NONE 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, gasoline, heating oil, wood, solar etc.) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, transportation, etc. Electric, natural gas and possible wood will be used for heating. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. no c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Four-plexes will be built to current building energy codes. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spills, of hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Noi 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None known 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: none b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Only local traffic 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal building noises during normal working hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: none at this time 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? residental _~ _, _;,, %~ ~~~ ..: ~~ _,~` \,~- b. Has the site been used for mineral excavation, agriculture or forestry? If so, describe. no _ ~'~ `~~ ` y,, ~~ . c. Describe any structures on the site. _, `~ : ; ~= ./, ~, none ~ ,L d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? no `J; e. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? MDR R-6 f. What is the current zoning classification of the site? MDR R-6 \~ g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the -~~ ``~~ 4'~ site? N/A ~ \'~ \ '~. 1 ~\ ~~ h. Has any part of the site been classified as a "natural resource", "critical" or ~ . ,. ~~,. ,,' "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. \_ The creek is a shoreline of the state .It is deemed sensitive. ' ,. ~~. °;'' ~ ' i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 20-28 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? n none yOL k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: none I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Approved building permits under supervision of the City of Yelm. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 8 middle class units b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. none c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: none at this time 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Building will not exceed two stories in height. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? none C c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: none 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur'? None all construction will occur during daylight. The finished product will Normal residential lighting, b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? no c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? none d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: none 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The nisqually river is two miles awy. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. no c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts or provide recreation opportunities: none _;/ 4 ~i ~- ~: - ,',~. ,.~ ~~. ,~, , ~ ~ ~. ' L- -~~ .. i .~ ~~. ~~~~ ~~~ 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. no b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify sidewalks, trails, public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Site accesses directly on to Crystal Springs Road which connects to the SR510 b. Is site currently served by public transit? By what means? If not, what plans exist for transit service? Yes it is served by public transit. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 16 .e d. Wifl the proposal require any new sidewalks, trails, roads or streets, or ~~2,,^~ c~v improvements to existing sidewalks, trails, roads or streets, not including ~r,~,~ driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). ~ r ~ r` `~\ e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. no f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed _ project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. ~`y 15 to20 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: none at this time ` ;. ~ - , ~, t . - ` ;y / ~~, ~. ' ;~ , ;; ; :. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: no b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. none r-- .. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the situ electricity, natural gas, water,- refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer,'septtE-system, other: - ~ .~ ,. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None new all utilities are available at property edge. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the C' of Yelm is r ing on them to make its decision. .~~ i Signature: Date Submitted: SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions.) When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: All storm water will be treated entering the aquifer. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: All designs will be built to energy codes. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect critical or environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or natural resource areas? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Design and built with the approval of the city and any environmental agency that Would be involved. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. a ~~ T~ A S TAFF REPOR T City of Yelm YELM TON Community Development Department To: From: Date: Case Number: Applicant: Property Owner: Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner Grant Beck, Director of Community Development July 3, 2006 SPR-05-0540-YL Bryan McCammant Ronald McCammant Agent: Rick Roberts, Riipinen Surveying, Inc. Request: Demolish existing residence and construct two four-plex dwelling units. Recommendation: Approval of the Site Plan Review with conditions Findings of Fact Site Plan Review The applicant wishes to demolish an existing residential structure, and construct two four-plex dwelling units. A Notice of Application was mailed to local and state agencies, and surrounding property owners on May 1, 2006. Section 17.84.020 (C) Yelm Municipal Code allows the Site Plan Review Committee to approve a proposal when the site plan conforms 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. Property Characteristics The property is located at 903 Crystal Springs Road, Yelm, WA 98597, and is identified by assessor tax parcel number 33020000100. The surrounding area is residentially zoned with existing residential uses. The property is identified by the Yelm Comprehensive Plan Map as Moderate Density Residential (R-6). All residential uses, including multi-family dwellings are allowed at a density not to exceed 6 units per acre. The site is approximately 1.27 acres, which allows up to 8 dwelling units. The site is adjacent to Yelm Creek, which includes associated flood zones and wetlands. The applicant has proposed the project to be constructed more than 300 feet from Yelm Creek, which is greater than the Shoreline Jurisdiction Area, is outside of the 100 year flood plain, and also meets the largest critical area buffer as required in the City of Yelm Critical Areas Code. The City of Yelm will provide police protection, water service, and sewer service. Fire protection services are provided by The SE Thurston Fire/EMS District (Thurston County Fire Protection District #2). Concurrency Chapter 15.40 YMC requires the reviewing authority to determine that required urban infrastructure is available at the time of development. Concurrency with sewer infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section 15.40.020 (B)(1) YMC when the project is within an area approved for sewer pursuant to the adopted sewer comprehensive plan for the city and improvements necessary to provide city standard facilities and services are present to meet the needs of the proposed development. Concurrency with water infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section 15.40.020 (B)(2) YMC when the project is within an area approved for municipal water service pursuant to the adopted water comprehensive plan for the city and improvements necessary to provide city standard facilities and services are present. Concurrency with transportation infrastructure is achieved pursuant to Section 15.40.020 (5)(c) YMC when the project: • Makes on-site and frontage improvements consistent with city standards and roads necessary to serve the proposed project consistent with safety and public interest; • Makes such off-site facility improvements, not listed on the capital facilities plan, as are necessary to meet city standards for the safe movement of traffic and pedestrians attributable to the project; • Makes a contribution to the facilities relating to capacity improvements identified in the adopted six-year traffic improvement program, in the form of a transportation facility charge. Concurrency with school infrastructure is achieved when the developer provides a letter from the local school district that the school facilities impacted by the proposed July 2006 Page 2 of 8 development are present, or are on an approved and funded plan, to assure that facilities will be available to meet the needs and impacts of the proposed development. State Environmental Policy Act The City's SEPA Responsible Official issued and published a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance on June 5, 2006, based on WAC 197-11-158. The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance was issued with the following conditions: 1. The developer shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new residential P.M. peak hour trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based on .60 new peak hour trips per residential unit. The proponent will be responsible for a TFC of $450.00 per dwelling unit which is payable at time of building permit. Credit should be given for the existing single- family dwelling. 2. Temporary erosion control systems to be approved by the City of Yelm. 3. The developer shall dedicate the Shoreline Jurisdiction area as open space. 4. The developer shall enter into an agreement with Yelm Community Schools to mitigate project impacts to the School District. Critical Areas The site is located adjacent to Yelm Creek which is a shoreline of the state. A shoreline substantial development permit is required when the development is within 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The development proposal is outside of the Shoreline Jurisdiction area, and does not require a shoreline substantial development permit. Yelm Creek has a known flood zone and wetlands associated with it. The Yelm Critical Areas Code describes buffers for riparian areas, flood zones and wetlands. The greatest buffer for a critical area is 300-feet. The applicant proposes all development to occur more than 300 feet from these areas. Transportation Yelm is a small compact community most directly affected by two state highways, SR 510 and SR 507, which bisect the community. These state routes are used by local residents for transportation throughout the City, and for access to commercial and residential areas throughout the community as well as serving regional traffic. July 2006 Page 3 of 8 The updated Transportation element of the Yelm Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of improvements designed to avoid the need to significantly widen existing streets, and particularly Yelm Avenue. New development impacts the transportation system in Yelm and, unless the improvements identified in the transportation plan are constructed, the City would need to require developers to pay the cost of internal street widening. The City has adopted a Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) of $750.00 per pm peak trip. The concurrency chapter of the Municipal Code provides a default table that is used to determine new peak PM trips generated by a proposed use. Amulti-family dwelling unit creates .60 new pm peak hour trips. A credit should be given for the previous residential use. The property fronts Crystal Springs Road, which is classified as a Neighborhood Collector Street. Frontage improvements shall be required, and are a mitigating condition of the MDNS. Water Supply The City's Water Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as being within the water service area and the property is currently served by City water. The individual units are required to connect to the water system. The current fee to connect to the City water system is $1,500.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit (each ERU equals 900 cubic feet of water consumption per month). The City of Yelm is dedicated to providing the best quality water possible to its consumers. Section 246-290-490, WAC, requires that the City take measures to ensure that contamination does not occur as a result of cross contamination. An irrigation meter may be installed for the purpose of irrigation. A backflow prevention device will be required for all landscape irrigation connections between the irrigation system and the water meter. Sewer System The City's Sewer Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as being within the sewer service area, and the site is currently served by City sewer. The current fee to connect to the City sewer system is $5,569.00 per Equivalent Residential Unit (each ERU equals 900 cubic feet of water consumption per month). July 2006 Page 4 of 8 Stormwater Impervious surfaces create stormwater runoff which, when uncontrolled and untreated can create health, safety, and environmental hazards. The City of Yelm has adopted the 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual, which requires all development to treat and control stormwater on site. The applicant has submitted a preliminary stormwater plan which includes a conceptual design for the treatment and infiltration of the stormwater. A final stormwater plan is required as part of civil plan application submission. Stormwater facilities require continued maintenance to ensure they remain. in proper working condition. Parking The City of Yelm Development Guidelines, Design Guidelines, and Municipal Code address parking regulations from many aspects, including, but not limited to the design of lots, the number of stalls required, pedestrian pathways within lots, and safety. The requirements of off-street parking and loading facilities 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 or its arrangement is in excess of the minimum set forth. Residential dwelling units require two stalls per unit. A total of 16 parking stalls are required. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a minimum of one (1) handicap accessible stall for parking lots up to 25 stalls. Fire Fire protection to the buildings must be provided per the International Fire Code. The specific requirements for installation of additional fire hydrants and fire lanes will be determined during civil plan review. The International Building Code (IBC) provides occupancy ratings for different types of uses. The fire coverage and sprinkler system for the proposed use must meet IBC requirements. Open Space The Growth Management Act establishes a goal for open space and recreation that states "encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational July 2006 Page 5 of 8 opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks" [RCW 36.70A.020(9)]. Chapter 14.12 YMC provides guidelines for the retention and creation of open space within the City. This chapter requires a minimum of ten percent of the gross area of a multi-family development be dedicated as usable open space. Appropriate uses of dedicated open space include: • Environmental interpretation or education • Parks, recreation lands, or athletic fields • Footpaths or bicycle trails The property is bordered to the west by Yelm Creek and its associated wetlands and flood plain. The applicant is proposing to dedicate the shoreline jurisdiction area and flood zone area as required open space. This meets the open space requirement, as well as protection of the shoreline and flood zone areas. Landscaping Landscaping and screening are necessary to provide screening between compatible and incompatible land uses, to safeguard privacy and to preserve the aesthetic assets of the City. Chapter 17.80 YMC requires all development to provide on site landscaping. 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. The west perimeter of the site shall be left in its native state to protect the Yelm Creek Shoreline, and its associated flood plain and wetlands. 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 is required as part of road frontage improvements. Type IV landscaping is intended to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas Refuse The City of Yelm Development Guidelines, Design Guidelines, and Municipal Code provides guidance for refuse storage and screening. Refuse areas are required to be assessable by LeMay, screened with a material and design compatible with the overall architectural theme of the associated structure, at July 2006 Page 6 of 8 least as high as the refuse container, and must be at least six-feet in height with a gate enclosure. No refuse container is allowed between a public street and the front of a building. Refuse collection areas must be designed to contain all refuse generated on site and deposited between collections and refuse should not be visible from outside the refuse enclosure. Conclusions of Law A. The Site Plan Review Committee has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented by this request. B. The applicant has established that the request for site plan review approval satisfies all criteria set forth in Section 17.84.020 (C) YMC, meets all requirements of the Moderate Density Residential zoning classification, and meets all other requirements of the Yelm Municipal Code. Therefore, the site plan should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance are hereby referenced and considered conditions of this approval. 2. Street frontage improvements shall be required. Frontage improvements shall be consistent with the City of Yelm's Development Guidelines. Improvements for Crystal Springs Road shall be consistent with the section "Neighborhood Collector'. 3. The applicant shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new P.M. peak hour trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based on amulti-family dwelling which creates .60 new pm peak hour trips. A credit shalt be given for the previous residential use. 4. Each dwelling unit shall connect to City water service. The connection fee and meter fee will be established at the time of building permit issuance. 5. All conditions for cross connection control as required in Section 246-290-490 WAC. 6. Each dwelling unit shall connect to City sewer service. The connection fee fee will be established at the time of building permit issuance. 7. The applicant shall design and construct all stormwater facilities in accordance with the DOE Manual, as adopted by the City of Yelm. Best Management Practices are required during construction. July 2006 Page 7 of 8 8. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the City of Yelm Development Guideline standards. A minimum of sixteen (16) stalls is required. Accessible spaces shall be provided pursuant to the ADA. 9. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the International Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Yelm, and may include FDC's, fire hydrants, and/or fire lanes. 10. The Yelm Creek Shoreline area, and land 300 feet from the ordinary high water mark, shall be left undisturbed and dedicated as open space, with an easement dedicated to the City of Yelm for stream restoration and protection. 11. Landscaping of the site is required. a. Type II landscaping is required along the perimeter of the site, and adjacent to buildings. Natural vegetation in the shoreline area to remain undisturbed. b. Type III landscaping is required with frontage improvements. c. Type IV landscaping is required in all parking areas. A final detailed landscape plan is required as part of civil plan review and approval. 12. Refuse collection 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. C. The Site Plan is valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of this approval. The applicant may request asix-month extension on the approval, if the request is made in writing prior to the expiration date of this approval. If you need additional information or assistance, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. July 2006 Page 8 of 8 ~~,°~T~'' 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: Tuesday, July 11, 2006, 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Yelm City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave. W., Yelm WA 1. PURPOSE: Public Meeting to hear testimony from parties of record, regarding an appeal of a sign permit application denial. Case #APP-05-0578-YL Appellant: I-5 Signs, Mike Hier Applicant: Walt's Tire Factory 2. PURPOSE: Public Meeting to hear testimony from parties of record, regarding an appeal of a MDNS issued for amulti-family development of two four- plex units, SEPA # 05-0540 Case #APP-05-0621-YL Appellant: Rebecca Galbreath Applicant: Bryan McCammant Representative: Riipinen Surveying The City of Yelm Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to hear testimony from parties of record regarding the appeals listed above. The Hearing Examiner will make a decision on the matter within 10 days after the meeting. Parties of Record may testify at the meeting on Tuesday, July 11, 2006. 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) 458-8496. 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, June 30, 2006 Mailed and Posted in Public Places: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 OF THE Off' 4~ o. YELM WASHINGTON Staff Report City of Yelm Community Development Department To: Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development Date: July 3, 2006 Subject: Appeal of Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance APR-05-0540-YL Appellant: Rebecca Galbreath Location: 903 Crystal Springs Road, Yelm, WA. Proposal: Appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued for the proposed McCammant four-plex units. I. INTRODUCTION Rebecca Galbreath appeals mitigation measures attached to a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance for a proposed site plan review to construct two four-plex multi- family dwelling units. II. BACKGROUND Bryan McCammant has applied for site plan review to demolish an existing dwelling unit and construct two four-plex multi-family dwelling units. The property is zoned Moderate Density Residential (R-6), and the proposed development is allowed in the R-6 zone, based on site plan review approval. The City of Yelm reviewed the SEPA checklist and issued an MDNS on June 5, 2006. The MDNS included the following mitigating measures: 1. The developer shall mitigate transportation impacts based on the new residential P.M. peak hour trips generated by the project. The Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) shall be based on .60 new peak hour trips per residential unit. The proponent will be responsible for a TFC of $450.00 per dwelling unit which is payable at time of building permit. Credit should be given for the existing single-family dwelling. 2. Temporary erosion control systems to be approved by the City of Yelm. 3. The developer shall dedicate the Shoreline Jurisdiction area as open space. 4. The developer shall enter into an agreement with Yelm Community Schools to mitigate project impacts to the School District. III. ISSUES The appellant appealed the City's issuance of the Mitigated Determination, without listing any specific condition that is being appealed, and without clear identification of potential significant impact that should trigger the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The following analysis will respond to the six general issues listed in the appellant's statement. IV. ANALYSIS 1. How will the developer mitigate transportation impacts? Shouldn't the mitigation be in place and approved prior to development? Shouldn't mitigation be reviewed and accepted by neighbors? Chapter 15.40 Yelm Municipal Code (YMC), concurrency Management provides measures to assure mitigation for impacts to public facilities. Using the concurrency code, it is the City's responsibility to review and condition site plan review approvals to assure that all respective code requirements are met. The Washington State Growth Management Act and the SEPA environmental review requirements allow the public to review the City's determinations to assure a public process during development review. Specifically for traffic impacts, Section 15.40.020(6)(5) YMC lists three ways to assure concurrency. These measures include on-site frontage improvements, off-site improvements if needed, and financial contributions in the form of a transportation facilities charge (TFC). These items are all concurrency issues which can be implemented as part of a site plan approval, and are not required to be listed as SEPA mitigation measures. The TFC charges are listed in the MDNS, however the on-site frontage improvements are listed as a condition of approval of the Site Plan Review application. The amount of traffic generated from the site at build out does not require a transportation impact analysis per the City of Yelm's Transportation Plan, and no off-site improvements were identified that were significant and attributable to the proposal. 2. Developer claims that the quality and extent of the underground aquifer is unknown at this time. Shouldn't there be a study to determine the extent of the aquifer prior to development? How will the developer make sure that oils, grease, and fertilizers be kept out of the aquifer? The Site Plan Review Committee during review of the SEPA checklist noted that the underlying aquifer is extremely sensitive. This is the case for all of the City of Yelm. Staff comments also noted that the project will be on City sewer service, and that stormwater treatment will be pursuant to the Department of Ecology 1992 stormwater manual. Staff Report Page 2 of 4 3. Developer claims that no waster materials will enter ground or surface water, and that all run off will be treated. How? Is there on-site treatment standards that he will be required to install? The applicant shows on the site plan, a proposed underground stormwater treatment facility. This final stormwater treatment plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval for construction. The City of Yelm has adopted the 1992 Department of Ecology stormwater manual, and all impervious and pervious surface areas will be treated. Again, the site will be connected to City sewer service. 4. The developers answers to the transportation impacts are wrong. He claims that there will be 16 cars added to the site, but only 15-20 trips per day. The applicant's answer regarding trips per day was not computed correctly. It appears that he used the peak hour trips generated, not the daily trips generated. Staff comments on the SEPA checklist note that there will be .6 new pm peak hour trips per unit. This equates to 4.8 new pm peak hour trips for the 8 proposed units. The City bases its trip generation numbers on the "pm peak hour trips" listed in The Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation manual, as adopted in Table 15.40.030.8.1 YMC. 5. Developer claims that there are no proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts. This seems critical that the answer be yes, and those measures be addressed prior to development given the cumulative impacts of traffic in Yelm. Based on the City of Yelm's concurrency code, the required frontage improvements, and the TFC charges per unit adequately mitigates the impacts from this development. 6. The parcel is 1.27 acres in an R6 zone. The site includes a creek critical area and FEMA Flood Hazard area. Critical Area Buffer for this creek is 50 to 100 ft. The 50f ft buffer added to the critical area amounts to 0.2 acres. At 100 ft the area involved is .33 acres. These areas are no build areas and amount to 1 to 2 lots. As such, the property can only support 6 lots by my estimation. Section 17.06.260 YMC defines gross density as "the permissible number of dwelling units that may be developed on a specific amount of gross area, measured in number of dwelling units per gross acre", and Section 17.06.410 YMC defines a lot as "a platted or unplatted parcel of land unoccupied, occupied, or intended to be occupied by a principal use or building and accessory buildings, together with all yards, open spaces, and setbacks required by this title." The code clearly states that density is calculated on the parcel to include all areas, including setbacks, and open spaces. Staff Report Page 3 of 4 VI. CONCLUSION The City of Yelm is the lead agency for purposes of SEPA. In this situation, the responsible official for threshold determinations is the Community Development Director [Section 14.04.030 YMC]. The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) appealed here is a negative threshold determination, a procedural decision under SEPA. Pursuant to Section 43.21 C.075(3)(d) RCW procedural determinations of the responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. Section 197.11.158 WAC (1) states "In reviewing the environmental impacts of a project and making a threshold determination, a GMA city may, at its option, determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the GMA city's development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for some or all of the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project. Specifically, Section 197.11.158(5) states "If a GMA county/city's comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations adequately address some or all of a project's probable specific adverse environmental impacts, as determined under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the GMA county/city shall not require additional mitigation under this chapter for those impacts. The Mitigated Determination of Non-significance should be upheld. LIST OF EXHIBITS Appeal Notice and Letter Mitigated Determination of Non-significance, and SEPA Checklist Staff Report Page 4 of 4 City of Yelm Community Development Department P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 (360) 458-3835 (360) 458-3144 FAX Memorandum To: Grant Beck Gary Carlson Jim Gibson Tami Merriman From: Roberta Allen, Administrative Assistant Date: June 27, 2006 Re: APP-OS-0621-YL -Project Materials for Galbreath Appeal of McCammant Attached is the application packet for the above referenced project. For your review prior to setting Public Hearing. I:\APP Appeal\OS-0621 Galbreath Appeal\Proj Rev Date Memo.doc APPEAL PROCESS Application Received Enter into Permit System to Assign Case Number and record payment received. Make File: Blue: Project Review & Correspondence Yellow: Application and Originals Create Computer Project File Create Memo to CDD (Grant, Gary, Jim, Tami) indicating the materials are attached and distribute. CDD will set Public Hearing. R:\Forms & Procedures\Appeals\Appeal Process.doc OF THgP~ ~~ ~~~ 4 YELM City of Yelm Community Development Department Building Division Phone: (360)458-8407 Fax: (360)458-3144 Applicant: Name: Galbreath, Rebecca Address: City: Permit Fees Schedule Permit No: APP-05-0621-YL Phone: State: Zip Project Information: Project: Appeal of McCammant MDNS Description of Work: Appeal of McCammant MDNS for 2 four-plexes and 16 parking spaces, re transportation, aquifer, waste materials (McCammant property listed as "Property" (below). Site Address: 903 Crystal Springs Road Assessor Parcel No. 33020000100 Fees: Item Acct Code Item Fee Base Amt Unit Fee Unit Rate No. Units Unit Desc Appeal to H.E. 001-345-81-00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 TOTAL FEES: $50.00 Department NOTICE OF APPEAL ~ u3-S 3 S 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 DATE OF NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION -, APPELLANT(S) - ~ rr Mailing Address .--- , City, State and Zip (i`l.1' 7 Telephone o ~ ~ EMAIL SPECIFIC EMS OF DECISION BEIN APP ALED (attach tional sheet if necessary): .r ~. 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 applica 'o I agree to pay all fees of the City that apply to this a plication. Signed C1~ Date ~ V 105 Yelm Auenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Fee - U (360) 458-3835 (360) 458-3144 FAX www.ci.yelm.wa.us J~~'v 2~ ;~-©v~ ~\ 5 ~~~~~~ Fee: Staff Decision - $50.00 ~eCs~~~/e Hearing Examiner Decision - $100.00 (In addition, any professional service JUN 2 6 2006 charges per Resolution #358) ~ j, ~ ~ APPEAL TO DEVELOPMENT OF RON McCAMMANT'S CRYSTAL SPRINGS SITE OF TWO FOURPLEXES AND SIXTEEN PARKING SPACES. ATTENTION: GRANT BECK 1. How will the developer mitigate transportation impacts. Shouldn't the mitigation be in place and approved prior to development? Shouldn't mitigation be reviewed and accepted by neighbors? 2. Developer claims that the quality and extent of the underground aquifer is unknown at this time. Shouldn't there be a study to determine the extent of the aquifer prior to development? How will the developer make sure that oils, greases, and fertilizers be kept out of the aquifer? 3. Developer claims that no waste materials will enter ground or surface water, and that all run- off will be treated. How? Is there on-site treatment standards that he will be required to install? If not, then his answer is bogus. 4. The developer's answers to the transportation impacts are wrong. He claims that there will be 16 cars added to the sight, but only 15-20 trips per day. That doesn't compute. The developer is not being forthright about the transportation impacts and I believe you should call him on that- especially given the already cumulative transportation impacts that projects in Yelm is creating. 5. Developer claims that there are no proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts. This seems critical that the answer be yes and those measures be addressed prior to development given the cumulative impacts of traffic in Yelm. Rebecca Galbreath C~ ~- ~~~a~~ / ~ ~ C ~s ~ s J ~~ ~~~U~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ / ~~~ ~ ~ The parcel is 127 acres in an R6 zone. The site includes a creek critical area and FEMA Flood Hazard area. Critical Area Buffer for this creek is 50 to 100 ft. The 50 ft buffer added to the critical area amounts to 0.2acres. At 100 ft the area involved is 0.33 acres. These areas are no build areas and amount to 1 to 2 lots. As such, the property can only support 6 lots by my estimation. Q tV Z W ~ ' ~ f+ ) M t'~ 1 ~ U O W Z x ~ U a m w m W ~m z ~n ~ ~ ~ I c Q m zM ~% N I d' a ~ a m H ~ w a'i ~ ~ xl ~ ~N a a' H Q~ a Hi x ^~ W A'. W m U m f1] a a a a 0 a ~• ac ~ H H a o _ ~, m, w a w e a o H W ~ O~ W ?p w ~aa~, w x ~ * ~ oa a ao w ~ ~~~ * ``-a m a H ~ a ~, ~~~ wa H~01 ~U ~~ x ~~ U jr ^~~" ? w ~ w N o ~I {: ~~ ^. ~= a pG r ~, d' :~ ~`' ,) ;'v, d ` ` r~ ,~