The URL can be used to link to this page

Agendas and Minutes (~ v o ~ c YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 1997 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Motion No. The meeting was called to order at 400 P m by Tom Gorman Members present: Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, EJ Curry, Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent, Roberta Longmire, Ed Pitts Guests John Grayburn, John Huddleston, Bev & Mike Malan Staff" Shelly Badger, Cathie Carlson, Ken Garmann, Dana Spivey 97 -28 Approval of Minutes MOTION BY BOB 150M, SECONDED BY RAY KENT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17,1997 CARRIED Public Communications. There were none Continuation of Public Hearing. Cathie Carlson gave the background of the first part of the public hearing On November 17, 1997, the Planning Commission began a public hearing on amendments to the zoning code and street standards A few additional items/subjects were discussed and the Planning Commission requested that staff draft amendment language to be included in the continuation of the public hearing Cathie went over the proposed revisions (in addition to those outlined in the November 10, 1997 staff report.) Cathie stated that at the last meeting, an error was made - two motions on the Road Standards were made, passed and approved during the public hearing Cathie said at the close of todays continuation of the public hearing the Planning Commission will need to re-address the road standards issue and make the motions again Cathie went over the following new issues Bonding for landscape maintenance, Definition for Vet Clinics in the Central Business District; Minimum and maximum parcel sizes for townhouse development; and Mobile home standards for permanent foundations and roads There was discussion Margaret Clapp asked if it will be a problem to re-add the "Bonding for landscape maintenance" language to the code if needed? Cathie doesn't think so, but if there are problems in the future we can brainstorm and maybe look at other ways of addressing the problem Cathie talked about issue #3 - (min & max. parcel sizes for townhouse development) Roberta Longmire questioned the economic viability of mixing the townhouses and single family projects (Roberta stated that from the developers perspective - it is going to be difficult to sell) Cathie stated that there hasn't been any mixed use projects in Yelm to date, but numerous mixed use projects in town (Olympia, Lacey ) have been successful, Cathie thinks at some point there will be a market for them in the future Roberta stated that 10 acres developed into townhouses is a lot of land Cathie said yes it is, but that's why staff wants to retain a maximum parcel size, that is straight townhouses in the R-4 District. There was more discussion Yelm Planning Commission December 15, 1997 Page 1 c Cathie went on to discuss the last issue, which was not included on the staff report, Chapter 17 63 - Manufactured Homes Cathie stated that she added some language to 17 63 050-Mobile homes-Development Guidelines The added language is "E Mobile home parks shall be exempt from requirements for permanent foundations" She also added, on page 5 of the same chapter - 17 63 180-Mobile home Park Design Standards, interior street dimensions - requiring that the Mobile home park streets be designed to the city's local access street, which would include two 11 ft. driving lanes, two parking lanes (one on each side,) one sidewalk and a planter strip Then, under 1763 190- it is proposed that the following wording be added "all street roads and driveways shall be paved to a standard of construction acceptable to the Public Works Dept. Interior, pedestrian, walkways, carports, and parking areas shall be constructed consistent with the Yelm Development Guidelines Bob Isom asked if a portion of that paragraph would be covered under the designation of local access residential streets, in the guidelines aren't the street services designated? Cathie said yes, the language in Section 17 63 180 can be changed to reflect that. Tom Gorman asked for comments from the public. Mike & Bev Malan stated their concerns over the Mobile home park issue Mr. Malan asked about pit setting the mobiles, and Section 17 63 11 O-changing it from 8 units per acre to 6 per acre There was some discussion Shelly Badger stated that single-wide Mobile homes have not been allowed in the city since 1995 Mr. Malan expressed concern over the city's proposed regulations on mobile home parks, stating that it is hard to make a profit with all the expenses Tom thanked the Malan's for their comments and asked if there were any mor~ comments from the public? John Huddleston asked about the widths of the streets and parking lanes in a mobile home park. Cathie answered Mr. Huddleston expressed concern over the affordability of developing a mobile home park or a townhouse development. Mr. Huddleston stated that the last year has not been a very good one for residential developing, builders have had to cut prices and there are still empty new homes Mr. Huddleston also expressed concern over the townhouse ordinance Mr. Huddleston ended by saying that if there is a way to maintain the affordability while still striving for the aesthetics and the character of both the individual development and the entire community then we've come to a happy medium Tom thanked Mr Huddleston for his comments and asked if there were any more comments from the public? r" o John Grayburn stated that he is just concerned about the changing of the sizes for the townhouses Mr. Grayburn said that he has seen many different ways to do townhouses in all different states, and just wants to make sure that the codes keep everything looking aesthetically pleasing Tom thanked Mr Grayburn for his input, and closed the public hearing at 4 45 pm Tom asked the Planning Commission members for comments Roberta asked about changing the requirements for parking in mobile home parks Bev Malan commented, saying that currently their mobile home park has a carport and one parking space for each lot, and this works out fine Ken Garmann read some "automobiles per family" statistics for Thurston County E.J. Curry talked about doublewide vs singlewide mobile homes, usually when there is a doublewide-there is a family Ms. Malan expressed her concern about the costs for the proposed requirements E.J. asked about "mobile homes" vs manufactured homes Cathie affirmed that mobile homes over 5 years can not go into the parks, it must be a manufactured home (~ o Yelm Planning Commission December 15, 1997 Page 2 c Tom spoke about affordable housing in Yelm One of Tom's concerns is "what is the right amount" of affordable housing? Tom feels that one of the rules of the Planning Commission is to look at the big picture, down the road Tom stated that a healthy, best and strong community is one that has a mix of types of housing, and there has to be a balance There was more discussion Roberta asked staff why the density in mobile home parks was changed from 8 to 6 per acre? Ken answered that with minimum lot size and doublewide requirements that is the maximum density that can be achieved Tom asked about manufactured home development, the city wants the streets to meet the public street standards - correct? Cathie said yes, that is what staff is proposing Roberta asked where in the city is there a street that allows parking on one side? Cathie stated that the current development standards call for parking on one side only in the residential zones (local access), what is proposed - is adding parking requirements in the local access to both sides of the street. Roberta asked if there would be any new streets in the city with parking on one side? Cathie said no c Bob stated if there is parking on one side with two parking spots per lot, that seems to be a reasonable compromise Margaret doesn't think it should be so costly to build a mobile home park - it just doesn't seem feasible for the developer or the future residents, if it is suppose to be affordable to live in it should be affordable to build Roberta asked if a visitors parking lot could be a solution? Ray Kent stated that the amount of space a developer would dedicate for a visitors parking area - could easily be used for the other lane of parking There was more discussion Roberta asked if "local access" calls for any sidewalks? Cathie said yes, a sidewalk on one side Mr. Malan stated that there should be a difference between a mobile home park and a mobile home sub-division Mr. Malan thinks all the proposed requirements are great for a mobile home sub-division Tom asked if there were any comments from the staff on why there should be a difference? Cathie stated that she agrees a mobile home park should be affordable, but at the same time the residents who live in the parks should not be denied the health and safety measures such as sidewalks, safer parking, safe access for emergency vehicles etc. John Grayburn spoke about manufactured home sub-divisions and mobile home parks - one big difference is in a m h sub-division, the home stays put, at am h park the homes are pulled in and out with tractor trailers which could eventually do a lot of damage to sidewalks Tom asked staff if other cities require sidewalks? Cathie said she will check into that. Tom asked about the affordability issue Bob feels the standards should be the same whether it is a mobile home park or a "stick built" home development. Tom agreed Glenn Blando stated that just from the safety side of the issue, the standards really shouldn't be different. There was more discussion Tom asked if there were any more comments John Huddleston restated his suggestion to not limit townhouse development with minimum and maximum parcel size, instead limit townhouse development to duplex style units in the R-4 district. More discussion followed including discussion about PRD's c Yelm Planning Commission December 15 1997 Page 3 c c c 97 -29 MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY ROBERTA LONGMIRE TO ACCEPT THE ROAD STANDARDS AS INDICATED AND DISCUSSED AT THE 11/17/97 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED ED PITTS ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. Tom stated that now there needs to be a motion on the zoning code amendments which were discussed at both the last meeting and this meeting There was some discussion Roberta asked about the density change in the R-6 & R-10 zones, why was this done? Cathie stated that she checked with other jurisdictions on their minimums and maximums, and she raised Yelm's because it would probably be more appropriate to have townhouse development in the R-6 & R-10 and try to concentrate it more in the higher density areas, basically to give a little more flexibility Margaret asked if we are contradicting ourselves by saying what the maximum parcel size is and then saying parcels in excess of that size shall have whatever? Cathie stated by doing this it creates a 3-tier process rather than a 2-tier process - to see where it falls in (i e - if you're two acres or under you can do all townhouses, if you're over two acres you have a choice, you can do half of your development in townhouses and the other half single family or you can go to the PRD chapter ) There was more discussion Shelly informed the commission that the this whole subject is on the table for discussion, so the staff recommendation can be amended - and forwarded to the city council without having to have another public hearing 97-30 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY GLENN BLANDO TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION Under 17 61 040 Section F - propose 2 acres in the R-4, 5 acres in the R-6 and 10 acres in the R-14 ED PITTS OPPOSED MOTION CARRIED Tom reminded the public that there will be a City Council public hearing on this also OTHER. Cathie stated that the next two meeting dates fall on a federal holiday, so the dates will be changed to the next day for January and February 1998 - actual meeting dates will be Tuesdays - January 20 & February 17, 1998 Meeting adjourned at 5 35 pm Respectfully submitted, Tom Gorman, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission December 15, 1997 Page 4 ----.---,---- . . , o City of Yelm o o 105 Yeim Avenue West POBox 479 ' Yelm, Washington 985?,Z (360) 458-3244 OateDecember 10, 1997 To Planning Commission ,. , From Cattlie Carlsop, City Planner He Zqning Code Amendments I Backqround On November 17, 1997; the planning Commission began a public hearingori amendments to the zoning code and street standards A staff report wasinGluded inyour N9,y~mber mailing summarizing the proposed amendments'to date At the November meeting a fewadditiqnal items/subjects were discus$~d and the pianning Commission requested tHat staff draft amendment language to be included in the continuation of the public hearing , , Proposed. Revisions (In addition ~to those outlined in the November 1 ~,' 1997 staff report.) 1 Ch9pter -17 80 O~O' requires development projects to proviae a maintenance assur~nce device for a period of one year -In'g~neral, maintenance of landscaping hasbeerigood To date, staff has not experienced .any situation were a,maintenance assurance bond wasnee(jed' The proposed amendment deletes the requirements 'fora maintenance- assurance'device : See SeCtion 1780 080 C, OJ Ei & i=, page 17.80-5 , The~taff had a request from a property owner to allow vet clinics in the Celltral Business 'Qistrict. Upon discussion andconsLilting wifhlocal Veterinarian's there does, not appear ,:to be,a way fo clearly,define the difference between a major and minor vet.clinic Because of the type of wastes, injuries and services provided .by Veterinarians, staff is proposing to cQntipue with the c,urrent zoning code which doe? not aljow vet clinics in'the Central Business pistrict or to try and distinguishl::letweeha. I}lajor, and minor vet cliniC Staff has been approa'ched by a numbefof property owners wanting, to convert duplexes to townhouses so they can be sold as single family units The Townhouse Chapter, fr ),17 .61, restricts townhouse <;levelopment to miriimumlot.size qf 1 acre in all resid,ential zones and a maximum lot size of 2 ,,!cresin the R-4 zon~ and 5 acres in the R-6 anq R-10 ~ zones " 2 3 Proposed amendments included retai,ning a minimum lot sizeqf. 1 ;acre in the R-4 zone with no minimum lot size in the R-6 and R-10 zone Ameridments to tbe maximuli1lot size includeallbwiD9 for greater: flexibility by retaining a maxim~m lot size of 2 acres in the R-4 zone for projects that are all townhouse units For parcels in excess of2 acres in the R~4 zone allow for tow'nhouse developmenfs provided a mix of townhouses and single family detacbed unitswit.h no less than fifty percent of the units designated-as single , fam,iiy dwelling"s Also In ftleR..6 and R~14 zones increase the maxim~ri1 parcel size from 5 acres to 10 acres and allowing parcels, in excess of 10 acres to develop with a combinatior;1 of units provided no les? than fifty ,Percenf of the.unifs, aregesignated for single family use See page 1761-2 , . * Recickd.~ c (\ o (\ o 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 City of Yelm Date November 10, 1997 To Planning Commission From Cathie CarlSO~ity Plann~r Re Zoning Code Amendments BackQround The Planning Commission held a series of workshops from November 1 ~96 to May 1997 to discuss a number of amendments to the zoning code and mpdificatic)ns to the road standards Following is a brief description of th~ issues and th~ direction the Planning Commission instructed staff to pursue Residential Development Density minimums and maximums were discussed for the R.A, 'R-6and R-10 Districts along with residential development in commercial zones The Planning Commission asked staff to make the following changes. 1 Increase density in the R-10 District from 10 units per acre to 1.4 units per acre 2 Increase apartment density in the CBD from 10 units per acre to 16 units per acre 3 Delete residential uses from commercial zones except for when proposed as an element of a Mixed Use Development. 4 Require final plat on Townhouses prior to issuance of a building permit (Chapter 17 61 ) Manufactured Housing (Chapter 17 63) The maximum parcel size for mobile home parks and subdivisions provided for developments that may not be consistent with size and type of surrounding uses The Planning Commission agreed the maximum parcel size should be reduced and that mobile home parks and subdivisions was not an appropriate use in commercially zoned property Parking (Chapter 17 72) and Landscaping Regulations (Chapter 11.80) 1 The parking chapter provided for the creation of new unpaved parking areas for less than 5 vehicles The text has been modified to require all new parking areas regardless of size to be paved per the City development standards * Ruycld paper 2 c For consistency with the Design Guidelines two types of land~capinghave been added Type VI landscaping for the base of sign areas and a Type VII landscaping is used to enhance natural areas and to integrate developments into existing site conditions 3 Type V Ic:mdscaping forstormwater facilities has been expand for clarification purposes Site Plan Review (Chapter 17 .84) The zoning code requires all projects to 'reqeive site plan approval The chapter has been modified to create a limited types of exceptions as specified by the Planning Commission. 'I / '), .~ \ 'Y \ ,~J ~ 1 \~ I ~ Y \\..~ ~tyJk v )' ~\JI ['0".. \J ^ v~. \ ~ \J \~ ~J2 Issues not discussed to date. c' 3 c Chapter 17 84 080 Mamtenance of plant matenals r~quire all developments to proV1de a maintenance aSsurance device for a period of one year DQes the)?lapnit,lg Commission c V1ew tius as a function the City regulat~sorthe respons~bi1ity of the privateprQperty , ownerS to. protect their mvestmefit? The SIte Plan Review' Committee.I:~ceived a request fro'm a.,property owner lr; the CBD t9 / open a vetennary.clinic: Vet Clinics and'Hospitals.are.not allowedinthe.CBD, only allowed in the C-.I 'zpne. The CBD doesa1low for pet shops. Would the Planning Comi?1sslOn like toqistiongUlsh between majOr and minor vet clinics and allow mmor chilies m the CBD? I Staff has been approached by a numper of property owners wantingto~onv'ert;<luplexes to townhouses so they can be sold as smgle f8inily units. The To~ouse~htlPterrestnct townhouse development to rmrnmtirn.lot size of 1 acre and a ~.um depending on the zornng. In most cases the duplexes are 90 smgle lots an<l can not meet the.mit:mnum 1 aCre reqUlrement. Condo's for less than four units are not an o{>tlOn becauseofFHAIV A fina~cmg reqUlrements.Please refer Jo' Chapter 17 61 040(e )(t) for the purp9sed changes. It 1S recommended the rmnimurn lot s1Z~ mthe R~4 D1stnct r~m3Jn to protect ind1V1qual single familyptoperty owners from. townhouses (as defined townhouse share 2 or more common walls) Townhouse dispersed throughout single family neighborhoods would not be cons1stent w1th smgle familydwelhngs. ' o o C~ Mixed Use Density 14 Or 16 Mimmum DensIty Ratio of Commercial to ResIdential in CommercIal DIstncts? Add to C-2 Zone MobIle Home Parks PermenantFoundatIon? Streets - substandard reqUirements, change to local access? o City oj,Yelm , 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 4"79 Yelm. Washington 98597 (360) 458..3244 ! ' pate November 10, 1997 To CIty otXelm Platmmg CommIsslOp., :Cath;e carlsJ,j-lty Planner From Re Road Standards \ . '0 Back2round:' , The Pltmnmg CommIsslOnheld two workseSSlOns: earh~r thIs'year to reVIew the City ,Street Stanclard~ and to adVIse staff on WhICh changes, Ifany, they would like to p~r~ue Attached IS a table 'representIng the draft stand~rds, companng the' eXIstmg to the proposed and drawulgs of the proposed newsiartdaq:ls The Plannmg COrrlp.1ISSIOn ne~dsto finahze theIr r~~ommendatIQn for each street.classIficatlOn WIth a~peclal consIderatlOn to parkmg reqUIrements for'local access resIdentIal and'comniercIal . I ": \ ]?roposed Revisions: The cntena used to assess CIty road standards and to~draft proposed standards mclude nght7of- ,way wIdths (exIstmganclc futu~e), traffic calmIng t~dliJ.lques (curb extensIons at lfltersectIons), p~destn,an safety, parkmg needs a,nd;City mamtenance ' ,. Right-of'-Way Widths - ,. l.J , The draft road standards reduce futlJ~e nght-of-way needs fot all street cla,ssIficatlOns Depenqmg on the street classificatlOn the reductlOn ra,nges fr,0p.14 - 30 feet. ReductlOns m tIght-of..,way were accomphshecl through ,!pplymg a yombmatlO.n of the, f9llowmg , ! -, ehmmatlOn of stormwater swales, , , 1. ' .. . . reducmg WIdth of traffj"c laI).es, . reducmg wIdth of paved .shOl~lders"an'd . ~educmg wIdths-of planter stnp~ The reductIon m futur~ nght'-of-'Yay needs has the followIng effects . r~tams more ,plwate property for development, . reduces constructlO'n costs, . reqUires stormwater from nght-'of-waybe accommodated by development project; . ' reduces. CIty mamtenance cost,~ and o · encour~ges vehI<;:le traffic to tr'ave! at the posted speed hmIted. * Ruyck;I paper TraffiC" Calming Techniques/Pedestrian Safety 0 There are manytechmques 10 calm (slow down) traffic The draft road standards mcorpbrate. oniy oile techmque, curb extenslOns, on those streets where parkmg is p~rmitted Benefits of curl? extenslOn~ are · -slows traffic speed on ro~dway, esp~cially at intersectlOns, · no added costs to developer or City; · provide's better visibihty/safety for pedestnans, · clearly delllieate~ on-street parkmg areas, and · adds ilesthetIcs to the streetscape Parking ; Depe_ildmg on the functlOn of a street, oh.,.street parkmgcan be an asset of a detnment As referenced m the background sectlOn of this report, the City has expenenced dlegal parkmg and damage tostoqilwater: swales m subdiViSions that do not proviqe on-street ,parkmg. For local residential' and local commerCial streets on-street 'ilarkmgis deSired to · achieve close, easy and safe access to uses. ~ augment the on.,.~Ite par19ng .reqUIrements for commercIal' proJ~cts By prohibitmg on-street parkmgon c61~ectot and artenal streets,the ~enefits mclude · safe (better visibihty) and timely movement of traffic ' · reduction mnght-of-way wIdths o , City Maintenance An important element of City streets IS mamtenal1ce "In ev~luatmg road standards everY' effort was made tor.ecogmze the amount of addItlOnal mamtenance (time apd cost) of lip gradIng eXistmg roads and addmg new roads to the City transportatIon system: The draft road standaJ;ds lessen the cumulatIve Impactt-o the 'PublIc Warks Department by · reducmg wIdth of traffic 'lanes and paved shoulders thereby reducmg futlire repair .anp mamtenarrce ~osts, anp ehmmatmg ~t9rmwater swales reduc~s groundzs/plimter stnp mamtenance . O'c 0, n Cl"..-i OF YELM o Road tandards - Existinl!: and Proposed Street Classification Proposed Street Name Existing R-O-WI Existing Standards Option "1" Option "2" Street Classification " Required R-O-W2 R-O-W R-O-W Boulevard Boulevard swale or Berry Valley 40',50' 90' 82' - 106' N/A w/centrallsland Major Arterial3 Major Arterial First Street 100',60' 115'/1 00' 94' N/A Major Arteriaf Major Arterial Killion Road Extension 115'/1 00' 94' N/A : Major Arterial3 Major Arterial Y-l (SR-510) 115'/100' 94' N/A Major Arterial3 Major Arterial Y-2 (SR-507) 115'/1 00' 94' N/A Urban ArteriaJ3 Urban Arterial Yelm Avenue E & W 60' 90'/80' 72' N/A Minor Artenal Urban Arterial Bald Hills Road (Y -9) 80' 72' N/A Minor Arterial Urban Arterial Canal Road (Y-3) 40',50' 80' 72' N/A Minor Arterial Urban Arterial First Street (N ofYelm Ave) 80' 72' N/A Minor Arterial Urban Arterial Grove Road (Y-3) 80' 72' N/A Minor Arterial Urban Artenal Edwards St (N ofYelm Ave) 60' 80' 72' N/A Minor Arterial Urban Arterial Canal Road 40',50' 80' 72' N/A Minor Arterial Urban Arterial N.P Road 40' 80' 72' N/A Minor Arterial Urban Arterial Stevens-Coates (Y-4) 50' 80' 72' N/A S NOTE I 2. 3 Existing R-O-W When more than one number, bold number indicates predominate r-o-w Existmg Standards: When more than one number, fIrst number indicates r-o-w standard for outside of the CBD and second number indicates r-o-w standard for inside the CBD Existing ClassifIcation: ClassifIcation contains two standards - one for inside the CBD and one for outside the CBD YELM STREET STANDARDS November 10, 1997 C:\OFFICE\CATHIEIR-O- W2.WPD n n n ~"--../. '---../ \.. / Street Classification Proposed Street Name Existing R-O- W Existing Standards Option "1" Option "2" Street Classification Required R-O-W R-O-W R-O-W Commercial Collector Commercial Collector Creek Street 60',40' 84' 56' N/A Minor Arterial Urban Arterial Killion Road (adjacent to 40' 84' 72' N/A commercial) Minor Artenal Urban Arterial Morris Road 60' 84' 72' N/A Minor Arterial Urban Artenal Rhoton Road (from 1 st to 40' 84' 72' N/A , Rhoton Ct) Minor Arterial Urban Arterial Stevens Avenue 60' 84' 72' N/A Minor Arterial Urban Arterial West Road 40',50' 84' 72' N/A Minor Arterial Urban Arterial 103rd (Yelm Ave to Creek) 60' 84' 72' N/A Neighborhood Collector Neighborhood Collector Burnett Road 40',60' 80'/60' 56' N/A Neighborhood Collector Neighborhood Collector Clark Road 40' 80'/60' 56' N/A Neighborhood Collector Neighborhood Collector Coates Street 60',65' 80'/60' 56' N/A Neighborhood Collector Neighborhood Collector Crystal Springs Rd (Y-6/Y-3) 80'/60' 56' N/A Neighborhood Collector Neighborhood Collector Cullens Road (Yelm Ave to 60',50' 80'/60' 56' N/A Coates) Neighborhood Collector Neighborhood Collector Southwest Access (Y - 7) 80'/60' 56' N/A NOTE I Existing R-O-W When more than one number, bold number indicates predominate r-o-w 2. Existing Standards: When more than one number, first number indicates r-o-w standard for outside of the CaD and second number indicates r-o-w standard for mside the CaD 3 Existing Classification: ClassificatIOn contains two standards - one for inside the CaD and one for outside the CaD YELMSTREETSTANDARDS November 10, 1997 C:\OFFICE\CA THIEIR-O- W2. WPD 2 n (\ (\ -'---../ "'-/ \ ) Street Classification Proposed Street Name Existing R-O- W Existing Standards Option "1" Option '-k. Street Classification Required R-O-W R-O-W R-O- W Neighborhood Collector Neighborhood Collector Wilkensen Road 50' 80'/60' 56' N/A Local Access Commercial Local Access Commercial Edwards Street (from Yelm 60' 84' 54' 58' Ave to Mosman Ave) Local Access Commercial Local Access Commercial Jefferson Avenue NE 60' 84' 54' 58' Local Access CommercIal Local Access Commercial Jefferson Avenue NW 60' 84' 54' 58' Local Access Commercial fLocal Access Commercial Jones Street 60' 84' 54' 58' Local Access CommercIal Local Access Commercial Longmire Street SW 50' 84' 54' 58' Local Access CommercIal Local Access Commercial Mckenzie Ave (SR 507-2nd) 60' 84' 54' 58' Local Access Commercial Local Access Commercial Railroad Street 60' 84' 54' 58' Local Access Commercial Local Access Commercial Rice S1. (Jones - Jefferson) 60' 84' 54' 58' Local Access Commercial Local Access Commercial Second Street 60' 84' 54' 58' Local Access Commercial Local Access Commercial Solberg Street (Jones to 50' 84' 54' 58' Jefferson) Local Access Commercial Local Access Commercial Tlurd Street (Washington to 60',50',40' 84' 54' 58' Stevens) Local Access ResidentIal Neighborhood Collector Crystal Springs Road 40',50' 54' 56' N/A NOTE I 2. 3 EXIsting R-O-W When more than one number, bold number indicates predominate r-o-w Existing Standards: When more than one number, fIrst number indicates r-o-w standard for outside of the CBD and second number indicates r-o-w standard for Inside the CBD Existing ClassifIcation. ClassifIcation contains two standards - one for inside the CBD and one for outside the CBD YELM STREET STANDARDS November 10, 1997 C:\OFFICE\CA THIEIR-{)- W2. WPD 3 n f\ n --'''--/ "--/' . " J Street Classification Proposed Street Name Existing R-O-W Existing Standards Option "I" OptIOn "1." Street Classification Required R-O-W R-O- W R-O-W Local Access ResIdentIal NeIghborhood Collector Cullens Road 60',50' 54' 56' N/A Local Access ResidentIal Local Access ResIdential Flume Road SE 54' 50' 56' Local Access ResIdential Local Access Residential Fourth Street 30' 54' 50' 56' Local Access ResidentIal Neighborhood Collector KillIon Road 40',50' 54' 56' N/A Local Access Residential Neighborhood Collector Longmire Street SW 50',40' 54' 56' N/A : Local Access Residential Neighborhood Collector Middle Road SE 40',50' 54' 56' N/A Local Access ResIdential Neighborhood Collector Mill Road 40' 54' 56' N/A Local Access Residential Neighborhood Collector Mosman Avenue SE 50' 54' 56' N/A Local Access Residential Neighborhood Collector Mosman Avenue SW 50' 54' 56' N/A Local Access Residential Neighborhood Collector Mountain View Road 40',50' 54' 56' N/A Local Access Residential Neighborhood Collector Railway Road 40' 54' 56' N/A Local Access Residential Neighborhood Collector Rhoton Road (from Rhoton Ct 40',50' 54' 56' N/A to Canal Rd) Local Access Residential Neighborhood Collector Vancil Road 60',40' 54' 56' N/A Local Access Residential Neighborhood Collector 93rd Avenue 60' 54' 56' N/A NOTE 1 EXIsting R-O-W When more than one number, bold number indicates predominate r-o-w 2. Existing Standards: When more than one number, ftrst number indicates r-o-w standard for outside of the CBD and second number indicates r-o-w standard for inside the CBD 3 Existing Classlftcation: Classiftcation contains two standards - one for inside the CBD and one for outside the CBD YELM STREET STANDARDS November 10, 1997 C:IOFFICEICA THIEIR-O. W2. WPD 4 n n o ~"-.-/ "-..../ \.. ;- Street Classification Proposed Street Name Existing R-O-W Existing Standards Option "1" Option ..~ ' Street Classification Required R-O-W R-O- W R-O- W Local Access ResIdentIal Local Access ResIdentIal 100th Way 50',60' 54' 50' 56' , Unclassified Local Access Commercial Van Trump Street 60' 54' 58' UnclassIfied Local Access CommercIal MckenzIe SW 60' 54' 58' Unclassified Neighborhood Collector 105th Avenue 60' 56' N/A Unclassified Neighborhood Collector Longmire NW 50' 56' N/A UnclassIfied Local Access Commercial Solberg (Jefferson to Coates) 50' 54' 58' NOTE 1 2. 3 EXIsting R -0- W When more than one nwnber, bold nwnber indicates predominate r -o-w Existing Standards: When more than one nwnber, fIrst nwnber indicates [-O-W standard for outside of the CBO and second nwnber indicates r-o-w standard for inside the CBO Existing ClassifIcation: ClassifIcation contains two standards - one for inside the CBO and one for outside the CBO YELM STREET STANDARDS November 10 1997 C:\OFFlCE\CA THIEIR-O. W2. WPD 1- ... ... '" . .. . '" ... . ... ... '" .. .' . '" ... r) '" '" '" '" ... ... ... ... ... '" ... ... '" . . ;. ... '" J... : ... . . '" ... ... '" ... '" '" ... '" '" ... ..' '" . fl' .. ;- ... '" .... .... . .. . ... '" ... ... '" '" f ., '" ... ... . . b . ~ R/W I R/W 10' 84'-106' 10' M ,.., );>c > c ~:::! ** .. VI...; 5' 4' 7' l"'1 - ~C 7' 5' 11'-22' 4' 10' 10' 11'-22' 5 5 ~c 1Tl-l ,..,-1 z-< !t? "'0 Q2 "'"i VI -IUJ -l Vl \/) !!l "'0 !.1 z -< 0 -I :ti -I CJ r ^ ;;\) J: ::0.., ::O-l :J: ^ r CJ ITl > f'T'I )> 0 r'10 MO 0 )>- f'T'I > ITl ~ Z ""'1 C )>?J l>o~ C ""'1 Z ~ .., r 'TJ r -IS:: --l~ r ." r --l )> M ". 0 CJ 3:::i; s::~ 0 R )> M > ARIES r r X ::0 Z r'1 1Tl);> 1Tl);> M 2 ::0 ^ f'T'I r ;;0 2-/ Z-/ A) r f'T1 );> -1,..., -tlTl )> () Z \/);:0 UJA) Z ):- M M ...; ~ :E () );> )0- J: r r-- lTI r'1 ""0 Q (") z )>< -oi --l (') -~ :J: I "U 0 Z -I 2%..- SHOULDER BALLAST o GENERAL NOTES 1 NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA TION ON STORM DRAINAGE. STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, EeT CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS BOULEVARD WITH SWALE ** 11' Wl TH 1 LANE 22' WITH 2 LANES APPROVED owe NO. PUBLIC WQRKS DIRECTOR DES. OWN D A Tf: 4-1ARE;V.OWO CK() DATE DG4-1A.DWG lit: 14-("-l7 (1'I1P;PM Ftn . ~ " . . . 0 .. . 0 . . . . , . . . d. 0' o. .d ~ M o R/W 10' ('Tl >c (/)-/ w.* ('Tl- ~C 5' 7' 5' 12'-24' 4' ('Tl-/ z-< l!1 ""'0 OJ -1 Ul -1 CJ r ~ ;;0 :r ('Tl )> I"T1 )> 0 ~ Z "'T) c: ~ r ::!J r ;po ('Tl ~ () CJ r ;;0 ^ 1"'1 I"T1 r ;;0 )> Z fT1 . VARIES 3' CL I 82' -106' 16' ~ ,.., CJ J>o Z () ~ -1 () :r \J o :z ~ ~ .' . . . J . . . R/W 10' 4' ** 5' 12'-24' Ul -1 g] :r ';0 r:. 0 )>- l"'1 C ...., r ..., r CJ ('"") )> I"T1 Z :;0 r'T1 7' iJ r )>- Z -{ ('Tl A;J ('Tl ):> c :=q~ 5' :s::: '= ,.....--1 Ul z-< o -1 l"'1 ~ s::: ARIES "-cEMENT CONe BARRIER CURB CEMENT CONC SARRIER CURB & GUTTER u 12' WITH 1 LANE 24' WITH 2 LANES o GENERAL NOTES 1 NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDlTlONAL INFORMA TION ON STORM DRAINAGE. STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, ECT DC4.-1A.OWC 2%~ () ';to -; ('"") :J: CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WQRI-<S BOULEVARD CEN TR AL I SLAI\j 0 wi APPROVED Dwe NO 4-1ElN(W.DWG WORKS DIRECTOR OWN DA 1.E DATE KD O~-14-g7 07 tRAM pnl o c o u.....H A. ~I ..L..J...J I UU '-tU ....JUL1'-t...J...J.t...'-t l U .....J\..JH L-I'l"-AI'>.U .4 .' " . i .4 -, <> . . <>.. -c lIJ-1 ", - 6' 8' 5' ,,' ~c ~~ !,Q ""'CJ Q2 ?j -i 0 r ^ [T1 ~ I'T1 :P ~ z .,., -i r ~ ;p [T1 ;p 0 r :xl ^ z [T1 r ;p [T1 VARIES ct I 94 1" 6' 6' 11' ~ r-i 3d :P q~ :P .,., -1 .,., ~ ~ ::€ ~ (") :t=- O r :;0 -< r ;po Z l>> Z r Z [T1 :P- [T1 Z ml --- R/W 10' m :P-c lIJ-1 11' 5' 8' e' t"l- ~c ('T'I-i :xl Q2 V'l :z -< -i ^ is ~ ('T'I [T1 .,., ::€ ~ r ~ VARIES n )> r Z '" r 1"'1 )>. fT1 (") ~ -i 2 ""'CJ o Z --l 2%. ~2% '- CEMENT CONC BARRIER CURB AND GUTTER CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL NOTES 1 NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA TION ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE:, ECT MAJOR ARTERIAL APPROVED OWG NO 4-2BREV,OWC PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DA TE ES DWN eKD DA Tt: OG4-2B.OWG nt= 14 ~7 117 ji=j.lv1 Fn 1 I@ \., ~""t ( ., <1 10" ~ .<l 4 ., <::l ., J ., 4' @ '-....V "/1/ o o R/W 10' r<l >c: ~::! 6' 8' 5' 11' s:;:C r<l~ z-< \{1 22 ~ -l CI ^ ;u I'TI I'TI )>- ~ ...., r :!! ;J> )>- () r ^ Z f"T\ r ;to- ~ I 72' 6' 6' ,,' r --l q~ :l~ c J:>o ;;tI -< Z r J:>o Z I'TI VARIES (') )>- -l (') ~ lJ Q z -l ~ L CEMENT CONC BARRIER CURB AND GUTTER o GENERAL NOTES 1 NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, ECT OO~-3B.OWG 2%~ ~ ;;0 :J> "'i ...., (S R/W 10' fT! ;to- C Vl-l 5' 8' 6' I'TI - i::C 1""1-4 ro \,!:! z-< ^ CI --l ('T'I ('T'I r ::f J> ;p r vARIES z ^ ('T'I () ;to- -i () J: lJ Q z -i r ;J> z CITY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS URBAN ARTERIAL APPROVED DWG NO 4-38RCV.DWG PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DA TE DES WN CKD DATE o c, - J 4 - j '7 n 7 I >< 8 PROPOSED ---I \ , - .. ,.. .' ~' . . R/W 5 10 1"'1 )Ire Vl-c 7' 5' 1"'1- ~S III Z -< (5 .... l"!'\ VARIES ~ r ^ ("") ):- -c n I "U Q z --l (") :t>- el I "tI Q z .... Vl"'!J I> o~ :;0 o 1""1 ;u '- o ~ 2%,... '- CEMENT CONG. BARRIER CURB AND GUTTER CITY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS () I GENERAL NOTES 1 NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA TION ON STORM DRAINAGE. STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, ECT COMMERCIAL COLLECTOR APPROVED owe NO 4-6CNEW.DWG OC4-66.0WC DATE O~-14-97 n7 l~AM pn1 ~~/~~I ~JJI Uv ~v ....Jvu""tJ...."-""t'u " :' o o f PROPOSED R!W <t I 56' .4 ., R/W 10 15 M tiS 7' 5 ~ E 1""1-i "'0 VJ %:-< r (5 -i J>- ", Z ~ VARIES -i ~ ", r- ;;1J =" (> ;po. ---l o I " o Z -l 10' 1""1 ~c:; fTl:=l :;:: C 5' 7' ~=< -i ~ o IT1 ~ r- =" 16' (") ~ (i :I:; "'0 o Z -I -l AI )>- 3 o r )>- %: ", CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR APPROVED Dwe NO 3:l ".. ." ." C5 r )>- Z ", 4-\58PlEV.OWO DES DATE I ,.<-","' , I < - 1 4 ' 7 II 7 I P. J.. M f- 111 VARIES ~ l CEMENT CONC BARRIER CURB AND GUTTER GENERAL NOTES 1 NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2, REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES F'OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, EeT o PROPOSED OPTION 1 ~ R/W I 10. 54 M >c (J)-l M - 5' 6' 7' 1" 14' s:~ M-l z-< !!! -0 " 3d ~ -l 0 r )>- M )>- ;;Q ,.. )>- ~ z ^ ...., ...., -l Z ::l ::l )>0 1"'1 0 () r ;;Q c;:) ^ (J) r- r r ;l>- )>- -l ". Z z 2Q z: IT! I"'l "U I"'l VARIES c () ;l>- ei I -0 o Z -l ~ '- CEMENT CONe. BARRIER CURB AND GUTTER GENERAL NOTES 1 "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2. RE~"ER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ~OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE. STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE. EeT o I I OQ4-7IH)WC 2r.~ <1 ~ ~ R/W 10 6 I"'l )>0 C (I) ::l 5' 2 C (T\-l :z -< (/) -l 5 ~ VARIES )>0 r 0 ^ :t> -I () :J: "'0 o Z -l " r )>- Z -l I"'l ;;0 Vl -l 2Q "U CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS LOCAL ACCESS COMMERCIAL OWG. NO. 4-7CNEw.OWG DATE j APPROVED DES. lit:" 14-~7 1171::p.M 1-11t:: o PROPOSED OPTION 2 R/W ~ 10' 58 fT1 >c Vl-l fT1 - 5' 6' 7' 1" 11' ;::c fTl-i z-< !:!1 "lJ -0 -i -4 -l 0 r J;> A] AJ ~ )>< AJ )>< :> ~ z 2S ." ." -4 ." ...,., )>- fT1 Z ?"i ('5 r AJ " ;A r r (f) r ~ )>- -l )>- Z; ::0 Z fTl lTl 'U I'T1 VARIES o () J;> -4 () ::c -0 o Z -i _2~ lCEMENT CONe. BARRIER ClJRB AND CUTTER GENERAL NOTES 1 "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2. REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE:, STREET o UGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, EeT L~~~ R/W 10 7' M :Pc Vl-.l 5 2 E fTl-4 Z -< !:!1 ..... o ~ VARIES ;t>- r () " )> -4 () :r "'(l Q z ... 6 "tl :> ::0 ^ Z (i) r )> Z fTl "lJ r )> Z -i ,..., :;;I;) (f) ~ '5 ~ r--- ~'i": .... '" CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS LOCAL ACCESS COMMERCIAL APPROVED owe;.. NO 4-70f'lEW.OWG DES. DATE f, c - 1 4 - ~ 7 ""1 1" .to. M r f I F, I o o o I PROPOSED OPTION #1 VARIES <t R/W I R/W 10' 50' 10' /Tl 1'1 ;l>C :t>c: Vl-l Vl::J ~E 6' 5 7' 11 12' . .6 5 /Tl,.... ",-1 ffl~ z--< "'1;J (") "tl -I -I (')" 11\ Z -< -I -l r C )> ;0 ;0 cr is J> ::0 ::0 )>- )> ::0> 1'1 VARIES % to ^ ..., ...... toZ ~ ;;:t p,o z ..., ..., -l (i) 0 5 RoI"'1 r (j ;:0 ::0 ^ J> Vl C) ,.... ,.... ~Vl r ;l> J> d -I C ~ z Z -1-' ~ ::l 1"'1 I'TI ;;:122 J: "'1;J 1'1 /Tl ;:0"'0 II ::0 0 4' 2: ..... (') )> d I "tl o Z -I ~ L CEMENT CONe. fl.OLLED CURB AND CUrTER CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL NOTES 1 "ON STREET' PARKING PERMITTED 2. REFER TO RE:LEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING, PAvEMENT STRUCTURE, EeT I tla4-eA.OWG LOCAL ACCESS RESIDENTIAL APPROVED Dwv. NO 04-8cNtW.OWQ DES L 11~-14-S<7 fl7 IPAM Fn' o PROPOSED OPTION #2 R/W R/W 10' 56' 10 0 f"Tl f"Tl )>C )><;: VI...... r./l.., f"Tl - 6' 7' 11 ' 7' 6 5 ~E ;;::t: 5 11 ~=<! ""0 0"'0 l/) 2:< --l () -0 -l ;a -0 -l r- C )> :;JIJ )> er e ~ ;<;1 :;JIJ )> )>- ;<;1 ;<;1)> f"Tl VARIES lD '" -., .." ^ COZ ~ ;;:l z ..., ::l Z -l l1." ('j () Rof"Tl :;JIJ Cl I;) ;;0 r ("') ^ )> G') r r gV\ 1Il r )r )> r- 04 -l <;: )- ,.. ......;J () ;<;1 -l Z Z z 2 ::I: "5 04 f"Tl f"Tl fT1 rt'1 04_ f"Tl ;a-o ;;lJ VARIES 4 l () )>- -l 2 -0 Q z -l ~ ~ C(MENT CONC. ROLLED CURS AND GUTlER CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL NOTES: 1 "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE:. DC LOCAL ACCESS RESIDENTIAL APPROVED DWG. NO. ~-80NEW.OWO OCi-M.Owo ATE DES. I I r_- - 1 ,1 -- :-l ~7 I I - ~ ;..l M F (t I VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET Please sign in and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list ,0 to receive future agendas and minutes U MEETING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE. DEC 15,1997 TIME 400 PM LOCATION. YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Hearing(s) *Contlnuatlon of Public Hearing - ZONING CODE & STREET STANDARD AMENDMENTS MAILING LIST? I SPFAKER? -=r()""y\\-\,-~~\~-\OY-) 'QJ .~cK \ ~(J<JJ ':')~~ ti\.K<: f1t,q/ArV f- O~ !30Y' .7v} ~~ ~'1 ~ J. C~ V \ Vl fA, I fI1 vV ~,,~ G~ Iw-, NAME & ADDRESS 7 7 et.. ~. < ~ 7 o c o 0' City of Yelm o o },O5 Yelm Avenue Jfest p (j Box 472. Yelm, Wdshington9859-7 {~(0) ,458-3244 AGENOA CITY OF YELIVI PLANNING'COMMISSION MONDAY"DECEMBER 15,1997 4.00P M " YEt.M CITY HALL COUNCIL cHAMaERS, 105,VELM'AVE W, , , ~. 1 Call to Order, RolI,Call,Approval.ofMinu~es- N"ovemb~r 17, 1997: '(minutes will be available atthe meeting) 1." 2 ;Public Communications - (Not associated'With measures' or topics (6rwhich public hearings have been held or for , which are anticipated) '". r 3 Continuation of Public Hearing. Zoning Code ano Street Sf?nqard Amendments Appli~ant: City of Yelm Proposal Update to the Zoning Coqe& Str~et Standards Staff report eqclosed' " ; , rr , 4 Other'" 5 .Adjourn - Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. , [f you needsp~cjal arrangemer)ts to at!end oC participate In this nieeting, please contact '181m City Hall, at 45~-3244. c , , NEXTREGULAR.MEEliNG, TUESDAY,'JANUARY20, 19984:00 PM (Monday, January 1~, 199~ is 'a hOljday, city'hallWillbe dosed) .... ,I. ~ *~ Rfcycled paper -'-~-"-:-- ,~-- ' , ~~----..-J"~~-~" o o o Agenda Item! Motion No. 97 -23 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17,1997 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order at 4 00 P m by Chair Tom Gorman Members present: Margaret Clapp, EJ Curry, Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent, Roberta Longmire Guests. John Huddleston, Amos Lawton - City Council Liaison Staff: Cathie Carlson, Ken Garmann, Dana Spivey Members absent: Glenn Blando, Ed Pitts Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY BOB ISOM TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 1997 MOTION CARRIED MARGARET CLAPP AND EJ CURRY ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE Public Communications. There were none Other - TRPC Memorandum Cathie stated that Mayor Wolf asked her to share this memo with the Planning Commission In the last 4-5 months, Thurston Regional Planning Council took an inventory of what all the jurisdictions were planning for their capital facIlity - larger Improvements over the next 20 years It was reviewed to see If there was any duplication of effort and also how each jurisdiction was going to pay for the projects Cathie stated that the Mayor would like the memo reviewed and then would like some direction on which of the options would work best with the City of Yelm Cathie stated the options There was much discussion Tom Gorman polled the Commission Most voted for "option 1" (To select one or more capital project categories which would benefit from further regional consideration such as parks, storm water, water etc) Three Commission members were Indifferent. Final Plat Review - Mill Park Place- Applicant. John Huddleston, Proposal. 12 lot Planned Residential Development and Final Plat, Location. 104th Place SE - East side of Mill Road Cathie Carlson gave a summary of her staff report. Cathie pointed out the open space Condition No 1 - The applicant proposes the open space fee in lieu of be paid for as each lot IS Issued ItS building permit. Section 16 14 060 C allows for the City to defer payment of the fee In lieu of In this manner when a property lien is recorded against each lot. Cathie then stated that all other conditions of approval have been met by the applicant. Margaret Clapp asked the applicant if the setback issue had been solved with neighbor Nancy Trent. John Huddleston said yes, everything is ok. Yelm Planning Commission November 17, 1997 Page 1 97 -24 MOTION BY EJ CURRY, SECONDED BY RAY KENT TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR MILL PARK PLACE AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION MOTION CARRIED. o Final Plat Review - Mill Circle Estates - Applicant: John Huddleston, Proposal 28 lot single family subdivision Location 107th Loop SE, West side of Mill Road, south of Mill Pond School Cathie gave staff report, stating that applicant has met all conditions of approval Also, the City Public Works Dept. has billed the applicant for the Plan Review fees, $555 00 Applicant is aware this bill must be paid prior to final plat approval 97 -25 MOTION BY EJ CURRY, SECONDED BY RAY KENT TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR MILL CIRCLE ESTATES AND FORWARD TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION MOTION CARRIED. o Public Hearing - Zoning Code and Street Standard Amendments - Applicant City of Yelm, Proposal Update to the Zoning Code and Street Standards Tom Gorman opened the public hearing at 4 25 pm The time, date, place and reason for the public hearing were announced No objections to participants or conflicts were stated Cathie stated that she would start with Road Standards A staff report was provided Background. The Planning Commission held two work sessions earlier this year to review the City Street Standards and to advise staff on which changes, if any, they would like to pursue The Planning Commission needs to finalize their recommendation for each street classification with a special consideration to parking requirements for local access residential and commercial Cathie went over the proposed revisions Included are Right-of-Way Widths, Traffic Calming Techniques/Pedestnan Safety, Parking and City Maintenance There was much discussion Ray Kent feels that parking on both sides of the street IS more hospitable, makes the city more inviting Margaret Clapp asked if It is different on a collector street? Cathie said yes, collector's have fewer access pOints on them, and collector streets do not provide for parking Tom asked if this is the "norm" in other cities? Cathie said yes Roberta Longmire asked about the additional four feet It takes to allow for parking on both sides Cathie said that is correct, it does take an additional four feet. There was more discussion 97 -26 MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY JOE HUDDLESTON TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND GO WITH OPTION TWO FOR LOCAL ACCESS RESIDENTIAL AND LOCAL ACCESS COMMERCIAL. Tom asked If there was any further diSCUSSion There was diSCUSSion about different Circumstances, Cathie explained what would happen for each case Ken Garmann stated that these standards are minimum standards Tom asked If there were any more comments or more diSCUSSion? None MOTION CARRIED o Yelm Planning Commission November 17, 1997 Page 2 o Cathie stated that for clarification purposes she thinks there should be a motion for the rest of the street standards, the Planning Commission sub-committee already has had lots of diScussion on them - unless there are any further questions the Planning Commission could approve them now 97 -27 MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY MARGARET CLAPP, TO ACCEPT THE REMAINING ROAD STANDARDS AS INDICATED IN THE PACKET Cathie then added - on the matrix that shows what the existing nght-of-way is, what the current and new standards would require and proposed changes in street classifications for some local access streets to neighborhood collectors Bob asked if on-street parking was required in Berry Valley Estates? Cathie said yes, more discussion followed Tom asked If there were other questions? None MOTION CARRIED. o Tom stated that Cathie will give an overview of the staff report on proposed Zoning Code amendments Cathie explained that the Planning Commission has held a senes of workshops from November 1996 to May 1997 to discuss a number of amendments to the zoning code and modifications to the road standards The staff report included a bnef description of the issues and the direction the Planning Commission Instructed staff to pursue The issues included Residential Development-density minimums and maximums, Manufactured Housing(Chapter 17 63), Parking(Chapter 17 72) and Landscaping Regulations(Chapter 17 80) and Site Plan Review(Chapter 17 84) Cathie then went over a list of issues not discussed to date Cathie stated there is a lot to cover, the Planning Commission can have another work session or discuss it all today, revise the document and continue the public hearing at the next meeting Margaret stated that she doesn't see the Planning Commission voting and approving anything today because there is so much to cover, but she feels there can be discussion Bob suggested these issues going back to a work session, because he does have questions E J asked Cathie how the Public Heanng was worded in the Public Notice in the paper? Cathie stated It was listed as a Public Heanng for "Zoning Code and Street Standard Amendments" Tom suggested gOIng through the list, let Cathie go over the issues, have some discussion - then agree to have a separate work session or carry the public hearing over for additional discussion and public testimony at the next meeting o Roberta asked Cathie why all the densities were increased? Cathie stated that really only two were - R-10 District from 10 units per acre to 14 Units per acre and the Apartment Density in the CBD from 10 units per acre to 14 or 16 units per acre There was discussion The general consensus of the Planning Commission was to approve the density Increases, with the Apartment Density going to R-16 Cathie also brought to everyone's attention that In the "allowed uses" section she added "excluding dnve-thru restaurants In the CBD" - Yelm Planning Commission November 17, 1997 Page 3 o there was discussion Bob asked about "similar or related uses" what IS excluded- what is inclusive? Cathie answered that If a use IS not listed as allowed then it is excluded Cathie went back to the R-14/R-16 issue for apartments, she wants to make sure she remembered what was decided at the work session Margaret said that she remembers the work session discussion on this, she thinks R-16 IS good Cathie then talked about the Site Plan Review exemptions, Chapter 17 84 Margaret asked If Cathie could clarify Chapter 17 28 070 - Minimum Floor Area - In the C-3 area, do we need a maximum? Cathie stated that this is the C-3 area, where the minimum parcel size is 10 acres There was little discussion Margaret then stated that she was a little confused on the wording in "Chapter 17 80 050, F type- 5, B - Landscaping of Storm water Facilities "Cathie stated that people tend to want to do nothing - so basically this says Include the Storm water facility in your whole landscaping plan Margaret just wanted to let Cathie know that when she read that part, it was ambiguous to her Roberta asked If you could have just a lawn In the Storm water facIlity? Cathie said yes you can, but the city would like to see around the top of the Storm water facIlity some landscaping slowly integrated with the on-site landscaping, "McDonald's"-off of Solberg is a good example E J suggested Cathie wnte up some recommendations on the additional Issues outlined In the staff report, and come back to the Planning Commission with them There was some discussion c Bob asked a question about bonding Cathie addressed it. Tom asked If this has been a problem? Cathie said that It really hasn't been enforced lately, but It hasn't been a problem Cathie asked Tom and the Planning Commission members If the section on Maintenance Bonds could be taken out, monitored for a year - and if It becomes a problem then It can always be re-added to the code? The Planning Commission agreed Cathie asked if the Planning Commission wanted her to proceed with an explanation on the Townhouse issue? Tom stated that there are a few members who have to leave for other meetings now, let's continue the public hearing to the next scheduled meeting Cathie stated In the mean time she Will prepare an executive summary of her views for the next meeting Meeting adjourned at 5 33 pm o Tom Gorman, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission November 17, 1997 Page 4 ,0. o o ,. "DcftE;l November \0, 1997' , To PlannIng Commission From Cathie Carlsctk6'ity PI.anner " Re Planning Commission Packet$ ,City of Yelm 105 'Yelri1 Averi.ue West' PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 J Because of the l<;1r~e volume of nj'atenal for the Plannmg CojnmIsslon ~o revle\:V .pnor to Monday's meetmg, I am s~ndmg the (lnclosed mformatIon ahead of"schedule to allow you addItIOnal tIme for revie'w' Th~r'egular:agenda and the tema1l1mg' staff reports will be maIled on the normaL date Jf you have '. any questIOns please' contact me at458~8408 ' * &cyckd Paper ." ,J.. \ .1 " '; (~ G o o 105 Ye/m 4venue West , PO Box 479 Y~/m, WashingtOn 98597 (360) 458-3244 City. of Yelm Date Novemb.er 10, 1997 , , '-:0 Plahnlng, Commis.sion , From ,Cathlecarlso~ity Plann~r ,..;; , ( , , Re Zoning Code Amer:ldments Backqround, The Planning Corrimis~i6n held a series of workshops from November 1Q96 'to May 1997 to discuss a .number of amendments to the zoning c;ode and modifications to 'the road standards . , Following -IS a bnef desc;:riptiorrof th~ issues ahd th~ direction the Planning Commission Ins'trutted staff to pursue ., 'Residential DevelQpment D$nsity minimulT)s'and'maxlmumswere dlscY$sed for the R-A,R-6and R-10 Districts along with reslden1ial develQPrllehtlncommerc.ial zon~s The Planning .COmniissionaske<;l staff to make the following changes . , 1 Incre~se denSity in the R-10 Distnct frQm 10 ullits per acre to 14 units per acre r '\~ '2 ~I,ntrease apartment density in the ~BD from 10 ullits per acre to 16 units per acre ., 3 Delete residentiai uses from commercial zones except for when proposed as an elemert of a Mixed Use Development. . 4 Require final plat ~m Townhouses.pnqr tOJssuance of a building permit (Chapter 17 61 ) Man'ufactured. Housing (Chapter 17 63) The maximum parcel.slze for mobile home parks and subdivisions proviqedfbr developments that may'not be consistent with size and type of surrounding-uses The Planning Commission "' agreE?d the ,maximum' parcel size'sh6uld be reduced~nd that'mobile home parks and supdlvlsibns was not an appropriate use In' commercially zqned property .1"", -". \.., Parking "(Chapter 17 72) and Landscaping' Regulations (Chapter 17 80) 1 The parking chapter provided for the 'creation of new un'paved parking areas for-less than 5 vehicles The text has' been modified ~o require 'all. new parkiDg- areas regardless of -size to be pavecj per the City development standards * Recycled pape-r ' o o o 2 For consistency with the Design Guidelines two types of landscaping ,have been added Type VI landscaping for the base of sign areas and a Type VII landscaping is used to enhance natural areas and to integrate developments into existing site conditions 3 Type V I~ndscaping for stormwater facilities has been expand for clarification purposes Site Plan Review (Chapter 17 84) The zoning code requires all project~ to receive site plan approval The chapter has been modified to create a limited types of exceptions as specified by the Planning Commission Issues not discussed to date. 1 - Chapter 1] 84 080 Mamtenance of plant matenals reqUIre all developments to provIde a maIntenance assurance devIce fora penod of one year DQes thePlanmng CommIssIon VIew thIS as a functIon the CIty regulates or the responsibilIty of the pnvateproperty owners to protect theIr Investment? 2 The SIte Plan RevIew CommIttee receIved a request from a property ownerm the CBD to I open a vetennary clImc Vet ClImcs and HOspItals are not allowed In the CBD, orily allowed m the C-l zone The CBD does allow for pet shops Would the Planmng CommIssIon like to dIstmguIsh between major and mmor vet clImcs and allow mmor clImcs In the CBD? 3 Staff has been approached by a number of property owners wantmg to <;onvert duplexes to townhouses so they can be sold as smgle famIly umts The Townnouse Chapter restnct I I townhouse development to mImmlim lot SIze qf 1 acre and a maXImum dependmg on the zonmg. In most cases the duplexes are on smgle lots and can not meet the lll1mmum 1 acre reqUIrement Condo's for less than four umts are not an optIon because of'FHNV A financmg requIrement,s Please refer to Chapter 1] 61 040( e)( t) for the purposed changes It IS recommended the mImmum lot SIze In the R-4 DIstnct remam to protect mdIvIdual smgle famIly ptoperti owners from townhouses (as defined townhouse share 2 or more common walls) Townhouse dIspersed throughout smgle family neIghborhooqs would not be consIstent WIth smgle family dwellmgs "0 o ;--;-- -~_.~~--,-."-~-:.. ...--.-;-- ,---:---; I City of Yelm 1(J5 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 "\ . ;, Yelm. Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 YELM, , WASHINGTON Date November 12, 1997 To Yelryl Pli:mning Commission, " From 'Gathie Carlson, City Planner Re C~se No' Sl)B 97~8202- YL,MIII Pqrk Place - , A. ,Objective The planning Commission must review the Planned Resjdentlal Qevelopment (PRD) and Final Platfor compliance with ,the projects preliminary plat ~pprbval conditions and the City of Yelm Municipal Code, After review of ' the facts 'the Planning Commissi9n must make a recommendation of action to the Clty.,Council 1 Proponent Neighborhood Development Group John Huddleston 2 Location East side of Mill. Road; j'ust south, of 104th Ave,. SE Tax Parcei 2~73022d700 3 OpEmSpace ~ Condition 1'. The applicant proposes 'the open ?pace fee in lieu of be , paid for: as each lotlsbuilding permit Issuance Section 16 14 060'C allows for the , ,City to defer payment 'of the fee In lieu of in thiS manner when a property lien IS record~c;J .agalnst each lot. " 4 Conditions of Approval 2 - 6 The 'applicant has successfully completed 'aQd complied with these -requirements of the preliminary plat approval " " , E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend? that the final. plat for Mill Park Pla~e be Slpproved py-the Planning Commission and forwarded tQ the City Council for final. action '@ Recycled paper '. o c c , City of Yel... 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 206-458-3244 ...,,_'lfil.t7 ~ N~.f September 9, 1997 FILE COpy f~\ ~ (c Mr John Huddleston POBox 1206 Yelm, W A 98597 Re Prehmmary Plat Approval for PRD-8196, Mill Park Place Dear Mr Huddleston On August 27, 1997, the Yelm City Council granted condltlOnal approval of Mill Park Place, a 12 lot smgle family subdlVISlOn and planned resIdentIal development located on the east sIde of Mill Road and north of Mill Pond School. The followmg condltlOns of approval were set by the CIty Council 1 The applicant shall provide an area of approximately 13,111 square feet, identified as Tract A and B, for on-site open space The applicant shall pay a fee of $10,09500 for the remaining required 13,111 square feet of open space The fee in lieu of open space is calculated by multiplying the required square feet of open space (13,111) by 77f/; 2 The applicant shall mitigate traffic impacts to the transportation system Mitigation includes payment of the Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) for 11 11 pm peak hour tnps generated by the project. The total TFC is $8332 50 The TFC for each residential unit is $757 50 and payable at building permit issuance 3 The applicant shall submit a Homeowners Association Agreement for approval by the City The Agreement, at a minimum shall contain provisions for the homeowners joint ownership of Tract A and B and authorize the homeowners association to assess and collect fees for the maintenance and repair of open space and stormwater facility The Homeowners Agreement shall be referenced on the face of the Final Plat Map and recorded with the County Records Office 4 The applicant shall negotiate and enter into a Mitigation Agreement with the Yelm School District prior to final plat. School mitigation fees are payable at time of building permit issuance 5 The zero lot setbacks for side yards on lots two through nine and eleven and twelve is approved Reduction in rear yard setbacks IS allowed down to 20 feet and no reductions for front yards are approved p o o o ". Mr John Huddleston September 9, 1997 Page 2 6 The final plat shall clearly demonstrate the satisfactory completion of all conditions of approval stated herein, and shall be prepared and filed in compliance with the requirements of YMC 16 12 Prehmmary plat approval is vahd for five years from the date of approval. Prehmmary plat approval wIll expire on August 27,2002 If you need further assistance or have any questIOns, please contact me at 458-8408 Smcerely, ~W~ Cathenne Carlson City Planner cc Eddie True Shelly Badger Ken Garmann Jerry Prock ~~~ ~ tf'.>rm~~f ~~6t:; \.!lU"fr g .. ct .. .,. IN 7liE NWl/4 OF 7liE NWl/4 OF SEcnON 30. TOIlNSHIP 17 NOR7Ii. RANGE 2 EAST. W.M. CITY OF YELM PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MILL PARK PLACE P R.D ,_ _ --I--- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S 89"2J'24. E 27JJ.64 ,g :: : - - - - - - - - - 664.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - ~ -- 30 HW SECTJON JO : ~ S:E,~~ I ~4 :;~OR~ LII\E TABLE I "'-'T"KX.'. foD, MARIN; DISTNa PC. 2~ i r/2" IRON PtH WAS Lr HOO"JS'47. ( 2440 FND g ~ ~:~~ .~~:: tt~ '?:? JO:?:?0i500 Lot S 89"24 .U. E J2.oo '?i.ATT::"V Ul S 81'29 'os. ( JJ. 77 ~ ::;1 III i III S '9"21'1J. C 854.00 .. f4 r1i ~ =l ~ 0 ~ ~J P: ..~I ~ 18 ~ 1l 8 ~ .... ------~-~---~---~~~ OprN SPACE SEE NOTf .. - SHfIT 2 C9 . \ ~ ,. Of. .~ 'R 30' CC/oIIoIOH .... AcaSS c., EASDrIfNT J LOTS" AHO 12 ~ ',j C 6<,~. ... 'Y.~">>'i'I;;- ~ ..... ~... ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ /'~ 12 ~ 3 ~~ 4 P 5 ~~ 6 ~~ 7 P 8!~ 9 ~~1 O~~llH Ii '" '" ~ " 10' UT1UTY o.SEJrlENT ALCWG ALL LOT AND TRACT F'RONTACC S 892....'. C '2400 - - - - .504oif - - - - - - 104TH PLACE S.E. !l .5.00 -T 45,00 UOO ---- '4J.00 '3.00 '3.00 1 l- S ~g2 HOUSE <ABANDONED) Ii - lOW. n '" ...008 .. ~8 ~~ '" '" ~~ ~h ~~ ~~~ ~i2 ..5 00 "5.00 4.lOO 4J.00 .. .00 4J.00 .fJ.OO 4.lOO .50.00 .. .00 UOO 1 SW CORNER, SET REBAR e;.t4.00 - - t~ ~..::,~~a<~rMl '?~~5\;;~~.;a s...,.....,...oo: .,....~~:;;~::D~ J~I ,,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _s_tJg~.'.'.C_~.EE-L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1 SOUTH UHf rF n,(' NW7/4 CF rue NWf/4 - - - - - ~ ,~ ,- 25~3O 'It 1/4 SCC1JON JD mo 5/8- RfBAR JAN. 1P9<f. CURVE TABLE foCl. DELTA - - Cf 8"5,'J2- C2 2J'40 'OJ. CJ 2"22 '05" c. 44''''''4'. C5 43'57'2''" OS 17'27'27. C7 2J'Ja 'J9. cs us'oe '20. C9 46'06 '". eJa 70'J.'.7. RADIUS LO~TH 5..9. 10.JJ '.J2 J9.25 42.72 15.2J 20.5J JI/J.n 20 12 4J II LEGEND s . 3.5.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 25.00 J5,00 VICINITY MAP MONUMENT SET; SET 2" SURF ACE BRASS DISK W/PUNCH PER CITY OF YEU' STANDARDS = ,. - 1/2 J.,tIU LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLAT NOTES THAT PART OF 7liE NORTHWEST OUARTER OF 7liE NOR7liWEST OUARTER OF SEcnON 30. TOIlNSHIP 17 NOR7Ii. RANGE 2 EAST. W.M.. DESCRIBED AS FOliOlOS: BEGiNNING A T A Po/NT ON 7liE WEST LINE OF SAIO NOR7liWEST OUARTER OF NOR7liWEST OUARTER. 254 FEET NOR7Ii OF ITS SOUTHWEST CORNER; RUNNING 7liENCE: NOR7Ii ALONG SAlO WEST UNE 203 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT B53 FEET SOUTH OF THE NOR7liWEST CORNER OF SAID SEcnON 30. THENCE EAST 554 FEET. SOU7Ii 203 FEET MORE OR LESS AND WEST 55' FEET TO THE PO/NT OF BEGiNNING; EXCEPnNG THEREFROM THE WEST 20 FEET FOR COUNTY ROAO KNO'M/ AS MIU ROAO. AREA OF TOTAL SITE: 3.01 ACRES INCLUOING PLA T ROAOS ZONING: R-4 NUMBER OF LOTS: 12 AREA OF OPEN SPACE: 5554 SO. FT. PUBLIC ROADS: LENG7Ii SOB FT. SMAUEST LOT: 4582 SO. FT. A VERAGE LOT: 5332 SO. FT. DENSITY: 4.0 UNITS PER ACRE I I I L____...J____ SITUA TED IN THURSTON COUNTY. sr..... TE OF WASHINGTON ORIGINAL TRACT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO(S) 22730220700 n '----' SCALE: 1"-50 ..._ 1 o 25 50 100 IJUlfDl>>l: Pl.A T OF PARKVtPN RfC:ORO!D UNDER AF NO. '4090703!16 IN Klt. 27, PAGeS 61-65. (:~ mm I.. ~f ADDRESS SCHEDULE FOR MILL PARK PLACE P.R.D. ALL AOORCSSCS ARE: ... I(HDi PLACC s.r. m.w. wA.SH1NGTOH 98597 LOT~R HOUSE OR UNIT NUw8!R 2 1552J J 1.5525 . 15520 5 15.5.3' . 155J5 7 '5.5.37 . '5541 . '554J 10 '~07 15800 II '~15 '2 '5(517 , 10440 IoIII.l. ROAD s.!. I PPtJlZS 0I!/16/D1 () '-----" OWNER/DEVEWPER NEIGHBORHOOD DEVE:LOPlIENT GROUP P. O. BOX 1206 YELlI. II"A 9B691 E. TRUE &< ASSOC. LAND SURVEYORS P.O. BOX 908 YEUl. II"A 98697 (360) 458-2894 r) 95-1551_. m > ~ o v_..') ~-,.f ~:!i11E1 ~~., ~ c.d ~ Ym Cf) -l m s:: )> -0 o o o - - - , City of Yelm 105, Yelm Avenue West P'O Box 479 "Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 158-3244 c Date November 12, 1997 ., To Yelm Plarinll1g Commission From. Cathie Carlson, .city Plannl8r Re 'CaseNo $UB 97-8204-YL, Mill CIr,c1e Estates A.. Objective The 'P,lanning Cbmljlission must review the Final Plat for cpmpliance with the J?r.oJects prellmm,ary plat approval conditions and the City of Y~lm Municipal Code After review of the facts the Planning Qommissiqn must make a recommendation of action,to the City Council ! , / B. 'Proposal. 'Ttle applicant has applied for Final Plat apprbval for all pnpses bfthe project to develop. the site a~ 25}esidentiallots C; BackQround. The applicant received prellminary.plat approval frpm the City on July 24; 1996 to develop the site in thre~phases with a total build out of 29 single, family urii~s with conditions of approva'l (attached) c' - PhaSing -of the project was,requireEl because 'of limited s~wer ,capacity The app1icanthas:iricluded ) in thl8 revised final plat a request totransfereleVensewer~hook-.ups to thispr'oject 'site The eleven hook-ups pelng"transferryd are from property owned"by the applicant , ' D FindinQs ' 1 ) Proponent Neighborhood Development Group John .Huddleston ~ 2 Location Westside of l\IIill Road just south of Mill Pond School . Tax Pa'rcel; 2172514b~00 3 Open Space - Condition 3. The applicant proposes the ope,1l space fee in lieu of be paid for a$ eachlpt is building permit issuance Section 16 1'4 060 C allows for the City to defer paymerit of the fee ihlieu' of in this manner when a p~opertylienis recorded against each lot. Sewer Cor:mection ~ Condition. of Approval 5. The applicant has requeste~l the :transfer of elever1 sewer hook-ups Jrom another site ovitned by the applicant. Based on the transfer o.f sewerhook~ups the all lots In the plat wouid, have access to the, current sewer capacity arid wO,uld nof; need to develop in Phases 4 , -I' ! 5 Conditions of Approval 1, 2..4, 6.-10, The applicant has succe$$fully completed and complied with these ,requirements of the preliminary'plat approval ' , i I. I" \ , " ,i , " > * Recycled JXlper ,&> o City of Yellll 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Y elm, Washington 98597 206-458-3244 November 17, 1997 Mr John Huddleston JCH Development POBox 1206 Yelm, WA, 98597 Re Mill Circle Estates Dear John, c As per your phone call last week, the following items are required to be completed prior to final plat approval (1) Completion of punch list items the punch list) (Wood & Son will bond (2) Payment of plan review fees (See attached statement) If you have any questions or comments feel free to call my office.... at (360) 458-8499 Sincerely, City of Yelm l~~ Public Works Director cc Cathie Carlson, Planner o ./ o o o November 17, 1997 Mr John Huddleston JCH Development P Q. Box 1206 Yelm, WA, 98597 Re Mill Circle Estates City of YellD 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98591 206-458-3244 STATEMENT Plan Review Fees for the Mill Circle Subdivision $555.00 If you have any questions or comments feel free to call my office at (360) 458-8499 Sincerely, CiC Yelm L Gar~~ Public Works Director cc Cathie Carlson, Planner , , ' , , I I o o o John Knowles & Associates, Inc. 604 - 7th Avenue NW Puyallup, WA 98371 (206) 845-2473 FAX 840-9394 INVOICE rr~rD)w Client:. .' "{ .' "'" '.,..,. . "...:,>'::""'" ,',.C. '.. 'c.y,.:, "x,_.. . Ken Garmann City of Yelm 105 Yelm Ave W Yelm, WA 98597 Date l],woice No,"\ 3/1 1/971 34 dKARroje.ct. No:.' 970068 Billing' Descriotion .':.' " ,.'.,. l".'.' .Hours' Rate. Amount Labor this Period Principal mtg w/ city, site visit, check civil plans, 9.25 $60 $555 00 check drainage report, review design w/ project engineer, review city correspondence related to project, and prepare review comment letter $000 $000 $000 Reimbursables $0.00 Total this Period $555.00 - Total Previously Billed Total Received ~ Total Amount Due $555.00 A finance charge of 1.5% (18% per annum) will be added to accounts not paid within 30 days. Payment is due upon receipt of this invoice. Please make your check payable to John Knowles & Associates, Inc. Call (206)840-0232 regarding any billing questions 00 I 5-32 2tJ 00 Page 1 of 1 f\ o c c ~~-- -~- , E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the final plat for Mill Park Place be approved by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council for final action i I -===~>>i~ if@(? tiiJ!J/Lti. C/;~C4,rE lE~tr~ 7Tlli~ A POR'rION OF' 'fHE SE:l/4 O~.. 'NIF.' NE1/4 OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 17 NORfi CITY OF YE,,'I..M THURSTON ~-~~""-"'''''''-..:;:"..~.:_~",.~-....~'''''''--- "':. o ~;" , ~ '0 C', 1411\) 6 5 ':J!ii~> (lI~~~:: Ifn" '/~'!..>.f !: I i A ~iH $ Wt,"IJ" r M~,;!:l 9nn. 8 @rcoo 9 I" '1/ ~ e " ~ t'I, .. :.' ~ ,~ ... ~8 ).. . ~ 51 ., , (~~!i;f) (J1Ul!> :,.~ It) $~.3 ... /-cJ1 I _. I '" / .,.,'l;. I :: '" "(:".l..!.{ CO!~1!y~ut,,!;1 r'wl SCh'OO~. ;) f ~.. ri $1' vU --- """"'40 " un -. '-:$..... --,- ..5...,---- 4M~'" 5~,d ~U2. I" 1 It ... .. /1" 1,.,.. , /" ,/ / I o~l/+ ~1?/ 19 "/ I I 943<a 10 " / I C~J / , / .-.. -f C:@}11,) (1:mD S 8~'rZ'4~' I '4"M Il/;"J~ 40 <11HlP I I ____ .f ,'~' Ic.l "~..,,,,...~.. I ;:?~ I, ---1.... '-t.)'/.. I 4 le2 I I I~ I~ /-; 1.' . TRACT "B~I I., L/lI'IOSCM'E mAcr ~ a 5E'ft /lont , ~ ~ >filil:r J l$ ~ \ .1, ,. / . ~ I Sl . CJ~ " "If :'> I 8 :t: I I lOB j / . .- __...... .....,~.I SI,l,OO ~',21' '-~-;il' (l'Ii~lrY C";CMr.r.t'/' "cQNe....f f,U, ,or ill'IO rIl/l,t ~"ROlirA(,' _'_'-$'~_ ....,,_ _~".~~ ,. ._.~~~i1lJ'!l:.J. .~ _ .. .......... .. 7J~.I~ DEDICATE'[) TO PUBT.JC USE I \CJ4 I I I I~ I~ I I .... c~.... I I j . '2:>( T ~ ~I J tfj I I I Ilt 8: J 0 ;!II J:I 0 I \"I~ ., , :'<'-,~ I ;'II~ ~r ~ I , ~ 8! '1\.. of)' I 0 "I I~ ......... . IO~ 1/1 . - - _.n N. ... .. _ _ ... _'I~ "' ) . ...... \l~ ~\k \ '~\ I ~o.;. ~, ';J4 \. ''eo ,,,, I ~'l~\~ \ Ol..'i ~~ 0.. ~ \~ ~ . \ ~lJ ~\ \, \'''1 \ I I I I Cl~ I I I 18 11 <1E-!J:> ,~4'5o ~ en,'l.l' (,. ~a6, O~ '--i~' -'.'---r$O,CJ4 11100 11-()~~ 12 il 17 Xi ~~ , '13:;:)~"" ,ifil o 9'1.19 3 s OV'~2',:. . r ~~-~trrt.r ~ I I I III Is:! I I (J~;d!;.::: $ (1(1'"'::" . !' I --"1~'!'-'-- ql!~ 2 (%tr: 1053 0 ~ 1 t'r':~~~L::, " !~i1~) (@~J.r.;\ $ M1~'4'1~ t I~~, 7a '" ~~ ~ ~P'I,!'l.\." I m.M ~~~'_---""""- """""I"''''~ I'" lai' BQ /"J.'2.1+ 16 (1 fib 21 (1'li~ $ e~'T;I'H' t I~MO t15 f;";' 22 ((m~ s en1:iU~ ~ 1~I,02 ':}/%.-/ 23 I " I ,I @9;, $ nV~3'.4.. e: '~C,2' l/lllO 13 \. -, 11 !~ l~ ., ,~ :1 :i: (t?m::' I / lZ.,1.:1 14 I I / 15 ,/ / ""'5.~i.i\"> " .....,....... " (tl " I / CJ$ " '7 , @7J;:; /"2")$5" 24 I ~1};~:!f' $ 1I~'I.J'lJ. . --,~.....-~.-....... "'~.(lO 'rJI,(I~ ....,,-....., .~ f '$IJ,(Jf} /..... " I'} j~ ~ ~ I ~, ~~" .... '~Jl,~" Q ~ t'".,I"- ,~;r ~~ ,# ~' 4"~ 'r Slfl':/i't fNP'F:.Xi S;IU:l 7 0' J 1fi+'37 TRACT -- lI'A-P' Iii . $!OIV,'I1'~lC!' Rf:'f!Ji/llWN fAell.,f1)' t{ '" ~J1.9 ~O~o 8543 ~, 9~3~ ,.-z.1"7~ ~. \"() ~, II.J "i .., ,$ft Nor~. . $~ 29 ~~ 28 r~ g 27 ~'" 26 g .1Jl 25 .~, ~ I. Oi ~~ ~ $"1:1:1 J ;/! ~~ f~ ~ a~ ~~ , ..'~ 8 .. <:.:k~ ~mIC> Il " (1J.1TJ:;:. r::r:T~1'D ' ~ ~~ .. 1I! ~ :. ~ :It 0 1"0." '~.M 7~,O .:... ,- "I/!, '~.D(l 7~,'O ". ,. IO"tSS ~, c, 8 ... .. ~ otI .. ~ ~ ~ . , e 51 ~ , v . ... S\ ;t 8 ~ ... o Kt~J [)mIC~JW/l,. .....I'I'IICVAL$I "t:'\~rl,ll;Nl'S ' Slj~'l : Or J "~"'T ,AYOV OIJAr:N5/0N$ $l-Il'l:;T J Of J 1I0VN/lARY I <. 'IE.Y]) q. ..._.._.L,.._ ,~,~_ 1,'4-. 10' U1l1Jrr /!A~'M'N'r AI.(We.- ''''-....'''1.1. loOT AN/,) ITMCT rfiONr),c. ..... ........_.,,.$.,,'''~_ .~/!~.:r,.~l~"_E "Io-""\'~"'-'''. - ........... 11:;.0(1 -.-..- o o o ; .. ., . . . . 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 City ofYelm August 5, 1996 Mr John Huddleston POBox 1206 Yelm, W A 98597 Re PrelImInary Plat Approval for SUB-8168, Mill CIrcle Dear Mr Huddleston. On July 24, 1996, the Yelm CIty Council granted approval of Mill Circle, a 29 lot sIngle family subdIvIsIon located on the west sIde of Mill Road and south of Mill Pond School. The folloWIng condItIOns of approval were set by the City Council The traffic Impact to the 5-Corners mtersectIOn will be 10 PM Peak Tnps. The apphcant IS reqUIred to nutIgate the project Impacts to 5-Corners at $300 00 per PM Peak Tnp The applIcant's finanCial responsibilIty for 5-Corners Impacts are 10 tnps at $30000 = $3,00000 MitIgatIOn fees are payable pnor to final plat approval for each phase Phase I traffic nutIgatIOn IS $1,862 05 Phase II traffic nutIgatIOn IS $620 70 Phase III traffic nutIgatIOn IS $517 25 for SIngle family resIdential and $1034 50 for townhouse development. 2 The apphcant IS reqUIred to construct a resIdentIal access street, per the Yelm Development GUIdelmes, from Mill Road to and through the SIte Street hghtmg requIrements are Incorporated In standards for resIdentIal access streets. All constructIon draWIngs must be approved by the CIty of Yelm PublIc Works Department. .., .J The applIcant shall pay the fee In lIeu of the open space dedIcatIOn. The fee IS calculated at 77 ~ per square foot of reqUIre open space. The open space reqUIrement for the proposed project IS 20,691 square feet at 77~ per square foot = $15,932 07 Park fee IS payable pnor to final plat approval. Phase I park fee IS $9,883 28 Phase II park fee IS $3,29443 Phase III park fee IS $$2,745 36 4 ExtenSIon and necessary upgrade of the current water lIne on Mill Road IS the responsibilIty of the applIcant and will be constructed per standards In the Water ComprehensIve Plan and City ofYelm Development GUIdelInes * Recycled paper o o c } '" . Mr John Huddleston August 5, 1996 Page 2 5 Phase I of the project will be served WIth eXlstmg capacity at the Sewer Treatment Plant. Phase II and III IS subject to the successful upgrade of the Sewer Treatment Plant. ExtenslOn and necessary upgrade of the current sewer line on Mill Road IS the responsibihty of the applicant and will be constructed per standards m the Sewer ComprehenSIve Plan and CIty ofYelm Development GuIdelines. 6 Final Stormwater DeSIgn and constructlOn shall be m compliance with City of Yelm Development Standards and approved by the City ofYelm Pubhc Works Department. 7 The applicant shall subrrut a Homeowners Agreement for approval by the tlty The Agreement, at a mmrrnum shall contam proViSIons for the homeowners Jomt ownersrup of Tract A and authonze the homeowners aSSOClatlOn to assess and collect fees for the mamtenance and rep3.lr of the stormwater facihty The Homeowners Agreement shall be referenced on the face of the plat and recorded WIth the final plat. 8 The applIcant shall complv WIth MitlgatlOn Agreement, recordmg number 3016733 between the Yelm School Dlstnct and the ApplIcant. Per the MitIgatlon Agreement, the applIcant shall pay the Yelm School Dlstnct, $650 00 per reSIdentIal urnt. The rmtlgatlOn fee IS due and payable pnor to Issuance of building penruts. 9 The apphcant shall proVlde fire hydrant's on-Site. ConstructJ.on Drawmgs shall be m comphance WIth Crty ofYelm Development Standards and approved by the CIty ofYelm Pubhc Works Department. 10 As proVlded m CItv ofYelm Ordmance No 519, the apphcant may enter mto a latecomer s agreement for transportatlon unprovements wrnch benefit mciIVldual property owners and fDr future connectlons mto the water and! or sewer lmes extend from the pomt of connectlon to the project Site. Prelunmary plat approval IS valid for three years from the date of approval. Prehrmnary plat approval will expIre on July 24, 1999 If you need further asSistance or have any questIons, please contact me at 458- 8408 Smcerelv. t. - . I ~ L '" . / I fs " "~ ~ i I' l( /v.. 1.,G- 1...ZJ V'- "' f---- Cathenne Carlson CIty Planner cc Shelly Badger Ken Garrnann J eny Prock <' (j o CITY OF YELM PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MILL IN THC SC 1/4 OF 'THC He J/f OF SECOOH 2.5, TOItN$HP 17 HOR1H. RANCe , EAST. eM. ___-:.-;!i/I / ~ , -\"- I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~\ \ ..~.,,, ~~O( T., S'-','"!OO.S ) \ ........ \,; ..~.. - _ _------------/ <::-,,? '?5 ~:..::.__ -...... J.5O ....... .I.54___ ____ -~~:=~~~~;.;~ ~~~~=== il~--- -----_-- =~~::~ 9J\ IIJ i2 ltO 'J7 n CIRCLE ESTATES ... ~. ~ * "( JO, SU"fJ'1.'-C 1000.00 -- ,..' PRfVA1l' ROAD AND unuTY EASEJJDlT RECOROaJ fJHOOI ALO'lD''s FU NO. ~~-~--~~~~~------------- ~..~~ :; \,...'0 .., . / / / / _. 10 / =/'------_/ / , , / / , I~!f / / '" 55 ~J I Cf I I I -----'-- I 232 I /-~---7---------i I ,/~o/ " / I I , ~ \ / 1\ \ 8 9 .. / / / / / R-25 \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 11 , f \ \ \ \ \ \ , \/ \ !l1\ , \ \ \ , 13 ,.. 12 i~ 22 3 :~ I~ I " (ij I! I , I // 'I,...., ~ /1 ,,/ I '-24 c:, (:, .., C, ;,) ~~ ". \ \ 2 I I \ \ \ ". \J \\ " .. ~~q, , '\-.. \ \ \ \ - ~\- as R_'," J- -r .... \ \ ----+---,' \ ...........~- \ '- )........ \ --,----1 fPlHl. $/E 3 1/"(0) \ LOTS 25 THRU }~ 29 ? 14 ;; ;; '.;: ,;; RETENnON AND STORM DRAINAGE '" ,! \ \ , 27 ' " \"~~ , \ 70 \ \ \ \ \ \ J. , , , , \ \ \ ..0 ,. , , , ~, \ \ I ", 71 '4., " ~o~ !) ~. !l.:.~ .1.fJ. t29.:1 A,F !\'O. 9JOJO~O:09 1,:'2::.:OVJOJ !..F':....rr:-:o I /.----.)46_ : I I I , I " 'Go., , NOTe CONTOURS rEJU: DEVEUJPED FOR PURPOSES OF PREWlfHJ,RY PUTT1HG ONLY. EUCT LOCATIONS 0' CONTOUR UNES AJiD SPEC1F1C EUVAnON DATA 1H AREAS 0' DETAJu:D DESIGNS SUCH AS ROADS. STORJlI'A7'ER RE1'f:NTION. nc. MUST BE DETERJIlNED AFrtR A BOUNDARY SURVEY IS PDTORJlED. ;..0.00 I 2, '1~.!~~ I , , , , , , N 19'12'4'. W OT ,J,\(1-. !)i..A ."10. NO. 9~:SO[:O:"9 2;.':?~.J1i):i)i) "", \ JI 19 Joo :;; VICINITY MAP SCALE ," - '12 IIIC.l , 100 ---l , I , 201 , I , I , I I I lil' fill q/ a::,ll 0-.11 ~ ~,.. ",/;1 .c; ~ '.. I , I 1..11_, t~ I t~ 1('.: !I"..' :1: !a1 ~~ I .~ ../ ~: , I , I I I I I , I 20, 2 JO .., SCALf: 1".SO' ...- o 25 SO 21 ::: ~ ~ fogTH A'Io'E" LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT J 0' em or YEUI SHORT PUT M1 mM JU:CORDED UNDD AUDlTOR"S nu NO. S\II5OSIr7OZT7, lOt. ,~ or G.rHXIW. INDEX PAGK ~ RECORDS or THVRSfON COUNTY. "A3IllIIGTDIL PLAT DATA AREA 0' TOTAL ~ 8.5 N:REfl lNCUJDl1IG PUT ROADS' ZOIIl1IG: 11-4 NUJl1JD (# LOra "IN 3 PHASD (34 rorAL UN1TS) PHA.U J J. urr:s 1'DII SJHQU TAJIlLY JU:SJ:Dr:I1#a PIlAS& , e LD1S fOil SDlCLZ 'AJI1l.r USllJl:1Ia (1V11JJtK UU'S) PIWU 3 5 1D1.! 1011 JO 1OrNJIOVSZ UJiIIlT.f (runJU ~J ABA or 01'Dl Sl'M2 0 SQ. n. PUBLIC RO.ALIS: UNCnt - ~' + /- ~~ &fOOSQ.TT. AYrRAGK ~ HOG sq. n. DENSITY: ~e UNlT.f PD ACU UTIUTIES ~ PUGI:J' PORR TEU:PHO~ m.v n:uPHONE SEBIt CITY 0' l"EUI SANITARY SDER "AfElt CITY or )'EUI GA.!: rA!lHDlCTDJi NAnJR.U. GU 5S g ~ 2> 'J. . ::: ,., g c:, ~ ~ l!! 0, ('.: ro. 12' //-362__ m / 1-. ~ / .~ I q; 23 12. / / /// / ~ J' N a9'12'.r w JJ.l.. c 0:-' !':':U.! ;";,:":02T ?1.AT ..:0 -10-.. o VERTICAL DA rUM MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL) CITY OF YELJI SEWER DATUM BEHa1IJARK: EAST OUAR'f[Jl SEClJON 25 TOP OF 5/6"' RCBAR El.Ev. - J&.4..g '?5 .;C3c:a . ~ g DWNER/DEVEWPER JCH DEVEWPMENT P D. BOX 1206 YEIN, WA 98597 DPUU:S OI/lIS/DI N a911'4J. W JI1.10 ... N 89'12'4J"' W 784.79 E. TRUE & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS J~ COOK Rll S~ P.D. BOX liIOoS YEUI lfASHlNCfON ~ 350 .f5a-2O.f :~~ :~~~: ~sp..a tJfJ.ETUJ 95-1?PRB -----:~-;~- ~-;----~--_.~~ o City of Yelm 105 YelmAvenue West POBox 479 Yelmi Washington 98597 (360) 458'-$244 ; AGENDA CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMB~R'17, <19974.00 P.M. Y~~M CITY HALL COUNC,14 CHAMB~RS, 105 YELM AVE. W. YELM' WASHINGTON 1 .Call to Order/Roll Call, Approval of Minutes - October 20, 1997, mlhutesenclose<;l , ' :).; J o 2. PlibliG Communicatiof1s ( , (NotassoclatecJ with measures or topics' for which public hearings, have' been held or for which we anticipated) 3 Final Plat Review - Mill Park Place Ap'pllcant: ~ohn Huddleston , Proposal 12 lot Planned Residential Devel9pmentand Fin~1 Plat Location 1 04th Place SE ,- East side of fy1illRoqd Staff report enclosed 4 - Fihal Pial Review - Mi(l Circle 'Estates Applican't~John HLJddl~ston c' , Pcposal 2819t single famny subdivision Location 1 07t~ Loop SE - West side of Mill Road, south o,f Mill Pond'School Staff report enclosed 5 Public Hearing t~riing Code and Street StandarqAmend'ments Applicant: City of Yelm . Proposal Update to the Transportation Compreh~nsive Plan Staff report'mailed Novel11ber 10, 19~7 6 Election of Officers ..0: 7 Other- TRPG MEH!lOrandum City Council ,Approval, of LID 8 Adjourn - , " Enclosures,are available torion-CQnimission member$ upon request'. " If younee:;d special arrangements to attenej 'or participate in .this meeting, please contact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3'244 .," , NEXT'~r;:~ULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15; 1997,4:00 PM o @' Recycled paper c c c Agenda Item! Motion No 97-19 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1997 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order at 404 P m by Tom Gorman Members present: Glenn Blando, Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent and Roberta Longmire Guests Amos Lawton-City Council Liaison, Fred Murray and Pete "Webb" Peterson from "Beehive Corp" Members absent: Margaret Clapp, E J Curry and Ed Pitts Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY ROBERTA LONGMIRE, SECONDED BY GLENN BLANDO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15,1997 CARRIED Public Communications. There were none Public Hearing: CUP-978198- YL - Fred Murray, "Easthaven Villa Assisted Living Facility" Proposal 48 unit Residential Care Facility located at 311 Cullens Rd NW, Yelm Tom Gorman opened the public hearing at 405 pm The time, date, place and reason for the public hearing were announced No objections to participants or conflicts were stated A staff report was provided Cathie Carlson stated that the staff's recommendation IS to approve the request for Special Use on Easthaven Villa, SUB-978198-YL, based on the findings in Section C of the staff report, and subject to the conditions in Section D of the staff report. Tom Gorman asked if there were any questions or comments from the applicant? Applicant Webb Peterson gave a bnef overview of their commlttment to providing quality residential facilities for the elderly Mr. Peterson then briefly descnbed the proposed project on Cullens Road Joe Huddleston asked the applicant who manages the construction and staffing Mr. Peterson stated that he is responsible for all of that, as well as managing the facility Glenn Blando asked Fred Murray if the site is the same as his current residence and if so will the present bUildings (house etc) be removed? Mr. Murray said yes to both questions Yelm Planning Commission October 20, 1997 Page 1 c c o o Bob Isom Inquired about traffic generation Bob then asked staff, If there IS a 25% reduction in parking stall requirements because of the facility's transportation van for residents, why aren't the "trips generated" reduced? There was some discussion Cathie will double check on this Issue Bob Isom inquired about the fence around the proposed facility Mr. Peterson stated that it will be a quality board fence Roberta Longmire stated that she feels a chain link fence would be more appropriate for the residents, especially the Alzheimer residents More discussion followed Roberta again strongly suggested a chain link fence be considered for this project. Cathie stated that there could be a compromise - a chain link fence with nice shrubbery Shelly Badger asked the applicant about their other facilities, what type of fencing IS used In the other Alzheimer areas? Mr. Peterson stated they have used chain link fence In those areas before Tom Gorman asked if there were any more questions or comments There were none The public hearing was closed at 4 35 pm 97 -20 MOTION BY JOE HUDDLESTON, SECONDED BY RAY KENT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF PROJECT "CUP- 978198-YL" WITH THE ADDITIONS OF TWO IMPORTANT POINTS 1) HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ORDINANCE, 2) STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO ALLOW A CHAIN LINK FENCE WITHIN THIS SPECIAL USE REQUEST. Tom Gorman asked if there was any more diSCUSSion? Tom then stated that he agrees that a board fence could give a person an atmosphere of feeling "closed in" - he then suggested the vinyl coated fence Ray Kent agreed with Tom's Idea of the vinyl fencing and maybe some nice landscaping Bob Isom asked if the previous motion could preclude the chain link fence? Cathie stated that the city will not require a board fence after thiS diSCUSSion MOTION CARRIED Public Hearing: Water Reuse/Sewer Treatment Plant Upgrade- Tom Gorman opened the public hearing at 4 41 pm The time, date, place and reason for the public hearing were announced No objections to participants or conflicts were stated A staff report was provided Cathie stated that the Planning Commission must determine if the proposed Water Reuse Project is consistent With the applicable City of Yelm Municipal Code(s) Cathie then stated that staff recommends the City of Yelm Water Reuse Project, SPR-978172-YL be approved, based on the findings in Section C and subject to the conditions In Section D of her staff report. Yelrn Planning Commission October 20, 1997 Page 2 c c c Tom asked If there were any questions for the staff? Roberta asked the exact location on N P Road Shelly stated it is located at the existing plant, (931 N P Rd) it has its own access road off of N P Rd Bob Isom asked who will benefit from the reused water? Shelly stated that the No 1 pnority IS that thiS will eliminate the discharge to the river, but the reuse water will be used to irrigate at various locations, Including the high school (which will reduce their water bills), the City Park, the golf course, it will also be available to the Industnal area Two wetland areas will be established, one at the high school for educational purposes, and one at Cochrane Park - (4 acres) With a catch and release fish pond Ray Kent asked If the Thurston Highlands Golf Course will also be able to use the reuse water for irrigating purposes? Shelly said that future reuse water will be available on a first come first serve basis A fee will be charged for reuse water on pnvate property Tom asked if there were any further questions? There were none Tom closed the public hearing at 4 52 pm 97 -21 MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY GLENN BLANDO TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE YELM WATER REUSEISEWER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE PROJECT "SPR-978172-YL." MOTION CARRIED BOB 150M VOTED AGAINST Public Hearing: Update to the Transportation Compo Plan- Tom Gorman opened the public hearing at 455 pm The time, date, place and reason for the public hearing were announced No objections to participants or conflicts were stated A staff report was provided Tom asked If there were any questions/comments? Roberta Inquired about the Y-2 There was some discussion Cathie stated that one plan has been removed from the Transportation Comp Plan - the "Five Corners" project. Shelly stated that the city did receive the grant to fund the Improvements on Edwards Street. Tom asked If there were any further questions? There were none Tom closed the hearing at 5 00 pm 97 -22 MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY BOB 150M, TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE UPDATE OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MOTION CARRIED. Yelm Planning Commission October 20, 1997 Page 3 c (-'" o ('--"" , o Nomination Committee: Cathie stated that according to the Rules of Procedure for the Planning Commission, it is time to appOInt a nominating committee, if needed There was some discussion Tom Gorman stated that he is willing to continue as the Chairperson, but he also wanted everyone to know that If anyone else would like to do it, that is fine too Shelly stated that In the rules of procedure it does state that the Chairperson does retain voting rights After more discussion, it was agreed by commission members that Tom Gorman and Joe Huddleston will remain the Chairperson and Co- Chairperson respectively Other - Cathie stated that there will be a very Informative presentation at the next City Council meeting, October 22, of the Thurston Regional Transportation Plan The 10/22 City Council meeting location will be at the UCBO, 624 Crystal Springs Rd Meeting adjourned at 5 10 pm Respectfully submitted, ~w~_ Tom Gorman, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission October 20, 1997 Page 4 VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET o Please sign in and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list to receive future agendas and minutes. MEETING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE. October 20, 1997 TIME. 4 00 PM LOCATION CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YELM AVENUE WEST, YELM, WA 98597 Public Hearing(s) 1 CUP-979198-YL, Easthabe Villa LLC 2 SPR-978172-YL, City of Yelm Water/Reuse Upgrade ADDRESS SPEAK ~ MAILING o o o o o City of YellD 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 206-458-3244 Date October 14, 1997 To Yelm Planning Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planner Re Case No CUP-978198-YL, Easthaven Villa Assisted Living Facility ,,- A. Public HearinQ Obiective. The Planning Commission must determine if the proposed Residential Care Facility is consistent with the applicable City of Yelm Municipal Code(s) After consideration of the facts and public testimony the Planning Commission must take one of the following actions request additional information from the applicant and/or staff, continue the public heanng or make a recommendation of action to the City Council B. Proposal. The applicant has applied for Special Use approval to develop the site as a residential care facility The 26,532 square foot facility will consist of 36 units serving the elderly who require daily assistance and 6 units for Alzheimer patients Total capacity of the facility IS for 48 full time residents C. FindinQs. 1 Proponent. Fred Murray/Easthaven Villa LC 2 Location 311 Cullens Road NW, Yelm, WA. Tax Parcel 21727140502 3 Public Notice Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Nisqually Valley News on October 9, 1997, and posted in public areas on October 8, 1997 The notice was mailed to adjacent property owners and the applicant on October 7, 1997 4 Existinq Land Use The parcel is 2 97 acres with one (1) single family residential unit. 5 Adiacent Land Uses Commercial, Residential and vacant land 6 Comprehensive Plan The site is designated Commercial 7 Zoninq Chapter 17 26, Commercial Zone, (C-1) and overlay zone ,Chapter 17 66, Special Uses 8 Transportation and Site Access The street network adjacent to the site is Cullens Road and the off-set intersection of Cullens Road and Coates Road The current alignment of the intersection and the proposed north access on the project site present conflicts with the City of Yelm Transportation Comprehensive Plan and c Case No SUB-978198-YL Easthaven Villa Page 2 October 14, 1997 Development Guidelines The current alignment of Cullens Road and Coates Road is an unsafe intersection For automobiles traveling south on Cullens Road the lack of a defined intersection encourages traffic to pass through the intersection with limited visibility at speeds above the posted speed limit (25 mph) For traffic traveling north on Cullens Road they are required to stop at the intersection prior to continuing north on Cullens Road or turning east onto Coates Road However with the alignment of the intersection it is unclear to motorist that they must stop prior to continuing on Cullens, creating a situation in which many motorist continue through the intersection without stopping or slowing down In addition to the above conditions the proposed north access of the development provides for traffic entering and exiting the project site at a location which can not be seen by traffic traveling south on Cullens Road o The safety issue at this intersection is a pre-existing condition and the responsibility of the City The new development adjacent to this intersection compounds the safety problems and requires an improvement to the intersection at this time The City should be responsible for the design and construction costs associate with correcting the problem and the applicant would be required to construct frontage improvements from center line along his property frontage j Consistent with City of Yelm Ordinance 580, Concurrency Ordinance, Congregate Care/Assisting Living Facilities generate 0 17 new peak trips daily As proposed the development would generate a total of 7 14 new pm peak trips to the City Transportation System 9 ParkinQ Requirements for the site require one parking stall for each two beds, plus one per employee based on the greatest number of care employees on a single shift. The project proposes 48 beds with the daytime shift as the largest with eleven employees The total parking requirement for the site is 35 parking stalls ADA stalls will be provided within those 35 stalls and meet the requirements of the American Disabilities Act. The facility will have it's own transportation van for residents Chapter 17 72 090, Incentives for reducing the number of parking stalls, allows for a 25% reduction in parking stall requirements when a private vanpool operation is provided by the development. A 25% reduction would require the project to provide 26 stalls 10 Wastewater The project will be served with existing capacity at the Sewer Treatment Plant. There is a 2" collector force main located on the west side of Cullens Road that currently serves the site 11 Water Supplv The site is currently in the water service area but is not connected to the City water system The existing house is served by an on-site well o 12 DrainaQe/Storm water The City adopted the DOE Storm water manual as the City standards for Storm water treatment and control A Preliminary Drainage Report o Case No SUB-978198-YL Easthaven Villa Page 3 October 14, 1997 and Design for the project was prepared in compliance with City Standards A final report and design is required with civil plans 13 Utilities The site is served by Puget Sound Energy (electric and gas) and Yelm Telephone 14 Fire Protection Thurston County Fire District #2 15 Police Protection City of Yelm 16 Landscapina and Veaetation Plan As required by Chapter 1780, the applicant included a conceptual landscape plan on the site plan A final landscape design is required prior to construction to ensure compliance with the code In general the conceptual landscaping plan does not address all types of landscaping required by this type of project. The applicant shall be required to provide a fifteen foot buffer along the northern property line which is adjacent to residentially zoned land The fifteen foot buffer requires Type I landscaping to create a very dense sight barrier and physical buffer Additional Type II landscaping shall be required as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations o Chapter 14 16, Protection of Trees and Vegetation, requires an applicant to submit a plan that includes the location of all existing vegetation and natural features and whether they are to be preserved 17 Desiqn Guidelines The site is zoned commercial but is not within an area designated in the City Design Guidelines However, Chapter 17 66 050, Special Use Design Standards, provides for the approval authority and/or the site plan review committee to alter or vary the design of the district for a special use when such alteration or variation is found to be reasonable to protect adjacent properties or the health or general welfare of the community Upon initial meetings with the applicant the site plan review committee concluded that as a special use the implementation of the design guidelines would mitigate commercial impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood The applicant has incorporated the design guidelines in the site layout. The pedestrian and automobile access to the site needs additional consideration The applicant would like to work with the City staff on the front entrance - possibly establishing a drop off area and providing for better access to the front of the facility As proposed the wire mesh fencing around the special care wing does not comply with the design guidelines 18 Environmental Review After review of the environmental checklist, a Determination of NonSignificance (DNS) was issued on September 30, 1997 Provided the applicant meets the applicable development standards of the Yelm Municipal Code o o o o Case No SUB-978198-YL Easthaven Villa Page 4 October 14, 1997 and complies with the recommended conditions of approval the proposal is not likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact. D STAFF RECOMMENDATION C4vf Staff recommends that Easthaven Villa, .9Mt3-978198-YL, be approved, based on the findings in Section C, and subject to the conditions in Section D of this report. 1 The applicant shall provide the City with daily consumption calculations to determine the number of Equivalent Residential Unit's required to serve the facility with City water and sewer Upon determination of the number of sewer ERU's required for the project, the City shall credit the applicant with one ERU for the existing connection 2 The applicant shall connect to the City water system All improvements necessary for the connection are responsibility of the applicant. The on-site well shall either be abandoned in accordance with DOE standards or remain as an irrigation source only 3 Civil plans shall include the location of all on-site wells and any wells within 100' of all property lines 4 The applicant shall submit a final utility plan for approval by the Public Works Department 5 The applicant shall mitigate traffic impacts to the transportation system Mitigation includes payment of the Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) for 7 14 pm peak hour trips generated by the project. The total TFC is $5,355 00 and payable at building permit issuance 6 The applicant and the City shall work together on the design of the intersection improvements and its location The City will be responsible for costs incurred for the intersection improvements and the applicant shall be responsible for the construction of street improvements from center line of Cullens Road along the project site frontage The street standard for Cullens Road is a Neighborhood Collector The northerly access to the project shall be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the City once the necessary intersection improvements are decided on 7 The applicant shall submit a final Storm water report and design for approval by the Public Works Department. 8 The applicant shall provide fire protection to the buildings as required per the Uniform Fire Code Minimum hydrant coverage to the structures is a 150' radius The applicant shall submit a plan for approval by the Public Works Department. 9 The applicant shall provide street lighting and landscaping in the public right-of-way as reqUired for a Neighborhood Collector Street. 10 A final landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for c c c Case No SUB-978198-YL Easthaven Villa Page 5 October 14, 1997 approval No construction shall occur on site until such plan is approved by the City 11 The applicant shall submit a plan that includes the location of all existing vegetation and natural features and whether they are to be preserved No clearing or grading will be approved until such plan is received by the City 12 City staff and the applicant will work together on the front entrance - possibly establishing a drop off area and providing for better access to the front of the facility for both pedestrians and automobiles All fencing shall meet the design guideline requirements (no chain link fencing) The City will continue to work with the applicant during the site development to ensure the site and building comply with the design guidelines 13 The applicant shall provide a refuse area in accordance with the development gUidelines and the design guidelines 14 The applicant shall provide a minimum of 26 parking stalls 5 o o o OWNER BEE HIVE CORPORATION 411 CULLENS ST NW YELM, WA, 98597 27".-2.~ AGENT. AL JOHNSTON P.O. BOX 1899 YELM, WA, 98597 SITE PLAN WITH CONCEPTUAL STORM WATER PLAN AND CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING GlW'HIC SCIU ~UO_.;IJ Sf> SCALE 1" - 40" ~ ADULT CARE HOME t t 3<Y \ \ \ \ \ o ~80~ O~~~O ~~ O~~~ 0 ~ ~O ~~~ 460" 20' HYOROSEEO HYOROSEID l~~O~ CULLENS ROAD t>... o City of YellD 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Y elm, Washington 98597 206-458-3244 AGENDA CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 19974 00 P.M. YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YELM AVE. W. 1 Call to Order, Roll Call, Approval of Minutes - September 15, 1997, minutes enclosed 2 Public Communications (Not associated with measures or topics for which public heanngs have been held or for which are anticipated) 3 Public Hearing. CUP- 979198-YL Applicant: Fred Murray/Easthaven Villa LLC Proposal 48 unit Residential Care Facility Location 311 Cullens Road NW, Yelm, WA Staff report enclosed o 4 Public Hearing Applicant. City of Yelm Proposal Water Reuse/Sewer Treatment Plant Upgrade Location 931 NP Road NW, Yelm, WA. Staff report enclosed 5 Public Hearing Applicant: City of Yelm Proposal Update to the Transportation Comprehensive Plan Staff report enclosed 6 Nomination Committee Rules of Procedure enclosed 7 Other - Thurston Regional Transportation Plan 8 Adjourn - o Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. If you need special arrangements to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1997,4.00 PM c c c NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE PLACE. PURPOSE Monday, October 20,1997, at 4:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave W., Yelm WA Public Hearing to review a Special Use Permit, CUP-978198-YL APPLICANT Fred Murray, for Easthaven Villa Assisted Living Facility Project Location: 311 Cullens Rd NW, Yelm W A Project Description: The proposal is for a 26,532 square foot assisted living facility The complex would conSIst of 42 units, with 36 units serving the elderly who require daily assistance and 6 units for AlzheImer patIents. Total capacity is for 48 residents. Testimony may be given at the hearing or through any written comments on the proposal received by the close of the public hearing on October 20,1997. Such written comments may be submitted to the City of Yelm at the address shown above. The application and any related documents are available for publIc review during normal business hours at the City ofYelm, 105 Yelm Ave W., Yelm WA. For additional information, please contact Cathie Carlson at 458-8408 The Yelm City Council will receive the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the project at the CIty CouncIl meeting on October 22, 1997 The Council will take action on the proposal at the October 22, 1997 meeting. The City ofYelm provides reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. If you need special accommodations to attend or participate, call the City Clerk, Agnes Bennick, at (360) 458-8404, at least 72 hours before the meeting. ATTEST City of Yelm 41<. ';) tJ--tMiI! f Ag es Benmck, CIty Clerk DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE PublIshed III the Nisqually Valley News. Thursday, October 9, 1997 Posted in Public Areas Wednesday, October 8, 1997 MaIled to Adjacent Property Owners. Tuesday, October 7, 1997 ~ ~ ~ --- ~' '- :{ /~ ... ~ :::s ~,~ ~ '\ '-< ' --.h ~ ~~ ~ {~LJ~ "r'\ ~ .' ~ R \ 1 \ ~' N ~' ~ ~~~,i '4J \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.\. ~ <:i4~ t~~~ J ) ~\-),t~14~~ () o o NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE PLACE PURPOSE Monday, October 20, 1997, at 4 00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave W., Yelm WA Public Hearing to review a Special Use Permit, SPR-8172 APPLICANT City ofYelm Project Location Yelm Sewer Treatment Plant, 931 NP Rd, Yelm W A Project Description A pubhc hearmg will be held to review a Special Use Permit for the expansion of the City ofYelm Sewer Treatment Plant. Testimony may be given at the hearing or through any written comments on the proposal received by the close of the public hearing on October 20, 1997 Such written comments may be submitted to the City of Yelm at the address shown above. The applicatIOn and any related documents are avallable for public reVIew during normal busmess hours at the City ofYelm, 105 Yelm Ave W, Yelm WA. For additional mformation, please contact CathIe Carlson at 458-8408 The Yelm City Councll wIll receive the Planning Commission's recommendation regardmg the project at the City CouncIl meetmg on October 22, 1997 The CouncIl will take action on the proposal at the C October 22, 1997 meetmg. The City of Yelm provides reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. If you need special accommodatIOns to attend or partIcipate, call the City Clerk, Agnes Bennick, at (360) 458-8404, at least 72 hours before the meetmg. ATTEST City of Yelm DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published in the Nisqually Valley News. Thursday, October 9, 1997 Posted III PublIc Areas Wednesday, October 8, 1997 Mailed to Adjacent Property Owners Tuesday, October 7, 1997 o City of Yelm o 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 206-458-3244 Date October 15, 1997 To Yelm Planning Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planner Re Case No SPR-978172-YL, City of Yelm Water Reuse Project A. Public Hearing Obiective. The Planning Commission must determine if the proposed Water Reuse Project is consistent with the applicable City of Yelm Municipal Code(s) After consideration of the facts and public testimony the Planning Commission must take one of the following actions request additional information from the applicant and/or staff, continue the public hearing or make a recommendation of action to the City Council ~ Proposal The City is requesting Special Use approval for the Water Reuse Project. Phase I will include an increase in the daily capacity of the plant from 300,000 gallons per day to 1 million gallons per day; the plant's ablity to provide clearner effluent, piple line construction to deliver reclaimed water to various water reuse features throughout the City; and construction of reuse features including connection to the existing City Park, construction of Cochrane Park and an experimental wetlands Phase \I will consist of reclaimed water distribution lines to the Thurston Highlands, rapid infiltration basins and storage facilities in Thurston Highlands Phase II construction is depended upon future funding C. Findings o o Proponent. City of Yelm 2 Location 931 NP Road NW, Yelm, WA. Tax Parcel 64300900400 3 Public Notice Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Nisqually Valley News on October 9, 1997, and posted in public areas on October 8, 1997 The notice was mailed to adjacent property owners and the applicant on October 7, 1997 4 Existinq Land Use The parcel is 11 95 acres with the existing sewer treatment plant. Adiacent Land Uses Industrial and vacant land Comprehensive Plan The site is designated Industrial 5 6 7 Zoning Chapter 1740, Industrial District (I) and overlay zone ,Chapter 1766, Special Uses 8 Transportation and Site Access. The site ia accessed from a private ingress/egress easement fronting on NP Road NW Consistent with City of Yelm Ordinance 580, Concurrency Ordinance, any additional employees arriving or departing the treatment planting during the pm peak (4 30 - 6.00 P m) will require the City mitigate the impact through the payment of the Transporation Facility Charge Phase I of the project will result in one additional employee Phase II of the project will result in one additional employees c c c Case No SPR-978172- YL City of Yelm Water Reuse Project Page 2 October 15, 1997 9 ParkinQ Parking requirements for the site are one parking stall for each employee based on the greatest number of employees on a single shift, plus one stall for each vechicle owned, leased or operated by the City The minimum requirement is for nine stalls The applicant proposes a total of 19 stalls 10 Wastewater The project is currently served by the City of Yelm No additional capacity is required for the upgrade 11 Water Supply The site is currently served by the City of Yelm No additional capacity is required for the upgrade 12. Utilities The site is served by puget Sound Energy and Yelm Telephone 13 Fire Protection Thurston County Fire District #2 14 Police Protection City of Yelm 15 LandscapinQ As required by Chapter 17 80, a conceptual landscape plan is required with the site plan A final landscape design is required prior to construction to ensure compliance with the code 16 The City has submitted a final landscaping and irrigation plan along with civil plans As proposed the plans meet minimum landscaping and irrigation requirements Environmental Review A Determination of NonSignificance (DNS) and adoption of existing environmental documents was issued on August 8, 1997, which meets the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. A finding of no Significant impact (FONSI) was issued on January 25, 1996, which meets the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act. D STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City of Yelm Water Reuse Project, SPR-978172- YL, be approved, based on the findings in Section C, and subject to the conditions in Section 0 of this report. The applicant shall mitigate traffic impacts to the transportation system Mitigation includes payment of the Transportation Facility Charge (TFC) for two pm peak hour trips generated by the completed project. The City shall pay one Transportation Facility Charge fee at time of building permit issuance for Phase I and one Transportation Facility Charge fee at time of building permit issuance for Phase" 2 All civil plans shall be consistent with the City Development Guidelines and approved by the City of Yelm Public Works Department. j.-.-'-.-r'-.-.-'-.-' .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i0 i~ I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i _1-.:..-~-=.=-'=-...:..:::-~.:..-~-=-=.~,- ....-~.......___-=.___........______._.__ 2 3 4 5 F G H CONTROL POINTS 0 P<>Nrs [LEV SCHEDULE OF EXISTING STRUCTURES TO REMAIN: 0 i;.ri6'~~~~\o0 11953<4.69 11.3057.01 J~.92 ern CONTROl BUILDING 0 PI< N....IL IN PA'lEIoI[NT "9524.60 113028.75 336.02 t.I-'JNTENANCE BUILDING 0 . ~.~, A;'~~~P To0 119867.27 JJ6.9J POUSl-lINC T ANt< 0 OiLORINE CONTACT BASlN l!l Hue AND TACK 11977.3.09 112807.27 337.72 0 LAGOON NO. 2 .~~~ t:?~~A~o0 119262.05 112989.79 335.24 0 PIGGING STATION PI{ NAIl IN PAVEMENT 119346.81 112959.52 337.68 STEP TANK 0 a ~.~~g.F~~ TO <9 119411.60 112712.33 336.56 PROPANE T "Nt< 0 PI< NAIL IN PAVEt.l[NT 119428.4' 112759.41 337.40 POWER VAUL T 0 PI< NAIL IN PA'lEW[NT 119482.56 112911.03 JJ7.25 e....SEUN[ INT. 2 NOTE: COOROINA TES ON STRUCTURES REFERENCE OUTSlOE WALL CORNERS A B c D E o \0 : \: \ B~ \ \ \ ,. \, \ SCALE; '".30 .....-_~ o 15 30 60 \ \ ~I: '-''-' gig Zz 00 '-''-' I " " I :, . ", (J") i' I- ' ; ~I:' - ....I: .:51 !,' , 0::: <I: I", ~I: a:: (~ +.. .f o ~ + ~ .-f: ~Ii. .; N-S eASE U1t. ~ ,: ~ + + .., ~. ~>: 1\ . I:; I\' I \. I 1 --.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. .-.-.-.-.-.--\ npv f/I ' l"J !:ZIp STELj C::::d PIG\ ;;----.-.-.-.-. N:119722.62 [;112986.21 - . + + .;.. + ~---------------- N:11972J.59 [:112843.58 L@ i:"~", DESIGNED BY M. MARSHAll ENTERED BY PROJECT NAl,l[ CITY OF YELM WATER REUSE PROJECT CONTRACT. A T. SATER CHECKED BY DATE REVISION BY D'fICtA5O>>-lS ~tJRTPl.ANI,Z-ltllllO. 09/10/9708:46T.NCU'l1:N TS CIVIL TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL Milo UlCft....... UCft, WA. ,.,., ......."" MI: MIMt1.-n' JOe NO DRAWING NO 95055 A5055-15 SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES: e INFLUENT IolElERING VAULT (t,l-HW-l) @) INflUENT RISER (M-HW-J) 0 SEOUENClNG BA TOi REACTOft (SBR) (W-SBR-l) @ SBR DECANT flOW W[TER MANHOlE (CIS) 0) BLOWER ROQt.t (M-B-2) 8 RAPlO l,lIX/fLOCCVLA nON BASIN (W-RMF-l) 0 INTERMEDIATE PUt.lP STATION (e12) @ VAL\'E BOX (eI2) @) t.l[TER BOx (eI2) 0 o-lEl,UCAL FEED (M-DiM-I) 0 nlTERS (M~EPf"-I) @ SLUDGE PUlolP STATION (1.1-0-1) @ PROCESS WAl'rR PUt.lP STATION (1.1-0-2) 0 OiLOR1NE CONTACT BASIN (M-eeT-1) G L.&.EIORA TORY EXTENSION (A-CB-2) @ PROCESS CONTROl EXTENSION (A-CB-2) @ Mec ROQI,l (t.I-8-1) @ CONTROl ROOlr.l (t.I-B-1) @ SlUDGE THICKENING (t.I-SHf-1) @) EOVAUZA nON STORAGE POND (e17) 0 GENERA TOR ROQt.l (t.I-SC-1) @ REClAlt.lED WATER PUt.lP STATION (t.I-R'M'>S-I) @ ALTERNATE GENERATOR lOCATION DRAWING TIllE WORK AREA SITE PLAN 3 4 5 SHEET NO, C3 c c o Agenda Item! Motion No 97-13 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order at 407 pm by Tom Gorman Members present: Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, Tom Gorman, Bob Isom, Roberta Longmire, & Ed Pitts Guests. Bruce Archibald, Ed Hassan, & Lori Hoover- Project Planner from Barghausen Consulting Engineers Staff. Shelly Badger, Cathie Carlson, & Dana Spivey Members absent: e j Curry, Joe Huddleston, & Ray Kent. It was the consensus of the PC Members present to skip to item #6 on the agenda, to wait a few minutes longer for one more PC Member to arrive, to make quorum Cathie started by talking about an "Audio Training" opportunity during the month of December for PC Members Cathie reviewed the upcoming months and what will take place at those PC meetings The next scheduled meeting is October 20th, and there will be a public hearing on the Comp Plan Amendments, Transportation Plan Update, and a Rezone at Five Corners Also, a nomination committee should be established because election of the 1998 PC officers will be done at the next meeting At the November and December meetings, Cathie wants to see the time devoted to working on Zoning Code Amendments 4 15 pm - Margaret Clapp arrived, making quorum (Ed Pitts also arrived, approximately 4:20 pm ) Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY ROBERTA LONGMIRE, SECONDED BY MARGARET CLAPP TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 18,1997 CARRIED Public Communications. There were none Public Hearing: Ordinance No. 595 - temporary interim amendment to Chapter 15 32.240(A) relating to flood prevention The public hearing was opened at 4 15 pm The time, date, place and reason for the public hearing were announced No objections to participants or conflicts were stated A staff report was provided Cathie stated that the staff's recommendation is to approve the interim ordinance with the attached draft FEMA map Tom Gorman asked if there were comments from the public? There were none Questions from the Planning Commission? Yelm Planning Commission September 15, 1997 Page 1 c c c Bob Isom asked Cathie exactly what the change is? Cathie stated that the original exhibit(s) are changed, and the expiration date has changed Cathie also stated that by the expiration date of the interim ordinance, April 1998, a FEMA map needs to be adopted Margaret Clapp asked why the ordinance specifies residential, but not commercial or any other? Doesn't the ordinance apply to other construction projects? Cathie stated it should be applied to all development in the flood plain Cathie suggested the ordinance be revised to include all development. Tom Gorman asked for any further questions/comments? There were none The public hearing was closed at 4:22 pm 97-14 MOTION BY ROBERTA LONGMIRE, SECONDED BY MARGARET CLAPP, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO 604 MOTION CARRIED Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation - Annexation of two parcels adjacent to the new alignment of Morris Road Applicant: Ray Wilson Cathie stated that this is not a public hearing, but there needs to be a formal recommendation to the City Council Bob Isom declared a conflict of interest, and stated that he would not participate in the discussion Cathie gave a staff report. Roberta Longmire asked if the second parcel also belongs to the applicant? Cathie said no, that parcel is vacant, (Lasher property) and both property owners have signed the Right-of-Way negotiations Cathie also stated that city staff supports this annexation 97-15 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY GLENN BLANDO TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL ON THE INTENT TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION FOR APPLICANT RAY WILSON BOB 150M ABSTAINED FROM VOTE. MOTION CARRIED Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation - Annexation of approximately 35 acres located in the 5-Corners Area. Applicant: Ed Hassan Again, Cathie stated that this is not a public hearing, but the PC will need to give a formal recommendation to the City Council Cathie then gave staff report. There was much discussion. Roberta Longmire asked questions concerning county zoning Bob Isom inquired about the parcels zoned R-4 Lori Hoover, Project Planner for the applicant, (Ed Hassan) gave a brief history of their project activity to present. Margaret Clapp asked why the city doesn't allow one-lot annexations? Cathie stated that it is quite a process to go through for just one lot and in this situation, two property owners who wanted to annex were working together Yelm Planning Commission September 15, 1997 Page 2 c c c Shelly Badger added that the city limit boundary lines could become somewhat unusual or unrealistic. Cathie added that there are road issues too 97-16 MOTION BY BOB 150M, SECONDED BY ED PITTS TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPLICANTS PROPOSED OPTION FOR ANNEXATION THREE (3) PC MEMBERS VOTED IN FAVOR, TWO (2) AGAINST MOTION FAILED There was more discussion 97-17 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY BOB 150M TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL A NEW PROPOSAL FOR THE HASSAN ANNEXATION, Tom Gorman asked if there were any more comments/questions before the vote? There was more discussion Margaret Clapp withdrew her previous motion (97-17), Bob Isom withdrew his "second" (for Motion 97-17) 97-18 MOTION BY ROBERTA LONGMIRE, SECONDED BY ED PITTS TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL A NEW PROPOSAL FOR THE HASSAN ANNEXATION including everything on the proponents map, except properties owned by H Alexander MOTION CARRIED Meeting adjourned at 5 40 pm Respectfully submitted, --1~0-~ Dana Spivey Tom Gorman, Chair Date Yelrn Planning Commission September 15, 1997 Page 3 VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET Please sign in and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list C to receive future agendas and minutes MEETING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE. SEPT 15, 1997 TIME 400 PM LOCATION YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Hearing(s) *Public Hearing - Ordinance No 595 loRi 8. .1-J-eJ SSqr7 I JieY8 P~tAc fJNe J3'rUr e Arc-hI bold f t.t~/~ TI/I/' '1e.r .,f'1J. c c o City of Yelaa 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 206-458-3244 Date October 16, 1997 To From Yelm Planning Commission Cathie carlSO~y Planner Re Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update A. Public HearinQ Obiective. The Planning Commission must determine if the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Transportation Plan After consideration of the facts and public testimony the Planning Commission must take one of the following actions request additional information from staff, continue the public hearing or make a recommendation of action to the City Council o !;l BackQround. The City retained S Chamberlain and Associates to develop an update to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Since the adoption of the 1992 Plan, the City has received updated population and employment forecasts from the state Office of Financial Management, the transportation analysis zones used have been subdivide down by Regional Transportation Planning Council (RTPC) to allow for more accurate data collection and future traffic projections and the traffic modeling software used by RTPC and the City has been updated With these three major changes it was necessary for the City to review the Transportation Plan to ensure policies, goals and projects remain consistent with the new information available The City has worked with Thurston County staff on the amendments and presented the proposal to the Thurston County Planning Commission and the Thurston County Board of Commissioners Thurston County Planning Commission has held the required public hearing on the amendment and recommends approval to the Thurston County Board of Commissioners c. Proposal. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment updates the 1992 Transportation Plan and the Transportation component of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan & Joint Plan with Thurston County Proposed changes include a new transportation improvement program, implementation schedule, funding strategy and minor changes regarding Public Transit policy Following is a summary of the primary amendments proposed o 1 InterCity Transit requested a number of changes to transit related goals and policies (March 31, 1997 letter enclosed) Staff is recommending the inclusion of the first two amendments on page 2 of the letter Transit Service Policy and Park-and-Ride Policy 2 The Y-1, 93rd Avenue/Thurston Highlands Connector, termini's have been modified The northern termini now intersects with 93rd Avenue rather than farther north in the vicinity of the Hwy 510 and the Y-3 termini The southern termini now intersects with Y-7 rather extending to Hwy 507 independently from Y-7 3 The plan continues to support the need for the Y-6, Crystal Springs Road Extension and Y-12, Nisqually Pines Second Access projects, however the amendment switches the implementation responsibility from the City to Thurston County [~I rlllllllllllllll//////// c March 31, 1997 Intercity T ran s . I t Dana Spivey City of Yelm POBox 479 Yelm, W A 98597 526 Pattison Sf PO Box 659 Olympia WA 98507-0659 (360) 786-8585 FAX (360) 357-6184 Dear Dana. Thank you for the opportunity to propose amendments to the City of Y elm's Comprehensive Plan. Intercity Transit is always happy to be involved. I propose changes to a number of the policies throughout the document. Additions to text are underlined, and suggested deletions are marked with a strikethrough. Use of the Transportation Goals and Policies, Page 10 Please change the first bullet to read. neighboring jurisdictions Thurston County, Intercity Transit, and c Please change the third bullet to read. By Intercity Transit and other transportation providers to coordinate services with Coordination, Page 11 In the goal statement, I suggest listing Intercity TransIt along WIth Thurston County and Washington State. In the PublIc Participation Policy paragraph, please add, Intercity Transit has provided assistance to the City of Yelm in the past and would like to continue to be included in planning efforts. " Intergovernmental Agency Coordination Policy, Page 12 Add a fourth bullet, Continuing to serve on the Intercity Transit Authority Regional Transportation Policy, Pages 12 and 13 To the first paragraph, add Intercity TransIt after Pzerce Countzes To the last bullet ill thIS section, add and the facilities necessary to support them. c OJ o ....9 March 31,1997 Page 2 o Transit Service Policy, Page 14 I suggest changing the first sentence to read. Intercity TransIt provIdes transit servIce to Yelm on Routes 92 and 94. InterCity Transit is scheduled to pro'/ide transit serVIce to Yclm in 1993. In addition, the city will encourage alternati'/cs to this service, such as vanpools. The city will encourage the use of transIt, carpools, vanpools, and other alternatives to driving alone. Park-and-Ride Policy, Page 14 Please add. The City will work with WSDOT, Intercity Transit, and private property owners to site park and ride facilities in the Yelm area and will encourage the use of existing private parking lots that are not normally used during the day (such as churches) as park and ride facilities. Connectivity Policy, Page 18 I suggest these changes to the statement of purpose: To provide a highly interconnected network of streets and trails for ease and variety of tra'/cl to allow for movement of 0 vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. To the last paragraph on page 18, I suggest adding, The city will provide for efficient access for emergency and transit vehicles. Transportation System Management (TSM) Policy, Page 19 Please add a second sentence to the goal statement: These strategies will enhance transit, carpool and other alternatives to the single occupant vehicle to reduce the rate of increase ill the number of vehicles on the roadways. Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Transit Policy, Page 20 Please add. The City will work to make all transIt facilities accessible to indiVIduals with special needs. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Policy, Page 22 Please add these bullets: . Working with Intercity Transit, as the administrator/lead agency for CTR, to reduce the total number of vehicle miles traveled and to increase vehicle occupancy for commute trips according to the state's Commute Trip Reducbon law o ": "j "\'/ """'.' . p Vu C March 31,1997 Page 3 . Requiring that pedestrian and bicycle facilib.es be constructed in conjunction With major residential, commercial, industrial or office construction. To the last bullet in the TDM section please add. shower and locker facilities to encourage people to bicycle, walk, or run to work, bicycle lockers or racks, Education Policy, Page 23 Please add this bullet: . Working with Intercity Transit, the busmess community, and the schools to encourage employees and students to use transit and other alternatives to driving alone to and from work and school. Environmental Protection and Conservation Policy, Page 24 Please add these bullets: o Promoting CTR programs to improve air quality and conserve energy Future Travel Conditions, Pages 34 and 25 Please add this information to this section. In partnership with Thurston Regional Planning Council, Intercity Transit developed a long-range system plan to set the dIrection for public transportation in Thurston County through 2020 This plan serves as a blueprint for implementing the transit component of the Regional Transportation Plan. The system plan identifies critical issues t."'1.at affect transportation services in Thurston County such as land uses, parking policies and facility needs, environmental Impacts, travel behavior; community goals, and financing The plan also provides long-range direction for coordinating possible high-capacity transportation services and the land-use change necessary for a successful system. Dana, I would like to add a couple of descriptive secb.ons entitled PublIc Transportatzon, and Alternate Mode Transportatzon to the comprehensive plan. However, these sections don't seem to fit "tidily" in the transportation plan as it was written in 1992. I want to provide them for you anyway, because I think they are important elements to the plan. Perhaps there IS a place m the update where It makes sense to include them. c , . V:. ''1] March 31,1997 Page 4 o PUBLIC TRANSPORTA T10N InterCIty Transit provides connections between Yelm, Rainier, Tenino and the urban areas of Thurston County Route 94 operates along Yelm Highway and Highway 510 connecbng Yelm with Lacey Passengers may make connections with urban and other rural routes once they reach the Lacey TransIt Center Connections to Tacoma are also available once passengers reach the urban area. Route 92 provIdes servIce on Highway 507 between Yelm, Rainier, and Tenino In Tenino, riders can transfer to Route 99 and ride to Tumwater and downtown Olympia to make connections with other routes. Frequency of service on Route 94 is hourly Monday through Saturday, with more frequent service.. during peak commuting hours. Route 92 operates hourly in the early morning, the late afternoon, and the early evening Monday through Saturday Intercity Transit does not operate Route 92 in the midday In addition to transit service, Intercity Transit provides ridesharing services, matching people with potential carpool partners. Intercity Transit also coordinates vanpools, which allow a group of people to share rides using a vehicle that Intercity Transit owns and maintains. Vanpool riders pay a monthly fee based on the operating costs of the vehicle and mileage. o Intercity Transit is the lead agency implementing the Commute Trip Reduction plan in Thurston County The provide technical and educational services to employees, employers, cItizens, and governmental agencies throughout the county AL TERNA TE MODE RECOMMENDA T10NS Transit Increasing the use of our existing transit service, developing m a manner that supports easy access to transit, and adding more and better service are (or should be???, Jamie?) goals for Y elm's future. Better transportahon options, including tranSIt, are important to meeting the goals of the regional growth management efforts, the commute trip reduction law, and the Regional Transportahon Plan. Full utilIzation of the transit system that is currently in place is important. The policies and goals of the comprehensive plan will make Yelm a more pedestrian and transit-friendly city This "friendliness" will hopefully increase ridership on Intercity Transit. Intercity Transit's presence in Yelm offers many advantages. It connects Yelm reSIdents with the urban center and other parts of the county and region. Major centers in Olympia and Tumwater, and rural centers in other parts of the county are currently accessible. Express services to Tacoma (with connections to Seattle), are also offered. Intercity Transit also offers servIces to the Lacey jOlympia Amtrak Station. o ,; .. [? , C March 31, 1997 Page 5 One of the major benefits of a transit system is its ability to alter routes and schedules to meet the changmg needs of the community this is particularly important m Yelm where development and congestion are mcreasing Yelm will see increasing demand in services for commuters. Major employers operate programs to meet CTR requIrements, and they need to be able to present realistic transportation alternatives. Intercity Transit considers new services as part of its Transit Development Plan (TDP), which is updated each year The TDP is a six-year combined comprehensive and capItal facilities plan for transit, and it outlines programs and facilities that Intercity Transit should pursue. In partnership with Thurston Regional Planning Council, Intercity transit developed a long- range system plan to set the direction for public transportation in Thurston County through 2020 This plan services as a blueprint for implementing the transit component of the Regional Transportation Plan. c The system plan identifies critical issues that affect transportabon services m Thurston County such as land uses, parking policies and facility needs, envIronmental impacts, travel behavior; community goals, and financing The plan also provides long-range direction for coordinating possible high-capacity transportabon services and the land-use changes necessary for a successful system. Thank you once again for the opportunity to propose amendments to the plan. If I can be of any further assistance, please call me at 786-8585 Sincerely, ~nu'l l) JM~ie D Haveri Senior Planner ~ copy' Michael Harbour, General Manager Roger A. Dean, Director of Development c (Q)IPaArFiT Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update c 1997 Update TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM A major part of any Comprehensive TransportatIOn Plan IS the Transportation Improvement Program. The 1997 update depIcts the overall transportation future of Yelm. Included are the recommended projects for the City and its Urban Growth Area. The Improvements of tills transportation program are not only the City's future transportation focus, but also the manifestatIOn of the 35 plannmg pohcies for providing adequate transportatIOn facilitIes and servIces for the next 20 years. Background Studies Development of the TransportatIon Program was based upon studies completed with the 1992 ComprehensIve Transportation Plan project and subsequent analyses as part of this update These studIes mclude IdentIfymg eXIsting and future safety and capacity defiCIencies. A program was developed to improve existmg facilitIes, connections to "fill-in" the eXIsting system, and new facilitIes to meet the projected travel needs throughout the Yelm Urban Growth Area. Minor modrlicatIOns have been made to the 1992 plan based on current 1997 travel demands and roadway deficienCIes. Both regIonal and local facilities have been recommended to remedy theexistmg and future defiCIencIes. C Environmental Analyses Portions of the plan contain enVIronmental analyses and mitigation measures with respect to each proposed improvement. The environmental analysIs completed for the 1992 plan was reviewed and IS still apphcable for current condItions in completing tills update. Impacts common to all Improvements include . surface and ground water resource degradation due to stormwater runoff, . limIted housing displacement where new or WIdened nghts-of-way are needed, . mcreased noise levels adjacent to major thoroughfares, . damage to plants, wildhfe and their habItats, . enhanced and more mtense land use development along new routes, . loss of productive lands and soil erosion during construction, . decreased air quality m the corridors of the new improvements, . mcreased consumption of non-renewable fuels, . altered landscape and VIews, and . loss of histonc rural atmosphere This analyses is at a non-project level and IS not intended to substitute a full enVIronmental reVIew ProJect-level analyses will be conducted as each rmprovement enters the deSIgn study phase. Mitigation measures to be considered may include. C . stormwater retentIon and treatment, June 2, 1997 Page 1 o c c Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update · route selection to mmumze Impacts on eXIstmg housmg, wildlife habitats, and land use patterns, · landscaping and noise barriers, · buffenng the Improvements from wetlands and wildhfe habItats, · coordmatmg land use planmng with development of the transportation system, · stockpiling soils and erosion control measures, and · encouragmg transportation system and demand management strategies, including transit, to reduce velncle-tnps. Future Travel Conditions The current (1994) Thurston RegIonal Planmng Council (TRPC) transportation model was used to IdentIfy future travel conchtions in Yelm. These travel projections were based upon 20-year land use forecasts prepared by TRPC staff and the Yelm Commumty Development Department. The land use forecasts were studied and accepted by the Planning CommIssion as the likely development patterns of the Yelm area. Results from the transportation model still show a strong need for improvements to accommodate future growth m the Yelm Urban Growth Area. As Identified in the 1992 Plan, the central Issue was the constructIOn of a system that prOVides greater opportunities for traffic to travel around and through the CIty while promotmg commercIal growth in the center of Yelm. The answer to tlus Issue was to develop alternatives to travel on Yelm Avenue WIth a recommendatIOn for north loop and south loop roadways. Although these routes are alternatIves to travel through the City Center, the City chose to locate the routes as close as possible to the core ofYelm and adopt a CommercIal Sitmg pohcy (#26) to restnct commercIal development along these loop roadways. By taking this approach, the loop roadways can be developed as lngh-capaclty, rumted access facilities. Figure 1 depIcts the locations of the proposed 20-year unprovement programs for the plan update Following tlns figure IS the recommended 6-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Descnptions of the primary projects (i.e Y-1, Y-2, etc.) Identified in the plan are presented in the followmg section. Plan Recommendations The followmg hsts the pnmary roadway facilities and recommendations of the 1997 TransportatIOn Improvement Program Update. Commentary is prOVided describing the need for improvement, planned constructIOn of the facility, potential alternatives to the route, and prehminary cost estunate of Implementmg the recommendation. The cost estimates are prelimmary, m 1997 dollars, and do not substitute for detailed estimates that will be developed as part of engIneering deSIgn studies. June 2,1997 Page 2 RECOMMENDED 6 YEAR TRANSPORTA~ON PROGRAM o TIP PROJECTS* CD 2 ~. 4.. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 o 15 16 17 18 I i \ "- ------r------;;-t- ~ ~~-, I A --~~"'-........ , 18 " "'_ 1'1- --L ---J- -\- I I . I - - ~'I \, I. , ,~- + I '. I I ~ :\"....:' ~ I ,'E :\:' ~ I ------t --------t--+ :: 1 ~ I ~ ----~--C~--r-----------.-- J I ~ ~ ~.............. /i _, A\II: I I "n. . : I \ :- A\II: SE: IIII I I III : I I I \ Ii!. I I II \ ',I III i II " I" I i! ~ III ; ................ ---11- ' \ __J i! I II! \. I I , II I \t i , I,. I II / -1.""'._.~.P.P..ft'I'I."*'=':' :"~11 ..J. YELM AVE W/KIWON RO REAUGNt.lENT I ' .. I I I J IlEllRY -------------t---r-- ~ i 1\ , I;, I , , I I \ I I \ , ~-------rml'lmTUll'".llii''W.E'..~~~~~':'''~.1 I i I : , J I /--- I / . v-/ II / 1 /."""., ;}.t ( I 11 I I ________//+_______ I I ~~ ------+------------- --------~ ~ " . /1 ., I. I ;/ ~.~ ! I .~ I, I -II .~ I II \, It II~ RECOMt.tENDA TIONS EDWARDS STREET It.lPROVEt.lENTS STEVENS AVENUE It.lPROVElAENTS YaM AVE./BALD HILLS RD. SIGNAL CREEK ST It.lPROVEMENTS SR-507/TO GROVE ROAD CONNECTOR STUDY YaM AVENUE It.tPRO~ENTS CANAL ROAD NORTH LOOP STUDY t.lOSt.tAN STREET It.lPROVEt.tENTS WEST ROAD It.lPROVEt.tENTS SECOND STREET It.lPROVEt.tENTS STEVENS AVENUE EXTENSION RAILROAD STREET IMPROVEMENTS RHOTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS YaM AVENUE WEST IMPROVEt.lENTS YaM AVE W 193RO AVE REAUGNt.lENT RAILROAD STREET IMPROVEMENTS OTY WOE ROADWAY RESURFACING · PROJECT LIST FROM 6 YEAR TRANSPORTATION IJlPROVEMENT PROGRAJI (1997-2002) .. COJIPLETION DATE 1997 z o t= ~ CI) w a::: >- a::: ~ :J ~ CJ CI) J: ~ I ... ......... I ---+VwmDll' I I :I: ~ 16 I I @-i , I I I I Ill) , , SE I I I I I , I I I..Ol'IOlolR 1051tt A\II: ........... :.,rI'~ . . ! i! 1081H Alii: SE ::l II I , I ---.,.. I I I / / I I ------------_~_____L_L_____ 1997 ComprehensivE Transportation Plan Update City of Yelm. Washington to- ~ u.. // -r--~ I , LEGEND ------------~---------- ---- PLANNED IMPROVEMENT ROADWAY ALIGNMENT STUDY RECOMMENDED 20 YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM TIP PRIOR1'l'Y* RECOMt.tENDA TlONS () 16 Y-1 93RD A VE/1liURSTON HIGHLANDS CONNECTOR 6 Y-2 SR-507/TO GROVE ROAD CONNECTOR 7 Y-3 CANAL ROAD NORlH LOOP 2.9.11 Y-4 COA TES-SlEVENS-1 03rd CONNECTOR EDWARDS STREET IMPROVDAENTS 6.14 Y-5 YaM AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS Y-7 SW ACCESS 9 Y-8 MOSMAN - SOlBERG ST CONNECTOR &: UPGRADE Y-9 BALD HILLS ROAD Y-10 VANCIL ROAD CONNECTION Y-11 110th AVE SE CREEl< CROSSING I I EDWARDS STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1 3 -I 8 10 12 13 0 16 16 17 18 . . . : '-it i . f\.. ~1lIII.ftI'I._.~"".~ . r--" . I \ . I ~ . I ~ . I \ . I! ~-------+- I. I. II ~ I.' :g: ..; ~\. , . ..., ~ .....+.........b I ., ... I I :' Y-7 : . . I I \ . 1 I \ ___~ I , \ I . ='1III"1IlD.~.3il"E'~~ia:.~=$i~u:;.':"-: . -,-, . ,! . ,! . I /.... . I , . I / . I ~~ ~ V / lBJ'1.' ("-r- ~ ---- --lit ---------+--i----L---J-I- ~ ,- "PI . "ot..,.. \ I 0::: 1~'1 .'~ \ , ~ . ." I i V : ~I II · \ ~ ;t. ! . . . . YaM AVE./BAlD HILLS RD. SIGNAL CREEK ST IMPROVEMENTS I I I I , I , I --f I I I LONG 1ERM URBAN I GROWlH BOUNDARY I I I I I MOSMAN STREET IMPROVEMENTS SECOND STREET IMPROVEMENTS RAILROAD STREET NW IMPROVEMENTS RHOTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS YaM AVE W jKlWON RD REAUGNMEN '\'ElM AVE W/93RD AVE REAUGNMENT RAILROAD STREET SW IMPROVEMENTS ~ CITY WIDE ROADWA Y RESURFACING · PRIORITY FROM 6 YEAR TRANSPORTATION IJlPROVEJlENT PROCRAJI (1997-2Q02) (FICURE X IDENTIFIES ALL IMPROVEMENTS 'ROM THE SIX YEAR TIP) t05lll AVL ........... . r~ ! . . . . . . I i ~ I 'v-i i! fQ81lf AVL IE I I I I -;- I I I I ~ City of Yelm. Washington 1997 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update i Nl I I I I .......ftCMllr I I :-.-_----- to- ~ II II " LEGEND CJ PLANNED IMPROVEMENT UNDETERMINED ROADWAY ALIGNMENT ........ Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update C TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Y-l 93rd Avenueffhurston Highlands Connector Need for the Improvement: Projected growth in the Southwest portion of the Yelm Urban Growth Area prompts the need for an artenal roadway between the two major state lnghways. Based on current traffic needs and an assessment of the traffic model forecasts, tlns facility will promote local travel and circulatIOn withIn the planned commumty for the Southwest area ofYelm. Prunary need will be based on land-use development of this area and will not be required m a regIonal context as Initially projected m the 1992 plan. Planned Construction: c The recommended locatIon for this roadway has changed from an eXIsting southeast prOjectIOn of SR-510 at the existmg curve near the Anderson Dairy to Burnett Road to mtersect 93rd Avenue at a tee mtersection westerly of SR 510. At this point, Y-1 would extend southerly to a projection of Berry Valley Road. In tlns area, the roadway would be deSIgned to avoid the existmg Yelm High School athletic facilities. Figure 1 shows the corndor could follow multIple alignments. The exact locatIon will be based on the development of the Thurston Highlands Planned Community and adjacent properties. Forecast traffic volumes mmcate the need for traffic SIgnalS at the 93rd Avenue/Yelm Avenue and the Southwest Access intersectIons. The roadway could be constructed m phases that are closely tied to the land use plans of the southwest parcels. It could be constructed initially as a three-lane facility that could be widened for a fourth and fifth lane as traffic volumes warrant. However, needs may change as development plans are better defined. Admtionally, there will be considerable advanced time needed to prepare a design study and engineering plans before construction of the roadway may begm. Therefore, the recommended phasmg for Y-1IS. . EIS, Corndor AnalYSIS (FY 2003-2008) . Phase 1. Design and Construction of 3-lane facility and traffic SIgnalS at the 93rd Avenue/Yelm. Avenue (FY 2009-2012) . Phase 2: Fourth and fifth lane constructIon, and traffic SIgnal at the Southwest Access (by FY 2017) Alternatives to the Recommendation: o Several other alternatives were consIdered m the 1992 plan. These routes were dismissed from further consideration because of significant impacts to "cntIcal areas," propertIes, and failure to meet the "purpose and need" of the corridor. Refer to 1992 plan for more detail and background data used to reach these conclusIOns. June 2, 1997 Page 3 Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update o Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Ai?, denoted in the 1992 plan, the new route would impact the wetlands associated with Thompson Creek and disturb a rural residential area. Routes west of Thompson Creek would be more remote from the city, draw more development from the core, and could impact other wetlands. No-action would result m increased traffic congestion along Yelm Avenue. If the preferred route IS selected, wetland rmpact mitlgation measures; including replacement, may be required. Impacts on rural areas are unavoidable. Preliminary Costs Estimates: Preliminary. EIS, Predesign Report, Final DesIgn, Engineering. $400,000 Phase 1 & 2: Construct 3-5-lane facility; Signals at 93rd AvenuelYeIm Avenue and Southwest Access $4,800,000- 6,000,000 Total Cost: $6,400,000 o Y-2 SR 507/Five-Corners Connector Need for the Improvement: Through traffic on Yelm Avenue is expected to increase congestion WIthIn the next 20 years. Most of the growth is in through traffic volumes travehng north-to/from-south on SR 507 and from new planned development southeast of Yelm destined for the Urban Centers of Thurston County When implemented, Y-2 would provide a continuous southern loop around the City Center Planned Construction: The preferred locatlon for tlus roadway is currently being studied by the City and WSDOT The locatIOn will be situated south of the initial alignment discussed in the 1992 plans. The actual locatIOn will not be confirmed until early 1998. According to traffic model projects, the future need is for a three-lane roadway within eight to ten years, which will accommodate the planned growth for the 20-year planning period. However, needs may change as development plans are better defined. Add1tlonally, there will be considerable advance time needed to prepare a design engineering plans before c June 2, 1997 Page 4 o o c Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update constructIon of the roadway may begin. Therefore, the recommended planned construction phasing for Y-2 mcludes. . Corndor Study and EnVll"onmental Analysis (by FY 1998) . DesIgn Plan and ROW AcqUisItion (FY 2003-2008) . 3-lane facility construction between SR 507 and Grove Road vicinity (FY 2009-2017) Mer the roadway has been constructed, It would be designated as SR 507 and placed under the junsdicnon of the Washington State Department of Transportation. The jurIsdiction ofYelm Avenue would be transferred to the City. Alternatives to the Recommendation: Several alternatives are currently being considered in establishing the need and location for tlus corndor. A preferred route alignment will be selected by 1998. The No-ActIOn scenano IS also being analyzed. As With Y-1, ifY-2 IS not constructed, then all traffic would be routed through the City Center and unacceptable levels of traffic congestion would result. According to traffic proJections, Y-2 becomes a fundamental element of the Yelm Urban Growth Area Circulation system. Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: The preferred route could rmpact suspected wetlands located near Vancil Road and Fox Hill area. Rural reSIdential areas would be disturbed With potential dIsplacements. No- action would result in SIgnificant traffic congestion along Yelm Avenue. When the preferred route is selected, wetland impact mitigation measures will be IdentIfied. Impacts on rural areas are unavoidable. Preliminary Costs: Prehmmary. EIS, Corndor Analysis, Pre-Design $210,000 Phase 1. Final DeSIgn Plans, ROW Acquisition $1,000,000 Phase 2: Construct 3-lane facility from SR 507 to Grove Road vicInity $3,800,000 Total Cost: 5,010,000 June 2, 1997 Page 5 I' Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update o Y-3 Canal Road North Loop Need for the Improvement: Similar to the south loop, thIs recommendatIon was made to provide a primary alternative for traffic travehng through and around the City Center In addition, the CIty'S industrial center is located north of the City Center near Canal Road. ConstructIon of this facility would accommodate traffic associated with the mdustrial center, includIng truck traffic generated by this type of development. Planned Construction: Much of the alignment for this recommendatIon follows existmg roadways. Starting m the west, the roadway would intersect SR 510 near 89th Avenue, which is a projection of Canal Road west of Crystal Springs Road or extend m a northwesterly (diagonal) dIrection from Mt. View Road to SR 510 (See Figure 1) East of Crystal Springs Road, the roadway follows Canal Road to Grove Road at a proposed termmus of the Y-2 Corndor () A three-lane cross-section will accommodate the proposed traffic for the next 20-years. However, prOVISIons should be made for a five-lane nght-of-way if development along the roadway exceeds antIcIpated growth. The recommendatIon also includes a signalized mtersectIon at a realignment of Nisqually Pmes Road and Wilkensen Road. AccordIng to intenm-year traffic model proJectIons, the need for the roadway is WIthIn SIX to ten years. However, this need may change as development plans for the industnal area are better defined. Additionally, there will be considerable advanced time needed to prepare a design study and engmeenng plans before construction of the roadway may begm. The phasing for the project IS presented m the Preliminary Cost Estimate section. Alternative to the Recommendation: Other alternatIves for the Y -3 corndor were evaluated m the 1992 plan. They were dIsmissed from further consideration due to constructIOn constraints and environmental impacts. The No-ActIOn scenano was also analyzed. All traffic projected for Y-3 would have to use Yelm Avenue If Y-3 is not constructed. Included in tlus traffic would be trucks from the industrial area north of the CIty Center. Significant traffic congestion would result on YeliD. Avenue through the CIty Center IfY-3IS not Implemented. Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: c The preferred route would redirect industrial traffic and pass-through traffic (including trucks) through eXIstIng rural reSIdentIal areas and reqUIre analysis of possible contamination to the Centralia Power Canal waters. No-action would result in significant June 2, 1997 Page 6 c o o Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update traffic congestion along Yelm Avenue, mcluding contmued truck routing through the CIty Center If the preferred route IS selected, mItigatIOn measures mclude applYIng desIgn standards to accommodate industrIal truck traffic along the route Impacts on rural residential areas are unavOIdable. Preliminary Costs: Phase 1. EIS, Corridor Study, Final Engineenng (FY 1997-2002) $650,000 Phase 2. 3-lane facility from SR 510 to SR 507 Grove Road Vlcrmty (FY 2003-2008) $6,000,000 Total Cost: 6,650,000 Y-4 Coates-Stevens-103rd Connector Need for the Improvement: Within the CIty Center, It was noted that another east-west roadway was needed north of Yelm Avenue to accommodate eXIstmg and projected traffic flows. The facility would accommodate tills need by proVldmg an alternate route for local traffic to Yelm Avenue Planned Construction: Two alternatives were consIdered. Both begin at the mtersection of Coates Road and Stevens Avenue. Alternative Y-4.1, described in the 1992 plan, would extend to the east until It meets Yelm Creek. At that pomt, the roadway would continue to a point south of the Creek and wrap around the storage locker facility and residential area until it meets West Road near NE 4th Street. From tills pomt It would follow West Road to ItS reahgned intersection with 103rd Avenue SE. Alternative Y-4.2 would follow a similar alignment, except that It would use the existing Stevens Avenue alignment between NE 4th Street and Edwards Street. Rail crossings are required along both routes. The City Council will deCIde which alternative to adopt based on the required design study Each alternative has ItS merits as well as ItS drawbacks. The first alternative would avoid most existing structures, but faces environmental and wetland problems-if located too close to the Yelm Creek. The latter alternative uses eXisting ahgnments, but passes through the storage locker facility According to traffic model projectIOns, the need for a three-lane roadway IS unmediate. The improvement provides relief to Yelm Avenue. It IS recommended that the CIty proceed with the project including the desIgn study and engineering plans to determine the appropnate ahgnment and construction of the roadway June 2, 1997 Page 7 c o o Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update Alternative to Recommendation: A No-Action scenano was consIdered m addition to the recommended alternative. The roadway proVIdes rehef to the congested conditions on Yelm Avenue and better circulation north of the City Center. If the roadway IS not constructed, then all traffic will circulate to the south and mcrease congestion in the CIty Center Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Route 4.1 as identified in the 1992- plan, would be located adjacent to Yelm Creek and require extensIve analYSIS of wetland and shoreline impacts. Route 4.2 passes through an estabhshed residential neighborhood and would result in displacement of existing commercIal structures. No-Action would result in significant traffic congestion along Yelm Avenue, especIally at the First Street/SR 507 intersection. Significant wetland mItigatIOn measures may be required for Route 4.1. Impact created by Route 4.2 are unavoidable. Preliminary Costs: Phase 1. Design Plans, ROW Acquisition and ConstructIOn (FY 1997-2002) $1,115,000 Total Cost: $1,115,000 Y-5 YelmAvenue Improvements Need for the Improvement: Presently, Yelm Avenue is the only through route to the Yelm area, in some cases, it proV1des the only route to a destmatIon. It expenences severe congestIon problems throughout a typical weekday, especially on side streets which affects their accessibility. Planned Construction: Rebuildmg Yelm Avenue IS dependent upon construction of recommendations Y-2 and Y-3. These recommendations have been made to provide an alternate to Yelm Avenue; and if not constructed may prompt the need for significant improvement. Current traffic volumes mchcate the need for left turn lanes at most intersections along Yelm Avenue Therefore, the pnmary recommendation (and immediate need) is to June 2, 1997 Page 8 c o o Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update construct a bi-drrectIonal, two-way left turn lane from 93rd Avenue SE to Grove Road. If Y-2 and Y-3 are constructed, tills three-lane facility will accommodate volumes for the 20- year penod. Accordmg to traffic model proJectIOns, the need for a three-lane roadway IS Im.mediate. It IS recommended that the City proceed with the project includmg the desIgn study and engmeenng plans to determine the appropriate ahgnment and constructIon of the roadway Presently, Yelm Avenue is under State jurisdictIOn. Following construction ofY-2 and Y-3 they would become the State's JunsdictIOn, and Yelm Avenue would-become a City street. Alternatives to the Recommendation: Two alternatives were consIdered. In the first alternatIve, a five-lane Yelm Avenue was analyzed in the event Y-2 and Y-3 are not constructed. ThIs alternative poses construction problems m the CIty center near the Intersection with First StreetlSR 507 Based on tills Issue, the alternatIve was dIsmIssed in favor of constructIng the north and south loop roadways. A No-ActIOn scenano was also analyzed. Presently, Yelm Avenue is congested. Forecasts indIcate that traffic will contInue to increase on Yelm Avenue and senously affect travel condItIOns in the area If no Improvements are made. Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: The preferred alternatIve will have frontage alteratIOn, including elimination of some street trees and parking spaces. The five-lane alternative would substantially impact the CIty center by dIsplaCIng commercIal structures and eliminate frontage parking opportunities. No-ActIon would result in increased congestion along Yelm Avenue and all SIde streets. Frontage design and landscapIng appropriate to adjoining land uses will be required for the preferred alternative. Preliminary Cost Estimate: Phase 1. DeSIgn plans and Construction of 3-4 lane "core" roadway-(FY 1997-2002) $1,400,000 Phase 2: Construction of Urban Improvements, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. (FY 2003-2008) $1,600,000 Total Cost: $3,000,000 June 2, 1997 Page 9 Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update C Y-6 Crystal Springs Road Extension Need for the Improvement: North of the CentraIia Power Canal, more than 400 homes have been constructed in the View AcreslNisqually Pines area. Presently, there is only one access point to that area; Wilkensen Road. For emergency access and circulation purposes, a second access road 18 recommended. Based upon prehmmary engineering surveys, the extension of Crystal Spnngs Road to Ordway Dnve appears to be the most effectIve and practical locatIon for prOVIding thIs roadway Planned Construction: A two-lane cross section is recommended. It IS also recommended that this access be constructed in conjunction with the Y-3 segment between SR 510 and Crystal Springs Road. South of the canal, Crystal Springs Road serves primarily residential development and has little through traffic. Alternatives to this Recommendation: o Other alternatIve were consIdered mcludmg extendIng Cullen and Mountam View Roads as a means for prOVIdIng secondary access. However, steep grades on the north side of the power canal on both roadways prevent practIcal construction. No-Action scenario was also considered. Tlus alternatIve was dismissed because View Acres and Nisqually Pines have only one access point. AddItIonal access points are deSIred WIth thIs sIgmficant resIdenb.allevel. Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: The preferred alternatIve would result in increased traffic along Crystal Spnngs Road and south of Canal Road, through a residential area. Alternative routes would have similar Impacts and mcreased enVIronmental impacts due to SIgnificant grades. No-Action would lead to contmued traffic concentration along Wildensen Road and isolation risks for residents north of the CentraIia Power Canal. All routes reqUITe appropnate bridge design and analysis of surface water and wetland Impacts m the vicinity of the Centraha Power Canal. Preliminary Cost Estimate: DeSIgn study and engmeenng plans are estImated at $950,000 o June 2, 1997 Page 10 Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update o Implementation: o o \ The scope ofthis project 18 outsIde the Yelm Urban Growth Boundary area and therefore is not included In the project array for thIs update. The City of Yelm suggests that the County conduct a coste/benefits analysis for this proposed road extension. Y-7 Southwest Access Need for the Improvement: The pnmary purpose for tIns Improvement 18 to dIrect the intended prmcIpal route between proposed development southwest of Yelm and the City Center Planned Construction: A five-lane cross section is recommended betw.een Y-l and Yelm Avenue SignalizatIOn is recommended at both Ultersectiona. ConatructlOn would be dependent upon development. According to the traffic model projectIons, the present need IS for a three-lane roadway withIn SIX to ten years with expansion to a 5-1ane facility as traffic warrants. There will be considerable tIme to prepare a design study and engineering plane before construction of the roadway may begin. It is expected that this facility will be constructed as development activity occurs. Alternative to the Recommendation: Various alternatives for the locatIOn of the access road were evaluated in the 1992 plan. Based on current studies, the preferred route would commence at Killian Road and extend westerly to the Berry-Valley Road alignment. Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Meas1.rres: The preferred route would impact urban and rural reSIdential areas. SIte selection is dependent upon accessibility to Yelm Avenue, proximity to the CIty Center, and miOluuzing unpacts on existing land uses. P1"eliminary Cost Estimate: Phase 1 Design Study, Final Engineermg and Construction of 5-lane facility (FY 2003-2008) $2,500,000 Total Cost: $2)500,000 June 2.1997 Page 11 Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update o Y-8 Mosman Street Connector Need for the Improvement: Yelm Avenue is the prinCIpal east-west route withm the City of Yelm. The mtent of this recommendation is to upgrade eXlstmg facilities and to make a connection at Mosman Road south of Yelm Avenue. The proposed connectIon will allow for direct access between neIghborhoods and minimIzes the need to use Yelm Avenue. Planned Construction: At Mosman Road, the recommendatIon IS to align the approaches of this roadway at SR 507. Presently these approaches do not ahgn. The second part of the recommendatIon is to reconstruct Mosman Road to a neighborhood collector standard from SR 507 to Solberg Street and reconstruct Solberg Street to the same standard from Mosman Road to Yelm Avenue. SIgnalizatIOn IS anticipated at both mtersectIons. Accordmg to traffic model projections, the need for the connectIOns IS immedIate. It is recommended that the City proceed wIth the project including the desIgn study and engineering plans to determme the appropnate alignment and constructIon of the roadway. o Alternatives to the Recommendation: A No-Action scenano was consIdered. The need exists for better circulation south ofYelm Avenue. Connections at these roadways meet this need. Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Traffic disbursement to formerly discontmuous streets are the sigmficant impacts for the proposed action. No-ActIOn results in mcreased congestIon along Yelm Avenue. Preliminary Costs: Phase 1 Design Study, Final Engineering and ConstructIon (FY 1997-2002) $1,350,000 Total Cost: $1,350,000 o June 2, 1997 Page 12 Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update C Y-9 Bald Hill Road Upgrade Need for the Improvements: Bald Hills Road IS a primary traffic carrymg facility in the Yelm area. The existing roadway IS m poor condition and does not provide adequate access to commercIal and reSIdential propertIes along the route (llOth Ave to 5-corners) Upgrades to the eXIsting facility are needed to accommodate current and future traffic usage. Planned Construction: Bald Hills Road would be reconstructed to a 3-lane facility between the Western Chehahs Railroad and Five-Corners. The need for the Improvement IS ImmedIate. It IS recommended that the City pursue, with Thurston County, the immediate design study and engineering plans to construct the roadway Alternative to the Recommendation: No alternatives were considered. C Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: The proposed Improvement represents mitIgation to existing safety and capacity defiCIenCIes along the roadway No-Action would result in continued safety nsks. Unavoidable Impacts are dIsturbances to eXIstmg rural land uses. Preliminary Costs: Phase 1. Design Study; Final Engineenng; and Construction (FY 2003-2008) $1,500,000 Total Cost: $1,500,000 Y-IO Vancil Road Connections Need for the Improvement: Alternate access to residential developments along tills roadway after Y-2 is constructed. C June 2, 1997 Page 13 Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update o Planned Construction: Extension of 109th Avenue SE from Clark Road to Morris Road. Vancil Road Intersects the new roadway mIdway on the extension of 109th Avenue SE. A two-lane cross section is recommended. Traffic forecasts mdicate the need for these connectIons after Y-2 has been constructed. However, It IS recommended that tlns location be momtored for unprovement prior to Y-2 constructIOn If rmpact Ill1tigation warrants. Alternative to the Recommendation: A No-Action scenario was analyzed. The recommendatIon was prompted by the need for better access after Y-2 is constructed. According to the recommendations for the roadway, Vancil Road would not be sIgnahzed. Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: All available routes would disturb eXIsting rural residential neighborhoods. No-Action would result in contmued congestion along Yelm Avenue and Isolation of the Vancil Road propertIes. o MitIgation would mclude route selection that m1lllDllZes impacts on the existing neIghborhoods. Preliminary Costs: Phase 1. Design Study; Final Engineermg; and Construction (FY 2003-2008) $1,300,000 Total Cost: $1,300,000 Y-ll 110th Avenue BE Creek Crossing Need for the Improvement: Better accessibility to residential uses and the Prrone View Elementary School SIte. This suggestIOn was made by resIdents of the area. Planned Construction: Two-lane bndge across Yelm Creek between the existmg 110th Avenue SE roadways on both sIdes of the creek. o <. June 2, 1997 Page 14 o c o Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update Traffic forecasts ind1cate the need for these connectJ.Ons after Y-2 and Y-9 have been conotructod. Howcvcl', it 113 1'ccommcndcd that: t:lu.~ locatlon be mOll.J.(,vJ.~J. fvJ. J.lllPJ.\.JVt::WI;:HL pnor to these two proJects lf impact mitlgation warrants The City of Yelm w1l1 propose to County officials the possibility of a joint venture for thlS road extenSlOn. Alternative to Reconnnendation: Two alternatives were considered. The first was to construct the bridge as a smgle-Iane roadway hmlted to school busses. It was determmed that the incremental costs to wlden the bridge to two-lanes was insignificant. In additIon, a facility open to all traffic in the area would Pl.ovide greater mobility and lmproved circulatlOn. Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: The alternatJ.ves would impact Yelm Creek. No-Action would reqwre school traffic to contInue to pass through the Five-Corners intersectlOn. Analysis and appropriate mitigation will be reqwred at the Yelm Creek crossmg Appropriate frontage deslgn at the Prairie View Elementary School will also be required. Preliminary Costs: Phase 1 Design Study; Fmal Engineerlllg; and Construction (FY 2003-2008) $800,000 Tota.l Cost: $800,000 Y-12 Nlsqually Pines Second Access Need for the Improvement: Nisqually Pines is a large residential community that is served by only one access point. For emergency access and circulation purposes, a second access point is needed. Planned Construction: Second driveway access between Wilkensen Road SE and Pepperidge La.ne The drive would have a two-lane cross-sectlon and STOP control posted at both mtersecbons. Safety conslderatlons prompts the need for thlS improvement. The City of Ye1m suggests that the County conduct a costslbenefit analysis of the proposed second access to Nisqually Pines June 2, 1997 Page 15 c c o Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update Alternatives to the Recommendation: A No-ActIOn scenano was analyzed. Tlus alternatIve was dismIssed because Nisqually Pines has only on access point. AddItional access pomts are desired with this significant residential level. Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: The proposed rmprovement represents mitigation to reheve existing access deficiency to the Nisqually Pmes resIdential commumty No-Action would result m continued single access to the large resIdential area and risk of isolation from emergency services. Appropriate frontage and intersection design would be required as mitigation. Implementation: Tlns project falls outside the CIty'S Urban Growth Boundary area and therefore has been omItted from the 1997 plan update. It is recommended that Thurston County add this needed rmprovement to thell" Capital Facilities Plan and TIP June 2, 1997 Page 16 c c o Yelm 1997 Transportation Plan Update IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY The preferred implementatIOn program is summarized below . FY 1997-FY 2002 (to comcIde with the six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) , . FY 2003-FY 2008 (to represent mid-range prionties); and . FY 2009-FY 2017 (to represent long-range priorities) As the ComprehensIve Transportation Plan IS updated bIenmally, and the six-year TIP is updated annually, the Concurrency Management Program- for Yelm will be used to determine when the mid- and long-range projects should be constructed. By followmg the Concurrency Management Program, the CIty will be assured that the appropriate transportation facilities will be in-place as development comes on-line. The following Table A-1 shows the system pnonb.es, estimated cost and finding array (f: \text\reports \6054528.rpt) June 2, 1997 Page 17 o o o Table A-1 Implementation Program and Funding Strategy Yelm, Washington - 1997 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (All Dollar Figures in Thousands) Alternative TIP FY 1997-2002 FY 2003-2008 , FY 2009-2017 Project Recommended Project Costs Recommended Project Costs Recommended Project Costs Action (Funding Source) Action (Potential Action (potential Funding) Funding) Y_l,93rd EIS, Corridor $400 Design & $6,000 A venuemmrston Analysis, Pre- LID (Developer Construction of LID (Developer Highlands Design Mitigation) 5-Lane Major Mitigation) Connector Arterial TlB/Federal Y-2, SR-507/Five- EIS, Corridor Funded Final Design $1,000 Construct 3-Lane $3,800 Comers Connector ~ Analysis, Pre- (Funded Amount Plans, ROW WSDOT Funds, Highway WSDOT Funds, Design - $210) Acquisition Local TFC Local TFC, Engineering Federal Funds Y-3, Canal Road ElS, Corridor $650 ROW Acquisition $6,000 North Loop ~ Analysis, Final $552 State/ & Construction of WSDOT Funds, Design Grants; 3-Lane Major Federal Funds, Engmeering $98 Local TFC Arterial Local TFC Y -4, Coates- Widen Existing $1150 Stevens-103rd Roadways and $870 TIA Grants; , Connector ~ Construct New $280 Local TFC Segment to Commercial Collector Stds Y-5, Yelm Avenue Widen to 3-4 $1,400 Upgrade to Urban $1,600 Improvements ~ Lanes ("Core $550 UATA, Standards (Bike WSDOT Funds, Roadway Only") $640 Lanes, Sidewalks, Local TFC, and Drainage State/Grants, etc.) and Federal Funds Improvements $210 Local TFC Signalization of 3 Intersections o o o Table A-I Implementation Program and Funding Strategy Yelm, Washington -1997 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (All Dollar Figures in Thousands) Alternative TIP FY 1997-2002 FY 2003-2008 FY 2009-2017 Project , Recommended Project Costs Recommended Project Costs Recommended Project Costs Action (Funding Source) Action (Potential Action (Potential Funding) Funding) Y-7, Southwest Design Study and $2,500 Access Route Selection; LID Developer Final Design, Mitigation, Local Construction of 5- TFC, TIB Lane Facilitv Y -8, Mosman Widen Roadway $1,350 Street Connector ~ to Neighborhood $945 State Grants Collector Stds $405 Local TFC from SR 507 to Solberg St and Solberg St to SR 510 Y-9, Bald Hills Predesign Study; $1,500 Road Realignment Final Design County Funds, Plans, and Local TFC, TIB Construction of 3- Funding Lane Facilitv Y-IO, Vancil Road Monitor for Need $1,300 Connection Prior to Y-2 TIB, Local TFC, Construction, WSDOT Funds Predesign Study, Final Design, and Construction of Neighborhood Collector 2 o o o Table A-1 Implementation Program and Funding Strategy Yelm, Washington -1997 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (All DoUar Figures in Thousands) Altemati.ve TIP FY 1997-2002 FY 2003 -2008 FY 2009-2017 Project Recommended Project Costs Recommended Project Costs Reconnnended Project Costs Action (Funding Source) Action {Potential Action (potential Funding) FU11t:Iiw;) Y-ll, Hot" MOnitor for Need :$800 Avenue SE Creek Prior to Y-2 Developer Crossing Construction, and Mitigatian, Local After Y-9 TFC Construction; Predesign Study, Final Design, Construction Edwards Street Widen Roadway Funded Improvements ~ and Improve to (Funded Amount Urban Standards - $300) YelmAvenue/ Constrnct Traffic Funded Bald Hills Road ~ Signal, (Funded amount - Signal ChaImelization $300) Creek. Street Widen Roadway Funded Improvements ~ and Improve to (Funded amount - Commercial $300) Arterial M:l5man Street Realign Roadway $19-0 Improvements ~ andSR507 $50 Local TFC; Intersection $140 Staret Improvements Grants 3 o o o Table A-I Implementation Program and Funding Strategy Yelm, Washington - 1997 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (All Dollar Figures in Thousands) Alternative TIP FY 1997-2002 FY 2003-2008 FY 2009-2017 Project Recommended Project Costs Recommended Project Costs Recommended Project Costs Action (Funding Source) Action (Potential Action (potential Funding) Funding) Second Street Repair Shoulders, $135 Improvements ..J Pave, Drainage, $122 UATA Walks, and Grant; Lighting $13 City Funds Railroad Widen Roadway, $290 Street NW ..J Railroad $261 UATA Improvements Crossing, New Grant; , Intersection $29 Local TFC Alignment and Lighting Rhoton Road Widen Roadway, $390 Improvements ..J Drainage, $351 UATA Lighting and Grant; Resurfacing $39 Local TFC Yelm Avenue/ Intersection $120 W Killion Road ..J Realigmnent, $108 TFC; Realignment Widen Roadway, $12 Local TFC Safety Improvements , Yelm Avenue W/ Widen Roadway, $180 93rd Avenue ..J Safety $75 Local TFC, Realigmnent Improvements $105 State/ Grants 4 o o o Table A-I Implementation Program and Funding Strategy Yelm, Washington - 1997 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (All Dollar Figures in Thousands) Alternative TIP FY 1997-2002 FY 2003-2008 FY 2009-2017 Project ,. Recommended Project Costs Recommended Project Costs Recommended Project Costs Action (Funding Source) Action (Potential Action (potential Funding) Funding) Railroad Street Realign, Pave, $160 SW Improvements ~ Drainage, $144 DATA Sidewalks, and Grant; Lighting $16 Local TFC City Wide Resurface with $80 Roadway ~ Chip Seal State, City Funds Resurfacing *T otal Costs l $6,095 $15,100 $9,800 * Funded projects are not included in the total costs. 5 o RULES OF PROCEDURE CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION WE, THE MEMBERS of the Planning Commission of the City of Yelm, State of Washington, created by Ordinance No 119 (1969), of the City of Yelm, pursuant to Chapter 44, Laws of 1935 (RCW 35 63) do hereby adopt, publish and declare the following rules of procedure. I NAME The official name shall be ''The City of Yelm Planning Commission." II. MEETINGS A. Regular meetings shall be held as per the schedule adopted by the Planning Commission and posted at the Planning Department office, and all meetings of the Planning Commission are subject to the Open Meetings Act. B Special meetings shall be at the call of the chairperson or by consensus :0 of the members at a regular meeting C Except as modified by these rules of procedure, Robert's Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of public hearings and the chairperson shall decide all questions of order, subject to an appeal to a vote of the Planning Commission. III ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. The officers of the Planning Commission shall consist of a chairperson and a vice chairperson elected from the appointed members of the Planning Commission and such other offices as the Planning Commission may, by the majority vote, approve and appoint. B The election of officers shall take place once each year on the occasion of the last meeting in November of each calendar year The term of each officer shall run from January 1 until December 31 of the following year C A Nominating Committee may be appointed no later than October of each year If appointed, this Nominating Committee shall prepare a slate of nominations for the Planning Commission to consider at the next regularly scheduled meeting :8. i: o o In the event of the vacancy of the chair, the chairperson would be replaced by the vice chairperson, and the vice chairperson would be replaced by vote of the. members of the Planning Commission. c o c IV CHAIRPERSON A. The chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Planning Commission and may exercise all the powers usually incident to the office, retaining, however, to himself or herself as a member of the Planning Commission, the full right to have his or her own vote recorded in all deliberations of the Planning Commission. B The chairperson shall have full power to create committees of one or more members. Standing or temporary committees may be charged with such duties, examination, investigations and inquiries relative to one or more subjects of interest to the Planning Commission. No committee shall have the power to commit the Planning Commission to the endorsement of any project, plan or program without the approval of the Planning Commission. C The chairperson shall perform the duties laid out in the attached Conduct of Business regarding the following and other matters: committees of the whole, handling of meeting items and discussion, conflict of interest, suspension of meetings, timing for discussion of issues, clarification of issues and questions, etc. V CHAIRPERSON'S ABSENCE The vice chairperson shall, in the absence of the chairperson, perform all the duties incumbent upon the chairperson. The chairperson and vice chairperson, both being absent, the members present may elect from among themselves a temporary chairperson who shall have the full powers of the chairperson during the absence of the chairperson and the vice chairperson. VI SECRETARY The Planning Staff shall perform the usual and necessary secretarial functions. VII RECORD OF MEETING All Planning Commission meetings shall be recorded electronically and official minutes prepared Official minutes shall contain the date, time, place and nature of the meeting (regular or special), the names of the members present; all motions except those withdrawn and the names of their maker and seconder; an objective abstract of all business discussed, actions taken and the results of such actions. Special meetings will also be recorded electronically and minutes prepared. The official minutes of special meetings will normally consist of written notes. All Planning Commission minutes shall be signed by the chairperson of the Planning Commission. Minutes for committees, if taken, shall be signed by the chairperson of the committee. VIII. QUORUM A simple majority of the members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business The Planning Commission can conduct business whenever a quorum is present. No action of the Planning Commission, however, may be taken without the c c c concurrence of a majority of the current membership of the Commission. A public hearing may be held by the Planning Commission on any matters before the Planning Commission without a quorum, provided that the applicant and any interested party waive any objections and that, when action on the matter is taken, a quorum is present and those members that were not present for the public hearing state for the record prior to voting that they have reviewed the taped recording of the public hearing and any written document submitted for the record on the matter IX. VOTING Each Planning Commission member present shall vote for, against, or abstain from voting on all questions put to the Planning Commission. Unless a member of the Planning Commission states that he or she is not voting, his or her silence shall be recorded as voting with the majority Any member may demand a roll call vote any time before or after any question is put and before a vote is taken. The demand needs no second and the chairperson must ask for a roll call vote on demand The motion is not debatable and may be applied to any questions. X. ABSENCE OF MEMBERS If a member is absent for two (2) consecutive regular meetings without excuse, or for thirty-five percent (35%) of all meetings (including committee meetings) in any six (6) month period, the member's record shall be forwarded by staff to the Mayor for consideration XI CONFLICT OF INTEREST A conflict of interest shall be handled as described in the attached Conduct of Business (Item 6) XII AGENDA An agenda shall be prepared by the Planning Staff for each meeting No item on the agenda may be added, deleted or moved without the approval of a majority of the Planning Commission. Items of business shall include 1 2. 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9. Call to order Roll Call Acceptance of Agenda Minutes Old Business New Business Other Business Communications from City Council Adjournment o c o XIII. AMENDMENT These Rules of Procedure may be amended at any regular or called meeting of the Planning Commission by a majority vote of the entire membership if the proposed amendment is presented in writing at a preceding regular or called meeting o c c IIWl'f."I~~Wjt'.f "~?If~.ye;"t~~f ~};y.f.i1lflr'j.7 '-ill'l-"jYE/'1I{.J'~::J} IJ Il'Ju;iJJ raLfiWJt'll~ ~CI>W,\I&B~&~~' j' .. 2"1.. ..,..~,. " 'riJ" I] /~~ .,-':# t ..". S .f ';~) -..:;,-....;;::-. -,.~:: ':->i; Updating the Regional Transportation Plan Setting the Route Ahead Presentation on Draft Regional Transportation Plan Yelm City Council Meeting October 22, 7:30 p.m. To be held at: United Citizens Betterment Organization 624 Crystal Springs Road NW, Yelm We would like to invite you to attend a bnefing on the Draft Regional Transportation Plan to south Thurston County junsdictions. This presentation will include: . An overVIew of policies included in the plan . Transportation levels of service . Strategy areas . Proposed goals for reducing the drive-alone rate o Proposed incentives for usmg alternatives and disincentives for driving alone . Relationship of the Regional Transportation Plan to your local plans . Issues you identIfied in previous briefings . Adoption process and next steps This briefing will be presented by staff from Intercity Transit and the Thurston Regional Planning Council. It should take about 45 minutes, including 30 mmutes for the presentation and 15 minutes for questions and discussion. We hope that you will be able to join your city council and policy makers and planning commissioners from other local jurisdictions in this presentation and discussion. For further information, contact Ellane Chandler at InterCIty TransIt, 705-5847 h: \ lrp \ sysplan \ communic \ public\ fa1l97\presntc3.doc A joint process of the Thurston Regional Planning Council and the Intercity Transit Authority TRPC' 360-786-5480 IT 360-786-8585 (\ U o o City of YellD 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 206-458-3244 AGENDA CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 19974.00 P.M YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YElM AVE. W 1 Call to Order, Roll Call, Approval of Minutes - August 18, 1997, minutes enclosed 2 Public Communications (Not associated with measures or tOpiCS for which public heanngs have been held or for which are anticipated) 3 Public Hearing Ordinance 595 - temporary Interim amendment to Chapter 15 32 240(A) relating to flood prevention Staff report enclosed 4 Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Applicant. Ray Wilson Proposal Annexation of two parcels adjacent to the new alignment of Morris Road Staff report enclosed 5 Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Applicant: Amhed Hassan Proposal Annexation of approximately 35 acres located In the 5-Corners Area Staff report enclosed 6 Other - 7 Adjourn - Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. If you need special arrangements to attend or participate in thiS meeting, please contact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER, 1997,400 PM c c o NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO. 595 The Yelm City Planning Commission and Yelm City Council will hold public hearings to receive comments on Ordinance No 595, the Emergency Flood Plain Ordinance which adopted a temporary interim amendment to Chapter 15 32240(A) of the Yelm Municipal Code relating to flood damage prevention. This ordinance will be reviewed at the public hearings, based on a draft revised FEMA map, it will be determined then if the ordinance and its terms shall be extended The Planning Commission hearing will be held on Monday, September 15, 1997 at 4.00 pm The City Council hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 24, 1997, at 7.30 pm. The meetings are held in the Yelm City Hall Council Chambers at 105 Yelm Avenue West in Yelm Washington. All interested parties are invited to attend or send comments to Yelm Planning Commission and/or Yelm City Council, PO Box 479, Yelm WA 98597 Written comments must be received prior to the hearings to be considered. Additional information may be obtained by contacting Cathie Carlson, City Planner, at Yelm City Hall, (360) 458-8408 ATTESf Jft yJ~L Agnes B nnick, City Clerk DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published, Nisqually Valley News Thursday. September 4. 1997. Posted in public areas Wednesday. September 3. 1997. c o o City of Yel.. 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 206-458-3244 Date September 11, 1997 To Yelm Plannmg CommISSIOn From Catherme Carls~rUlty Planner Re Ordmance No 604, Intenm Emergency Flood Damage PreventIOn A. Public Hearing Objective. The Planmng CommIssIOn shall make a recommendatIOn to the CIty Councll regardmg the proposed Intenm Emergency Flood Damage PreventIOn Ordmance B. Background: In January 1997, the City Council passed a temporary mtenm amendment to Chapter 15 31 240(A) of the YMC, relatmg to flood damage preventIOn. The Ordmance allows the CIty to reqUlre FEMA standards for construction m flood hazard areas as Identified m the ordmance The staff IdentIfied flooded areas through photo graphs and SIte VISItS dunng the floodmg events m February and December 1996 The temporary ordmance expIred on July 7, 1997 Over the last year Northwest Hydrauhc Consultants have been workmg on a full flood plam dehneatlOn ofYelm Creek wlthm the City hmlts In September 1997, a draft map deplctmg the dehneatlOn of the flood plam was completed. The draft map mcorporates a slgmficant amount of land that IS not m the current FEMA map FEMA will receIve the complete study and dehneatlOn report from Northwest Hydrauhc Consultants by the end of September Once FEMA receIVes the complete package It wlll conduct an mternal reVIew and hold pubhc heanngs m early 1998 Final adoptIOn of a new floodplam map IS estimated to occur m the spnng of 1998 C. Issue The eXlstmg flood plam map IS extremely madequate and does not allow the CIty to reqUlre flood preventIOn measure for new constructIOn on eXlstmg lots that have expenenced floodmg over the last two years Untll the new floodplam map IS adopted by FEMA, It IS possible for new constructIon to occur wlthm the floodplam and wIthout the apphcatlOn of floodplam preventIOn regulatIons D. Recommendation Staff supports the approval of Ordmance 604, Intenm Emergency Flood Damage Prevention. c o o CITY OF YELM ORDINANCE NO. 604 AN ORDINANCE adopting a temporary interim amendment to Chapter 15 32.240(A) of the Yelm Municipal Code relating to flood damage prevention The Yelm City Council makes the following findings of fact: 1 In February 1996 and during the last week of December of 1996, Yelm Creek has received flood waters in excess of designated flood hazard areas (100 year floodplains, as mapped on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps "FIRM") resulting in the flooding of existing platted lots To avoid threat to lives or property from these excessive floods, the City and FEMA are conducting a re-evaluation of the designated 1 OO-year floodplains 2 The City desires to impose a temporary flood management standard in the interim to assure adequate warning and safe construction in flood prone areas 3 In order to preserve the City's ability to effectuate long-term planning decisions and to plan in a rational manner, it is necessary to prohibit construction in flood hazard areas without adequate flood protection, temporarily through adoption of this interim ordinance For the reasons set forth in these Findings, these circumstances constitute an emergency 4 Under WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirement of a threshold determination under SEPA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE YELM CITY COUNCIL as follows Section 1 Yelm Municipal Code Section 15 32.240(A) is amended to read as follows 15.32.240 Residential Construction A. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more above base flood elevation, or the highest known recorded flood elevation, whichever is greater, as shown for the areas depicted on the attached Draft Floodplain Map, (Exhibit A.) Section 2 This Ordinance shall expire and its terms be of no force and effect 210 days from its adoption herein -- April 23, 1998 Section 3 This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage by this City Council ADOPTED September 24, 1997 Kathryn M Wolf, Mayor ATTEST Agnes P Bennick, City Clerk PASSED, APPROVED, AND EFFECTIVE September 24, 1997 PUBLISHED Nisqually Valley News, October 2, 1997 c o + + + .... DRAFT + + + .....1It..~.. ...,........................ o + + ,.,. + + + + + + y + + + + DRAFT + , ~i.~:,. :j",f. + + ____IlIe-- .......KII~NPAIOlDliIIEUloJJ'. IAIKIW. W M::lJJUC'(1I'AIIWm A.T1IE' ~"'~~.:c.~ .. ........._ AlE gllll'lMClml. .AIOSClJ'IDlE"I1D:E1llUl.CDn:IIlSMD JII.AliKlK E[1JII. KAY IK7fret MI.>>. ~ 'Ill_ jM(UJ If fill c:HBID .".. ..... .... MI ~ CIUOES D.lYID.. H fI1D... CDiISJlU:llIIL -----~"....................,. '00-,...."__ ..------~... Bollndory --a.n...I e-IlWh _ ),tlI-.... Aood !~ @---@-,,",,,,,,,, IU/J 88/Pt DEGR088 AERIAL MAPP/NQ 7R 77H ..WNUC - .urrr ". ICJM1ANO,. ..... NGD --- NOl(/ Z1J -.. a. DoG>.- 0. DoG>.- northwest hydraulic consultants inc. 14300 ClIIrI&teMen Road TIIkwb. WA SlB1.. YELM CREEK FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY MAP ~_o _ 000 1200 1600 2l;o" 2' CONTOURS 11<>t. '" PII.t.~y: J>n 15. tPP7 WtQ)r~ M~p SEPTEMBER 1997 ~ N fiB lagend I EXHIBIT .J, I :-Ij ~ + + + + + + + o Jecl 20806 SHEET /< (\ G c c YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 18,1997 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Agenda Item! Motion No. The meeting was called to order at 4 00 pm by Joe Huddleston, Co-Chair Members present: Margaret Clapp, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent, Roberta Longmire, Ed Pitts. Guest(s) John Huddleston, Nancy Trent. Staff Cathie Carlson, Dana Spivey Members absent: Glenn Blando, E.J Curry, Tom Gorman. Approval of Minutes: 97-10 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY BOB ISOM TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 21,1997, WITH CORRECTIONS. MOTION CARRIED Public Communications. There were none Public HearinQ. PRD-978196YL. The public hearing was opened at 4'03 pm. The time, date, place and reason for the public hearing were announced No objections to participants or conflicts were stated A staff report was provided. Cathie Carlson stated the purpose of the public hearing is to determine if the proposed project complies with the City of Yelm Municipal Code The applicant, John Huddleston, has applied for PRD (Planned Residential Development) and Preliminary Plat approval to develop the site as 12 residential lots with 10 of the lots having zero lot line setbacks. The lots with zero lot line setbacks would be developed as townhouse units. A previous short plat approval for the site required the developer to provide five percent (5%) open space, storm water facilities in accordance with the DOE Manual, school mitigation fees, the extension of water and STEP sewer lines, and a traffic mitigation fee As provided in Chapter 1760 110 B, of the YMC, the standard setbacks and yard requirements between buildings may be waived in a PRD Buildings may have common walls and, therefore built to the property line as in townhouse construction Chapter 17 60 140.A of the YMC requires a PRD to provide 20% of the development in open space The applicant has proposed approximately 10% of the site to provide open space with both active and passive usage The passive area also serves as the storm water facility The remaining 10% would be provided in a fee-in-lieu of payment of $10,09500 Cathie stated that city staff recommend that Mill Park Place, PRD-978196YL, be approved based on the findings in Section D, and subject to the conditions in Section E of her staff report. Joe Huddleston asked for comments from the Proponent? John Huddleston gave brief history of the project. Joe asked if the Planning Commission had questions? Yelm Planning Commission August 18, 1997 Page 1 c o c Bob Isom asked what is to the North and South of the project? John Huddleston stated that Roberta Longmire's five acres is North, and there are other residents to the South Bob then inquired about YMC Chapter 17 60 which requires the 20% open space, he asked if the Planning Commission could legally allow for Mr Huddleston's request of 10% of the open space on site and 10% in the form of a "fee in lieu of" Cathie stated yes, there is language in the code that provides for the "fee in lieu of" Bob also inquired about culd-e-sac's, and he also asked John H about a 30 ft. easement North of Lot 12. John H. stated the easement is part of lot 12. Margaret Clapp asked if Lots 11 & 12 will share a driveway? John H. said yes, then explained that Lots 2&3,4&5,6&7,8&9, and 11&12 will have one townhouse/duplex unit and Lot 10 will have one single family house Roberta Longmire asked about YMC Chpt. 1760, it doesn't say anything about R-4 Cathie stated that density increases are not allowed in R-4 Cathie went on to say that there aren't any residential chapters with minimum lot sizes. The City only goes by gross densities Roberta then asked about the open space issue, still have same amount with new line? Cathie said yes Roberta then asked about the request for 20 ft setbacks instead of the 25 ft setback, does the backyard line abut other homes? John H. stated that a 6-ft. privacy fence has already been built. Joe Huddleston then asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience? Nancy Trent, adjacent property/home owner, asked John H to explain the 20 ft. Vs. 25 ft. setbacks to her once again. John explained that basically he just wants the flexibility for building of the garages etc. There were no more comments or questions The public hearing was closed at 4 45 pm 97-11 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY RAY KENT TO APPROVE AND FORWARD PRD-978196YL "MILL PARK PLACE" TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED Public Hearing: Flood Plain and Critical Areas Ordinance Amendments The public hearing was opened at 4 46 pm. The time, date, place and reason for the public hearing were announced No objections to participants or conflicts were stated A staff report was provided Cathie stated that city staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a motion recommending approval of the proposed Resolutions and amendments to the existing Critical Areas Resource Lands and Flood Damage Prevention Ordinances. Discussion followed. Roberta Longmire asked Cathie if this will be detrimental to the landowners/residents? Cathie said no, that part of the amendment included base maps. Today's base maps would not preclude any tap-ins to existing lots of record Yelm Planning Commission August 18, 1997 Page 2 c c c Joe Huddleston asked if there were any more questions/comments from the Planning Commission or the audience? There were none The public hearing was closed at 4 55 pm. 97 -12 MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY ROBERTA LONGMIRE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FLOOD PLAIN AND CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE. BOB lSOM VOTED AGAINST MOTION CARRIED Other: Cathie stated that Mayor Wolf has assigned a new "sign code committee" - consisting of Margaret Clapp, E.J Curry, Tom Gorman, Jerry Prock and herself Meeting adjourned at 4 57 pm Respectfully submitted, Tom Gorman, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission August 18, 1997 Page 3 VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET Please sign in and Indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list C to receive future agendas and minutes MEETING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE AUGUST 18, 1997 TIME. 4 00 PM LOCATION: YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Hearing(s). *PRD-978196YL, John Huddleston-Neigborhood Dev Group *FLOOD PLAIN AND CRITICAL AREAS ORD AMENDMENTS NAME & AnDRFSS ;JNJt~ 1&JJf /'5610 1(fJ11I INk! 9f ,iF I MAli ING liST? I SPEAKFR? v' c c (\ ~I i Citly of Ycelm '- o o 105 YelmAve,nue W~st PO Box479 Yelm, Washington 98,591 (360)' 4~8-3244 , , ! Date July 31, 199~ To Yelm Planning Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planne.r , ' Re Case No PRD~978196YL, Mill,Park PIClce j , A. ;Public Hearing Objective. 'The Planning Commissi9n must determlne,lf the, proposed Planned. Residential Devel9pment (PRO) and Prelimi'nary Plat is conl)istent with the City of Yelm Municipal Code After ,consid~~atlon' of .the facts and public testimony the Planning Comml~sion must make a recommendation of action to the'City Council ' i' , , -. > ." 1\ , B. Proposal The applicant has applied for PRO and Preliminary Plat approval to develop the site as 12 residential lots with 10 of the lots having zero (0) lot line setbacks The 16ts with zero(O) : lot line setbacks w041d be ,develQpedas townhouse units Developed as a PRD and Subdivision enablel) the owner to sell townhou,se units as individual residential units rath'~r them as townhouse buildings containiilg two residential units or:duplex's ! - c . . '~ i r G Backaround ,The ~pplicant received preljminary short plat approval from the City on August 26, 19!36 to develop the site as a seven lot residential development with ,a,maxim,um <;fen~ityof 12 units 'The appli<:ant planned to tonstructup toJive duplexes with the remaining lots as single family units The original approval required the developer to provide five percent (5%} open sp?ce, stormwater facilities in accordance .witn the DOE Manual, ~chool mitig~tion fees, the extension of water and STEP sewer line$, and a traffic mitigatIOn fee of $757 50 per new residential unit. D. Findinqs. 1 Proponent. NeighborhoodDeVelopment Group Jotm Hudqleston . 2 ~ Location East $ide ,of Mill ~oad just south 9f 104th Ave SE 227302'20700 , , Tax Parcel ~ !. > 3 " Public Notice Notice of the Public Hearing was publrshed in 'the Nisqually Valley I News on August 7, 1997, and posted in public areas on July 31., 1997 The notice was mailed to adjacent property owners and the applicant on July 3L 1997 . , 4 Existinq Land Use The parcel is 3 Ot acres,with one (1) single family :residentl~1 ! l;jnit." , ' ,j I I I , , , I 5. Adjaceht 'Land .Uses ResidentiaLand'vacantland J j' \" @ Recycled paper o o o Case No PRD,978196YL/Mill Park Place Page 2 July 31, 1997 6 Comprehensive Plan The site is' desi~nated low density residential' 7 ZoninQ Chapter 17 12, Low Density Residential District (R-4) which permits single family, duplex and townhouse residential, units PRD's are an allowed use in the R-4 zone and are regulated by Chapter 17 60, Planned Residential Development. 8 Setbacks. As provided in Chapter 17 60 110 B, the $tandard setbacks and' yard requirements between buildings may be waived in a PRO Buildings may have common walls and; therefore built to the property:line as in townhouse construction 9' Traffic Consistent with the Trip Generation Manual, . Institute of Transportation Engineers and City of Yelm Ordinance 580, Concurrency Ordinance, residential units generate 101 new pm peak trips daily As proposed the development would generate a total of 11 11 new pm peak trips,to the City Transportation System 10 Access. The site i~ aGcessed from Mill Road As an original conditional of approval fo'r the short plat the applicant was requiredtb construct a local access residential street. The civil plans for the street were approved by the City Public Works' Department and the improvement was constructed by the applicant. 11. Wastewater The project will be served with existing capacity at the Sewer Treatment Plant. As an original conditional of approval for the short plat the applicant was required to extend the existing 2" STEP sewer collection line to $erve :the site The civil plans were approved by the City Public Works Department and the improvement was constructed by the applicant. 11 Water Supplv The site is: currently in the water service area and will be served by the City of Yelm As an original ~onditiqnal of approval for the short plat the - applicant was required to extend the existing 8" water line and provide fire hydrants and appurtenances to the site The civil plans approved by the City Public Works Departmentand the improvement was constructed by the applicant. 12 DrainaQe/Stormwater A Final Drainage Report and Design was prepared by S Chamberlain and As~ociates, Inc. As an original conditional of approval for the short plat the applicflnt was required to design and construct stormwater' facilities , cqnsistent with DOE requirements The civil plans were approved by the City Public Works Department and the improvement was construGted by the applicant. - 13 Utilities The site is served by PugetSound Eoergy (electric and, gas) and Yelm. Telephone 14 Fire Protection Thurston County Fire District #2 15 Police Protection City-of Yelm 16 Environmental Review After review of the environmental checklist, a Mitigated Determinatioriof NonSignificance (MONS) was issued on J.uly 31, 1997 If the o o :0 Case No, PRD97819pYUMill Park Place Page 3 July 31,1997 applicant meets the applicable chapters of the Yelm Municipal Code and complies with the recommended conditions of approval the proposal is hot likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact. 17 Open Space, Chapter 1760 140.A r~quires- a PRO to provide 20% of the development in open space The applicant has proposed approximately 10% of the site to provide open space with both active and pa$sive usage The passive area also- serves as the stormwater facility The remaining 10% would be ,provided in a fee-jn-Iieu of payment. ' 18 Homeowners Association The openspace!stormwater facilities are proposed as private A homeowners agreement is neces?ary for their maintenance , " E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommehcjs that Mill Park Place, PRD-978196YL, be approved, based on the findings in I Section D, and subject to the conditions in Section E of this report. The applicant shall proVide an area of' approximately 13,111 square feet, identified as Tract, A and B, f0r on-site open space The applicant shall pay a fee of $1,0,09500 for the remaining required 13,111 square feet of open space The fee in lieu of open space is calcul.atedby multiplying the required square feet of open space (13,111) by 77ft The applicant shall mitigate traffic impacts to the transportation system Mitigation includes payment of the Transportation FacilityCharge (TFC) for 11 11 pm peak hour trips generated by the project. The total TFC is $8332.50 The TFC for each residentiall:lnit is $757 50 find payable at building permit issuance 3 The applicant shall submit a Homeowners Association Agreement for approval by the City The Agreement, at a minimum shall contain provisions for the homeowners joint ownership of Tract A and Band authorize the homeowners association to assess and collect fees for the maintenance arid repair,of open space and stormwater facility The Homeowners Agreement shall. be referenced on the face of the Final Plat Map and recorded with the County Rec;;ords Office 1 2 4 The applicant shall negotiate and enter into a Mitigation Agreement with the Yelm School District prior to final plat. School mitigation- fees are payable at time-of building permit issuance 5 The final plat shall clearly demonstrate the satisfactory completion of all, conditions of ' , approval stated herein, aod shall be prepared and filed iri compliance with the requirements of YMC 16 12 ' c.\wpwin\cathie\81' 96staf ' o o o I ! lO,~relmAvenue West PO box 479 , YelTtt, ~ashingt(Jn 98597 (360) 458-3244 . . City of Yelm AGENDA ciTY OF YElM PLANNING <;;OMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 18,1997 4.0Q PM, YElM CITY HALL ,COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YELM AVE. W. , 1 Call to Or;der~ Roll Call, Approval of Minutes - July 21, l~97, minutes elJclosed 2 Public -Communications (Not assoclated~with' measures or tOpICS for whi9h public hearrngshav~ been I held or for wtu9h Bre 8f}tlclpatecJ ) 3 Public Hearing. PRO-978196YL " Appj Icant. John Huddleston! 'Neighborhood Development Group Location East side of Mill Road just south of 1 04tl1 Ave' SE.' Proposal 'Planned 'Residential Development arid pre'llhlJnary Plat on. 3 01 acres The project consist of twe'lve (14) (esldentlallots With ten (1 O)6f thelot~ having .r " ~ '" zero (0) lot, line setbacks ' 4 ,Public Hearing. Flood Plain and Critical Areas, Ordinance Amendments Appll~ant City of Yelm ' ,. I . , Proposal. Amendments to inClude STEP sewer tapping restrictions In wetlands' " 'and flopdp1all!s Amendments are requirehlents of RDA grant/loan f,un<;iing , package for Sewer Treatment P1allt Upgrade Staff reportenclose<;:l 5 Other -, 6 Adjourn - " Enclosures are aV,ailable to non-Commission members upon request. If you; heed special.arrangements to attend or participate in thiS meeting, please contact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3244 NEXTHEGULAR ME~TING S,EPTEMBER 15,1997,4:00 PM , @ Recycled, paper ~____,...___...r___?<- ,-~~l j , ' , , ., , , I ,j City of YellD C 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 206-458-3244 Date September 10, 1997 To Yelm Planning Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planner Re Case No ANX-8200, YELM AVE E & BALD HILLS ROAD LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit I - Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings Exhibit II - Applicants Proposed Annexation Boundary Exhibit III - Proposed Annexation Boundary Option 1 o Backqround The City received a Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings from the applicant on August 15, 1997 City staff has meet with the applicant and his consultant and discussed the annexation boundary Findlnqs 1 Applicant Amhed Hassan 2 Location 5-Corners area (Yelm Avenue, Bald Hills Road and Morris Road) 3 Existinq Land Use Commercial, residential and vacant land 4 Zoninq Thurston County - Arterial Commercial and Rural Residential 5 Area Land Use Commercial, Residential and vacant. 6 Water City water is available for properties between Bald Hills and Yelm Avenue upon annexation Properties south of Bald Hills Road will not have water available until the City is granted additional water rights and the water service area is expanded 7 Sewer City S T E P sewer is not available at the present time The entire annexation area will be served following the upgrade of the Sewer Treatment Plant. Completion of the plant upgrade is expected to be complete in late 1998 8 Critical Areas Sensitive Aquifer o 9 Fire Protection Thurston County Fire District #2 c c c Case No ANX-978200YL Page 2 September 10, 1997 10 Police Protection City of Yelm APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND POLICIES Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Commercial and Low Density Residential Yelm MuniCipal Code Yelm Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 266, Annexation Procedures, Title 17, Chapter 17.27, Heavy Commercial (C2) and Chapter 17 12, Low Density Residential (R-4) A. PROPOSAL. The applicant is proposing annexation of the area. Upon annexation, the applicant is proposing a commercial development for the parcel located southeast of the Yelm Avenue and Bald Hills Road intersection No immediate development on the remaining annexation area is proposed at the time B. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission upon review of the staff report shall make a recommendation to the City Council The Planning Commission can recommend approval of the Notice of Intent to Annex as proposed by the applicant, approval of the Notice of Intent to Annex of Option 1, approval of the Notice of Intent to Annex with a revised boundary or denial of the annexation request. C STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends the area as depicted on Option 1 for annexation The City has made substantial improvements to the transportation system in the area Also, City water lines have been extended along Bald Hills Road to the most easterly boundary of the annexation area and along Yelm Avenue to Grove Road Exhibit I Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings i;~ c \ \ ...A ( ,i i!JLJ I AUG 1 5 Ig97 , LJ ~~~ ~ , NOTICE OF INTENT TO CCMv1ENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: The City Council of the City of Yelm The undersigned are owners of not less than ten percent in value, according to the assessed valuation, of the property as described below We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Yelm that it is the desire of the undersigned property owners of that area to commence annexation proceedings: c The proper ty ref er red to is descr i bed on Exh i bit hereto and as shown by the attached map A": at tached I~ is requested that the City Council of the City of Yelm set a date not later than sixty days after receipt of this request for a meeting with the petitioners to determine: 1 Whether the City Council will permit a p~tition regarding this annexation to be circulated; 2 Whether the City Council will require designation of zoning upon annexation; /) whe~her \...0..& C j't.". ~:OLiiiCi; wi 1 ~ require the assumpt.ion of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of this Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with the other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention c forms\anx (5/92) Page of 2- WARN:I:NG C EVERY PERSON WHO SIGNS THIS PETITION WITH ANY OTHER THAN HIS TRUE I NAME, OR WHO KNOWINGLY SIGNS MORE THAN ONE OF THESE PETITIONS, i OR S;tGNS A PETITION SEEKING AN ELECTION WHEN HE IS NOT A LEGAL VOTER, OR SIGNS A PETITION WHEN HE IS OTHERWISE NOT QUALIFIED TO SIGN, : OR WHO MAKES HEREIN ANY FALSE STATEMENT, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR. cc lG C lA Assessor's Acrage Parcel No. , I I Assessor's Value $108,800 $ 8,500 $ 12,800 e Hassan 1190u Pacific Avenue Tacoma, WA 98444 IB ID 12 IF ~4. 42 .10 .12 64303200701 64::>0320C702 64303200703 Exhibit /I Applicants Proposed Annexation Boundary ;'040' , o o (j)-010J ~004 ~801 8 I McKENNA I er0101 34 lQ}-040J Proposed 501 Annexation Area (Applicants option) "- ~."V . 1 ~9 I &04 tUb08 ~ ~ @-05 @-OJ ~-OJOI &04 109 1 LN ~-0802 ~ ~-06 ~ I I I I I J'-06 o o ~-080J ~-07 o 3 03 @-0201 ~-Ol @-0101 Q) Jl-06 / R @-02 ~ Exhibit III Proposed Anf)exation Boundary Option 1 o ~OO4 ~01 8 I I I I McKENNA I 0-0103 o iGl-0101 34 9, ~ Proposed Annexation Area (Option 1) I ~9 I &04 -. . lUoo8 o &03 &0301 &().4 ~-06 , , i ~ 3'-06 109 T LH ~-0802 ~ o ~-Q803 o ~-07 t9-020 1 <<9-01 @-0101 ~ 31-06 ~ @-02 I- I City of YellD C 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 206-458-3244 Date September 11, 1997 To Yelm Planning Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planner Re Case No ANX-8201, Morris Road LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit I - Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings Exhibit II - Proposed Annexation Boundary Backqround The City received a Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings from the applicant on August 29, 1997 City staff has meet with the property owners regarding the realignment of Morns Road and the annexation of their parcels In an agreement between the City and the Property owners, the City has agreed to support the annexation of these parcels with a future rezone to Heavy Commercial (C-2) o Findinqs 1 Applicant Raymond Wilson 2 Location South of the Morris Road/Bald Hills Intersection 3 Existinq Land Use Commercial and vacant land 4 Zoninq Thurston County - Rural Residential 5 Area Land Use Commercial, Residential and vacant. 6 Water City water IS available upon annexation Properties south of Bald Hills Road will not have water available until the City is granted additional water rights and the water service area is expanded 7 Sewer City S T E P sewer is not available at the present time The entire annexation area Will be served following the upgrade of the Sewer Treatment Plant. Completion of the plant upgrade IS expected to be complete in late 1998 8 Critical Areas Sensitive Aquifer o 9 Fire Protection Thurston County Fire District #2 , I I I L- I c o c Case No ANX-978201YL Page 2 September 11, 1997 10 Police Protection City of Yelm APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND POLICIES Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Low Density Residential Yelm Municipal Code Yelm Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 266, Annexation Procedures and Title 17, Chapter 17 12, Low Density Residential (R-4) A. PROPOSAL. The applicant is proposing annexation of the area Upon annexation, the City will be proposing a rezone of the site from low density residential to heavy commercial B. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission upon review of the staff report shall make a recommendation to the City Council The Planning Commission can recommend approval of the Notice of Intent to Annex as proposed or denial of the annexation request. C STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation o o c Exhibit I Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings NOTICE OF INTENT TO CCMv1ENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO: The City Council of the City of Yelm The undersigned are owners of not less than ten percent in value, according to the assessed valuation, of the property as described below We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Yelm that it is the desire of the undersigned property owners of that area to commence annexation proceedings: The property referred to is described on Exhibit "A": attached hereto and as shown by the attached map It is requested that the City Council of the City of Yelm set a date not later than sixty days after receipt of this request for a meeting with the petitioners to determine: 1 Whether the City Council will permit a petition regarding this annexation to be circulated, 2 Whether the City Council will require designation of zoning upon annexation; 3 Whether the City Counci 1 wi 11 require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the ar~a to be annexed This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of this Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with the other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention forms\anx (5/92) Page L of 2-. WARN:I:NG o EVERY PERSON WHO SIGNS THIS PETITION WITH ANY OTHER THAN HIS TRUE NAME, OR WHO KNOWINGLY SIGNS MORE THAN ONE OF THESE PETITIONS, OR I SIGNS A PETITION SEEKING AN ELECTION WHEN HE IS NOT A LEGAL VO~ER, OR SIGNS A PETITION WHEN HE IS OTHERWISE NOT QUALIFIED TO SIGN J OR WHO MAKES HEREIN ANY FALSE STATEMENT, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR. Prooertv Owner Assessor's Acrage Parcel No. Assessor's Value IA I q~ to1- 3 o~ ?:>OOZ_t:D ~ 2 ~I 8ro cP. If. ~ ;n~tL u.) I /5611 /6130 IY/o(ftJ /Let S-1Z- 4 e..hn f Wlt- Ci 90 7 IE o Ie ID 1.:: IF IG c Exhibit" Proposed Annexation Boundary v o (j)-0103 tl3r0101 34 McKENNA 121004 i2POBO 1 B &04 0009 Q30050 I @loB !S005 "0401 , ~ t(!)-0403 ~ iBl ~-05 ~-04 @-02 ~-030' @-O' @-05 @-02 6?0 0 0 31-06 ~ @-OB ~~ ~<( -0603 0 @-0602 @-060 @-0802 @-04 ~ ~-06 109 T LN (1) @-0803 @-07 0 VI: T11 AVE---- J OJ @-0201 ~-01 @-0101 CD .31-06 ~ @02 II 10-04 ~ '.~~-C--~----''''''''--'-''-'_~ ~_ _ c; Cilty (f}f J/elm 105 YelmAvenue West p,O Box 479 Yebn, Washingfon 98597 ($60) 458-3244 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' YELM PLANNING COMMISSION !' I DATE PLACE PURPOSE ^ Monday, August 18, 1997, at 4 OOp IJl Council Cl1ambers, City Hall, 105 YelmAve. West, Yelm"WA Public Hearing 9n Proposed Planned Resi~ential Development an. d . , Preliminary Plat. ': I ;. APPLICANT Neighborhood Development Group! John Huddleston' - r' ~ , . ,f,. 1 Project Location' East sid~ of Mill Road. just south of 104th Ave SE. Tax Parcel 227~02~0700L ~ 1.,- ~ Project Des~r1ptioh Planned Residential Developnient'and Preliminary Plat to develop 3 01 ' acre? . Thedeyelopment cQrisist of twelve (12) reside~tiallots<with t,en (10) of the 16ts hCivihg tero(O) lot line ,setbacks , , ,\' , o T~stimony may be' given at the ~earing 'or,through any writt~n'comments,o!1 the proposals rece,ived by the close of the public hearing on August 18, 1997 Such ~ritten cQmm~nts ' may be submitted to th~ City of Yelm at the ~ddresse~ ,shown above. . The application and' ~my related documents are available for public review cjurirignormal bUSiness hours at the City of Yelm, 105 Yelm Avenue W , Yelm,. WA. F.or additional information, please cO[1tact Cathie Carlson at, 458..:8408 , , The Yelm City Co'~ncil will receive th~ Planning Commission's rec6m~endation regarding the, project ~t the CityCoLincil me~ting on August 27 1997 The Council will 'take fiction ,on the, proposal 'at the August 27,'19Q7 meeting I , , The City of Yelmpr6vides reason~ble accommodations to person with disabilities Jf you ne,ed special accommoda'ti9.ns tQ attend orparticipate,'qall the City Clerk, Agnes Bennick, at (360) 458, ~404 at least 72. hours bef<2re the me~ting " ATtEST d. City of Y~lm , ..,[,.,. .., j) u ' c~ 7/ 'O~'v:#L{;~l- , . .~. ~Lq Ag~es Bennick, City Clerk' , .> o DONOT pLiBLlSHBELOWTHIS LINE I . . Puplished In the Nisqu,ally Valley News August 7, 1997 Posted in Public Areas': August 1, 1997 Mailed to Adjacent Prqperty Owners July 31, 1997 ~. ~ecjcled paper' c YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 21,1997 YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1-~\-4' \I\~v-t-M ---M CUpD~c)Y:~d w~t v~ (U)tlid G(),~fiOVlej k-M . ?:;J I?j I tel The meeting was called to order at 4 00 P m by Tom Gorman Members present: Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston, Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, E J Curry, Bob Isom, Ray Kent and Roberta Longmire Guest(s) Amos Lawton, City Council Liaison, Ernestine Gray, Mike Edwards, John Huddleston, JCH and Dan Fisher, NVN Staff. Cathie Carlson, Shelly Badger and Lynn Haigh Members absent: Ed Pitts Approval of Minutes. 97-7 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY GLENN BLANDO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 19,1997 CARRIED WITH CORRECTIONS AS NOTED. TOM GORMAN AND E.J CURRY ABSTAINED Public Communications. There were none c Public Hearing. VAR-978194YL - Birkland - Reduce rear yard setback from 20' to 8'. The public hearing was opened at 4 02 p m The time, date, place and reason for the public heanng were announced No objections to participants or conflicts were stated A staff report was provided Roberta asked If the awmng would be built towards the open space Yes Bob stated that the zoning and building codes conflicted Cathie commented that the more restnctlve code applies Shelly stated that the accessory use code may need to be amended Tom asked If there would be a solid base for the awning No Ray questioned if further enclosure could be done Cathie stated that the applicant would have to come back to planning commission to request. Public heanng was closed at 4 12 P m 97-8 MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY E.J. CURRY TO APPROVE VAR- 978194YL. CARRIED Public Hearing: SPR-8145 - Edwards - 54.000 sf Commercial Complex. The public hearing was opened at 4 14 pm The time, date, place and reason for the public hearing were announced No objections to participants or conflicts were stated A staff report was provided c Cathie stated that the original submittal was In 1995 and that the applicant worked on the Imtlal comments at that time and made corrections in accordance with the guidelines that were in place This plan was also reviewed prior to the adoption of the new zoning codes c c Margaret asked why the city would care if traffic cuts through the parking lot. Cathie stated for safety reasons, the city has asked the applicant to modify their parking facilities Shelly commented that complaints are often lodged pertaining to existing commercial complexes without structured parking Ernestine Gray, adjacent property owner, requested a barrier fence be bUilt between her property and the proposed complex. Mike Edwards confirmed and committed to Ms Gray that a minimum 6' solid fence would be built to maintain her privacy Cathie stated that a fence over 6' would need to be engineered due to the span John Huddleston asked why the bus stop had to be bUilt at a temporary site and moved later Cathie stated that there were no sidewalks to the new proposed site, therefore, a temporary shelter on the site would provide the safety for pedestrians using the faCIlities and would keep them off the main highway IT proVides the shelter with the developer to proVide the pad to be Incorporated Into the right turn lane John Huddleston commented on the construction of Killion Rd and if latecomer fees would be due to the developers for the initial portion of Killion installed Shelly stated that there may be no fees collectable if the portion constructed allows access to the project. Tom asked about frontage improvements Cathie stated that the guidelines require Infrastructure improvements, roads, utility lines, property owners are responsible for those Improvements along their entire frontage Roberta questioned if this pertained to the Hwy 510 or interior along Killion Rd extension Cathie commented that It would be required along both Bob inqUired about water availability and sewer capacity Cathie stated that both were available Public hearing was closed at 5 10 P m 97-9 MOTION BY E.J. CURRY, SECONDED BY RAY KENT TO APPROVE SPR-8145 ROBERTA LONGMIRE VOTED AGAINST MOTION CARRIED c Other: Schedule August meeting Adjourned at 5 25 P m Respectfully submitted, ~ 41-1.;'%1 Lyn~h for Da;IJS~lvey Tom Gormann /J- A A ~/~tfY'0h ~J<J w~ ~./~/17 r ~ Date c 97-7 c 97-8 o YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 21, 1997 YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p. . by Tom Gorman. Members present: Tom Gorman, Joe uddleston, Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, E J Curry, Bob ~ om, Ray Kent and Roberta Longmire Guest(s) Amos Lawton~City Council Liaison, Ernestine Gray, Mike Edwards, John Huddles~on, JCH and Dan Fisher, NVN Staff Cathie Carlson, S/hellY/Badger and Lynn Haigh Members absent: Ed pitt A SECONDED BY GLENN BLANDO TO APPROVE THE 19, 1997. CARRIED WITH CORRECTIONS AS NOTED. TOM .J. CURRY ABSTAINED. MOTION BY MARGA MINUTES OF GORMAN AND Public There were none Public Hearinq: VAR-978194YL - Birkland - Reduce rear yard setback from 20' to 8'. / The public hearing was opened at 4 02 P m The time, date, place and reason for the public hearing were announced. No objections to participants or conflicts were stated A staff report was provided Roberta asked if the awning would be built towards the open space Yes Bob stated that the zoning and building codes conflicted Cathie commented that the more restrictive code applies Shelly stated that the accessory use code may need to be amended Tom asked if there would be a solid base for the awning No. Ray questioned if further enclosure could be done Cathie stated that the applicant would have to come back to planning commission to request Public hearing was closed at 4 12 P m MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY E.J. CURRY TO APPROVE VAR- 978194YL. CARRIED. Public Hearinq: SPR-8145 - Edwards - 54,000 sf Commercial Complex. The public hearing was opened at 4 14 P m The time, date, place and reason for the public hearing were announced No objections to participants or conflicts were stated A staff report was provided Cathie stated that the original submittal was in 1995 and that the applicant worked on the initial comments at that time and made o c 97-9 o corrections in accordance with the guidelines that were in place. This plan was also reviewed prior to the adoption of the new zoning codes Marqaret asked why the city would care if traffic cuts through the parking lot Cathie stated for safety reasons, the city has asked the applicant to modify their parking facilities Shelly commented that complaints are often lodged pertaining to existing commercial complexes without structured parking Ernestine Gray, adjacent property owner, requested a barrier be built between her property and the proposed complex. Edwards confirmed and committed to Ms Gray that a 6' solid would be built to maintain her privacy. Cathie stated that a over 6' would need to engineered due to the span fence Mike fence fence John Huddleston asked why the bus stop had to be built at a temporary site and moved later Cathie stated that there were no sidewalks to the new proposed site, therefore, a temporary shelter on the site would provide the safety for pedestrians using the facilities and would keep them off the main highway IT provides the shelter with the developer to provide the pad to be incorporated into the right turn lane John Huddleston commented on the construction of Killion Rd and if latecomer fees would be due to the developers for the initial portion of Killion installed Shelly stated that there may be no fees collectable if the portion constructed allows access to the project Tom asked about frontage improvements Cathie stated that the guidelines require infrastructure improvements, roads, utility lines, property owners are responsible for those improvements along their entire frontage Roberta questioned if this pertained to the Hwy 510 or interior along Killion Rd extension Cathie commented that it would be required along both Bob inquired about water availability and sewer capacity stated that both were available Cathie Public hearing was closed at 5 10 P m MOTION BY E.J. CURRY, SECONDED BY RAY KENT TO APPROVE SPR-8145. CARRIED. Other: Schedule August meeting Adjourned at 5 25 P m Respectfully submitted, Tom Gormann Date c c o VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET , I I I I Please sign in and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list td receive future agendas and minutes. I MEETING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE July 21,1997 TIME 400 PM LOCATION CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YELM AVENUE WEST, YELM, WA 98597 Public Hearing(s) 1 VAR-978194YL, Applicant Alf Birkland 2 SPR-8145, Applicant Mike Edwards NAME ADDRESS SPEAK I MAILING I I I I /od7 / ~ ---- -~- ~ - -- -- --- -~ -- -- ---- -- -/ ~ -L--..~ -_ 1 I o 0" o " Ci1i:fl (fj)f YeffEm1) 105 .yerm Avenue West' , PO Box 179. Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458..3244 ' "S:f~IC.,~ WASHINGTDN Date July 16, 1997 , , To.' Y~lm planning C<;:>mmission' From Cathie' Carlson, City Pianner '! ~ f .' Re Case No VAR~978194YL, Setback R~duction : A. Public Hearinq Obiective. T.he Planning Commis~ibn .!TIust determine iftheproposed var.iance.is consistent with the City of Yelm Zoning Code, Title 1.7 ~ B Proposal The qpplic~nt, Alf Birkland" is requesting a varianc~ to reduqe the rear yard setback ' from 20' to. 8'. The variance is requested sO that the applicant build an~wni~g over the existing patio \ C Backqround The City regeiv~d ar applicatioQ for a Variance to reduce the rear yard' setback from'20' to 8' The parc~1 is zoned'High Density Residential-(R-1 0) ,and i~ developed as a single family' residence The zoning cOde, Chapter 17 96,authorizes,staff to grant administrative approval for yard setback reductiohsl..lp to 15% Hed\;;lctions in excess of ,15% are processed through the Planping Commission and the Cjty Council D Findinqs. , \ \ ,0 1 Proponent. Aif Birkland, 2 L?cation 16240 Prairte Hts St. SE 3 Public Notice Notice of the Public Hearing was published ih the Ni!5qually Valley News on ~uly 10, 1997, arid po?tea in pubiic areas on ~uly 8, 1997 The notice was ni~i1ed to adjac~nfprop~r:ty owners and the applicant on July 8,1997 / 4 ExistinqLand Use Residential ., 5 ZOhinq High Density Residential District (R-1 q);, Yelm Muni.cipal Code; Titl,e 17, Chapter. 17"18 \ ., 6 I Setbacks RearY9rd 20' exceptJor acces~ory uses at 5' 7 'Area Land Use North - Op~n Space Tract forPri3irieHeights -. South -Residential t- East - Residential West -ReSidentiaL I " @ , , ), Recycled paper \ , c c c 1-- Case No VAR-978194YL Page 2 July 16, 1997 8 Critical Areas Sensitive Aquifer 9 Fire Protection Thurston County Fire District #2 10 Police Protection City of Yelm APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND POLICIES Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is High Density Residential Yelm Municipal Code Yelm Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter 17 18, High Density Residential Distnct (R-10), and Chapter 17 96, Amendments, Rezones and Vanances STAFF FINDINGS The construction of an awning within the setback area would be allowed, up to 5' from the property line, if it was a stand along structure However, because the applicant plans to attach the awning to the residence, it becomes a part of the residence and the 20' setback applies The Intent of setbacks, in excessive of the Uniform Building Code, are to provide visual separation between the main structure(s) on a lot and the adjacent properties The construction of the awning in the setback area does not compromise the intent of a setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City of Yelm Planning Department recommends approval of the variance as requested by the applicant. Submitted by, ~nGf- City Planner Date q~ I~i /qq7 n - City of Yelm c c 10) Yelm it venue West j' 0 Box./79 Yelm Washing/oil <)85(;7 (360) ./58-3244 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CVAR-978194YL)Vanance to reduce rear yard setback The City of Yelm Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on a Variance NAR-978194YL} to reduce the rearyarcf setback from 20 feet down to 8 feet. The property is located in the Low Density Residential District, at 16240 Prairie Hts~ St. SE The pub[jc~hearing will be held on Monday, July 21,1997, at 4.00 pm in Yelm City Hall Council Chambers, located ~t 105 Yelm Ave W., Yelm, WA. All interested parties are invited to attend. Written.comments must be received prior to the hearing to be con~idered by the Planning Commission, anc;l should be directed to the Yelm Planning Commission, PO.sox 479, Yelm, WA 98597, or'delivered to City Hall. The Yelm City Council will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the above. mentioned VarianceNAR-978194YL} The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, JUly 23,1997, at 7.30 pm in Yelm City Hall Council Chambers, located at 105 Yelm Ave W, Yelm WA. All interested parties are invited to attend. Written comments must be received prior to the hearing to be considered by the City Council, and should be directed to the Yelm City Council, PO Box 479, Yelm WA 98597, or delivered to City Hall. Additional infonnation may be obtained by contacting Cathie Carlson, City Planner, at Yelm City Hall, (360) 4q8-8408 ATllOST fp. jJ~J/~ Agnes Bennick, City Clerk DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published, Nisqually Valley News Thursday. Julv 10. 1997. Mailed to adjacent property owners Julv 9.1997. Posted in public areas Julv9. 1997 * R~c,'Ckd !H1{kr ~ I : ~~ \ , ~~ \ <..A 0\ ~ i ~~ \~ 0- 't- J\ ~ ~ ~ -\ \P ~-.\ '\ \ \ \ \ ,. ,_.1-- -~,,;Rt. y Ie.. Fr -?Wi!.~'~ _---------}t \ "---. ...-'. \ \ .... ._n -.---' (' '\ .---.- "- ) 7~ ,( I}~ f ~ \ \J___~.~ \ ~ \ i 1 \ 1 ~ ~.-1.---- .----" ~~ ---- \ \ ; . i \. I I , (----5~ \ ...L:;} l L-- \ \ -r \ s.-';-- - \ r ~ \ ..... i ~ \ 't-'f. \ ~ ., -. ~\ . ~i i tt\ '., ~ - <.. ~ -tr o W3 Lu """'" " ~\ ~ ~ C1\ V\ '\ 1. ------... -- r; ~ A~fJ \(~ Nd (lJ f,' - \ \ \ \ , \ i \ \ \ \ ~\ \ \ \ \- ~ U ."" \ \ ('\ '-) \ \ \ \ i i o o o ip5 Yelm Ay~nue West POBox 479 Yelm, Wa.shiflgton 98597 (J60) 4;58-3244 Cit!jY(/)f J!(f!!lfJ1J1J, ~ r , ' Date, July 16, 1'997 -^ ,,< To ,Yelm Plan~ihg Commission From Cathie Carlson, City Planner , ' He Case No SPR-8145, Yelm Retail Center South A. Public Hearing Obiective. The Planriing Cqmmission mustdeterm,ine If the prQposed 'binding site plan Is'consistent with the City of Yelr:n Land Use and Subdivision Ordinance B. Proposal. The applicant,_ Mike Edwards, has gpplied for'binding site plan approval for a 54,000 square f09t,commercial complex, Thecommerclat compl~x consist of eight (8)'commercial lots with buildings ranging from 4,750 to 12,750 square feet. ' c Findings <. Proponent. Mike Edwards 2 . Location Yelm Avellue West, west and south of 'KilliO'n ,Road Tax Parcels 21,72'4130600 and 21'724130500 'j' 3 : , '/ , Public Notice. Notice of the Publi<:; Hearing was published ,in the Nisqually Valley News on jLily :10,1997, and posted In public areas 'on July 8, 1997 The notice was " mailed to adjacent property owners and the applicant on July 8, 1997 ExistinQ Land Use The parcel is 6 4 a~res with three (3) single family residential units, '<- , 4 5 Adiaceht Land Uses North vacant 'Iahd" residential and commercial S,outh vacant land East. vpcarit, land and commercial West residential ) 6 Comprehensive Plan The site is designated' cqmmercial ., , 7, , ZoninQ 'Chapter 17 26', Comnier~lal Z~rie '(C-1) Traffic A Traffic fmpact AnalysIs (TIA) was prepared' by S Cha_mberlaln and Assoc,iates,lnc, The full bUlld-'out of the 'project will ,generate 135riew PM Peak Tnps to the yelm transportation~ system The traffic impact to the 5-Corners ir)tersectlofl will 'be 42 PM P.eak Trips The applicant is required to mitigate the , ' 8.. @ Recyr:/id paper ,. , c Case No SPR-8145/Yelm Retail South Page 2 July16,1997 project impacts to 5-Comers at $300 00 per PM Peak Trip The applicant's financial ! responsibility for 5-Corners impacts is 42 trips at $300 00 = $12,600 00 Mitigation fees are payable at issuance of building permits The Yelm Retail development will contribute to the future signalization of Yelm Avenue and Killion Road The contribution will be based on the developments share of traffic at the time the signalization occurs The developer shall sign a waiver of protest for future contributions towards the signal improvement at the Killion Road/Yelm Avenue intersection The TIA identified the following improvements be constructed by the applicant. a An eastbound right-turn lane on Yelm Avenue at the westernmost site driveway b An eastbound right-turn pocket at the new intersection of Killion Road Extension/Yelm Avenue c A two-way center left-turn lane on Yelm Avenue from the west property line extending approximately 200' east of the existing Killion Road intersection c The applicant shall construct a bus pull-out, shelter and pad located between the site drive on Yelm Avenue and Killion Road extension The location of the bus pull-out is temporary and will be re-Iocated to the east of the re-aligned intersection of Killion Rd/Yelm Avenue The relocated bus pull out will occur as commercial property to the east of the new intersection develops The applicant shall be responsible for road improvements along the property frontage of Yelm Avenue West including the necessary right-of-way dedication for improvements The improvements shall be from centerline of Yelm Avenue West and consistent with current development guidelines The applicant shall be responsible for road construction of Killion Road Extension The design of Killion Road Extension shall be either Option 2 or 4 (attached) as provided by the City and shall be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the adjacent property owner, John Huddleston 9 Wastewater The project will be served with existing capacity at the Sewer Treatment Plant. 10 Water Supply The site is currently in the water service area and will be served by the City of Yelm 11 Drainaqe/Stormwater A Preliminary Drainage Report was prepared by S Chamberlain and Associates, Inc. The Final Stormwater Design shall be in compliance with City of Yelm Development Standards and approved by the City of Yelm Public Works Department. c c c o Case No SPR-8145/Yelm Retail South Page 3 July 16, 1997 12 Utilities The site is served by Puget Power, Yelm Telephone and Washington Natural Gas 13 Fire Protection Thurston County Fire District #2 14 Police Protection City of Yelm 15 Environmental Review A Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance (MONS) was issued on June 5, 1997 Traffic mitigation was identified and included those conditions as specified in above (5) Traffic. 16 Businessowners Association/Representative As identified in the Preliminary Stormwater report a business owners association or a designated representative shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of all on-site drainage facilities D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Yelm Retail Center South, SPR-8145, be approved, based on the findings in Section C, and subject to the conditions in Section 0 of this report. 1 The applicant shall contribute financially to the Five-Corners intersection improvement and/or the Y-2 Alternate Route as specified in the 1992 Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan Contribution is based on the number of automobile trips generated by this site during the PM peak hour The commercial complex, at build-out, will generate 42 new p m peak hour trips to the Five-Corners intersection Lot 1, to be developed as a 4,950 sf specialty retail will contribute $1137 50 Lot 2, to be developed as a 4,950 sf specialty retail will contribute $113750 Lot 3, to be developed as a 4,750 sf specialty retail will contribute $1092 50 Lot 4, to be developed as a 12,750 sf specialty retail will contribute $2,932 50 Lot 5, to be developed as a 12,750 sf specialty retail will contribute $2,932 50 Lot 6, to be developed as a 4,750 sf specialty retail will contribute $1092 50 Lot 7, to be developed as a 4,950 sf specialty retail will contribute $1137 50 Lot 8, to be developed as a 4,950 sf specialty retail will contribute $1137 50 Total financial contribution for the entire site will be 42 trips at $30000 per trip = $12,600 00 The mitigation fee is due and payable prior to the Issuance of building permit for each lot. 2 The Yelm Retail development will contribute to the future signalization of Yelm Avenue and Killion Road The contribution will be based on the developments share of traffic at the time the signalization occurs The developer shall sign a waiver of protest for future contributions towards the signal improvement at the Killion Road/Yelm Avenue intersection 3 The TIA identified the following improvements be constructed by the applicant. a An eastbound right-turn lane on Yelm Avenue at the westernmost site driveway b An eastbound right-turn pocket at the new intersection of Killion Road Extension/Yelm Avenue c. A two-way center left-turn lane on Yelm Avenue from the west property line extending c c c Case No SPR-8145/Yelm Retail South Page 4 July 16, 1997 approximately 200' east of the existing Killion Road intersection 4 The applicant shall construct a bus pull-out, shelter and pad located between the site drive on Yelm Avenue and Killion Road extension The location of the bus pull-out is temporary and will be re-Iocated to the east of the re-aligned intersection of Killion Rd/Yelm Avenue The relocated bus pull out will occur as commercial property to the east of the new intersection develops 5 The applicant shall be responsible for frontage improvements along the property frontage of Yelm Avenue West including the necessary right-of-way dedication for improvements The improvements shall be from centerline of Yelm Avenue West and consistent with current development guidelines 6 The applicant shall be responsible for frontage improvements and necessary dedication of right-of-way for Killion Road Extension along the property frontage The design of Killion Road Extension shall be provided by the City (options attached) and shall be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the adjacent property owner, John Huddleston 7 Extension and connection to the current water line located at Yelm Avenue West and on the southeastern corner of the site is the responsibility of the applicant and will be constructed per standards in the Water Comprehensive Plan and City of Yelm Development Guidelines The applicant shall submitted final utility plans for approval by the City Public Works Department. 8 All onsite wells shall be abandoned in compliance with the Department of Ecology standards The applicant shall submit a completed Water Rights Agreement with the civil engineering drawings 9 Connection to the current sewer line on Yelm Avenue is the responsibility of the applicant and will be constructed per standards in the Sewer Comprehensive Plan and City of Yelm Development Guidelines The applicant shall submitted final utility plans for approval by the City Public Works Department. 10 The applicant shall submit a final stormwater plan for approval by the City Public Works Department. Stormwater facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Thurston County Stormwater Manual and shall include all wells within 200 feet of the site Best Management Practices are required during construction 11 The applicant shall submit a grading plan for approval by the City Public Works Department. 12 The applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan to the City Planning Department for approval An element of the landscape plan shall include a solid wood fence along the western property line 13 The on-site septic systems shall be abandoned in compliance with Thurston County Environmental Health Department. 14 The parkmg plan shall be modified to prevent cut-through traffic and provide designated pedestrian walkways linking the parking areas and the sidewalks in the public right-of-way c c c Case No SPR-8145/Yelm Retail South Page 5 July 16, 1997 to all buildings 15 All building setbacks shall be from the new right-of-way established after required dedication for frontage improvements 16 The applicant shall submit a structural and aesthetic plan for the proposed retaining wall on the southern end of the site 17 No lots shall be sold or transferred unless the binding site plan and a record of survey map is approved by the City and filed for record in the county auditor's office 18 The applicant shall submit a Businessowners Agreement for approval by the City The Agreement, at a minimum shall contain provisions for the businessowners joint ownership of the on-site stormwater facilities and authorize the association to assess and collect fees for the maintenance and repair of the stormwater facility The Businessowners Agreement shall be recorded in the county auditor's office and referenced on the face of the survey and the binding site plan 19 The applicant shall provide fire hydrant's on-site Construction Drawings shall be in compliance with City of Yelm Development Standards and approved by the City of Yelm Public Works Department. . I 0 \ I, :r ~ " G) ~ :r ~c:::JfQ:""- :iE NOT TO SCoIrlL.[ l> -< U1 - 0 "" M r ~ l> M 2 C fT1 '-' o 0, .. WfJ"Of. t -51l.a .. ! ij ... or ... II .. ! ij .. ~ ~ or . p .~ I JIt . II wwr" r .. ,'1- KILLION RD II. r It 40' PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FIGURE I 2 YELM HET AIL CENTER - TRAFFIC IMP ACT ANALYSIS 95031 ~1 \- \1, ~ \'~ 1'.0 ~ ~o'IE \ RO ~ oflK "-0 ,,-}oIO~0t4 r "-0 s?RIIlGS Cll-'(S~ ...L S{. \,\IU- RO r"S IlO (;\.ILL"" '<0. ~ c:Y-I) "'''>~ ~S' "'S'" \ \ RO \<ILlI0t4 ~ \ . to \- ~ Ow ~~ O(f) cc. 0.. \ (', f) ~'----. o o 105 Yelm Avepue. West POBox 479 Yelm; Washington 98597 , '($60) 458-3i.44 Cilijl ([JJf Ye(j1JfJ1J ~ ~mLM. .~ . . WASHINGTON " ." .t. AGENDA , , CiTY OF' YELM PLANNING COMMI~SION MONDAY, JULY 21, 19974.00 P'.M YELM CITY HALl. COUNCIL CHA~BERS, 195 YELM AVE.W. 1 ; Call to ,Order, RoIICalf"Approvar of Minutesh- May 19, 1997, minutes enc)6seQ , I ., 2 Public Com~unic~tions (Not associated with measures or 'tOpiCS .for which public heanngs haVe been held 0(' for which are anticipated) " P4blic Hearing.'VAR-97f;J194YL T Applicant. AlfJ31rkland \," LoccHlon 16240 Prairie Heights street SE Propos.al Reduce rear yard setback from 20' to 8' 4' PUblic HearingSPR-8145 A,ppljcan't: Mike' Edwards LOQatlon Yelm Avenue W~st, west and south of Killion HQa9 Proposal 54,000 squ~re foot cOl\ltnercialcomplex. - .3 5 Other - .6 Adjourn '- Enclosl:Jres. are avaIlable to non-Commis,slon memp$rs upon request. If you neea ,special arrangements to attend or participate If) thl~ meeting, please .contact Yelm CIty Hall, at 458,,3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETINGAUGU~T; 18, 1~97, 4 00 PM " I @ , Recy<;/ed paper - ~--------'-- I .~ ( ) -------- c c 105 Yelm Avemie West PO Bo~479 Yelm; Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 City of Yelm YELM WASHINGTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE. PLACE: PURPOSE Monday, July 21,1997, at 4.00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave. West, Yelm, WA Public Hearing on Proposed Commercial Development APPLICANT Mike Edwards Project Description Binding Site Pla/'l to construct a 54,80b square foot commercial complex on approximately 4 5 acres located on the south side of Yelm Avenue W across from Killion .Rd The complex consists of eight (8) commercial lots with buildi/'lg's ranging Jrom 4; 750 to 1,750 square feet._ Testimony may be given, at. the hearing or through any written comments on the proposals received by the close of the public hearing on July 21, 1997 Such written comments may be submitted to the City of Yelm at the ad~resses shown above. The application and any related documents are available for public review duriilgnormal business hours at the City of Velni, 105 Yelm Avenu~ W , Yelm, WA. Foradditionalinformation, please contact Cathie Carlson at 458-8408 The City of Yelm provides teasonableaccommodations to per$oil with disabilities If you need special accommodations to attend .or participate, Call the City Clerk, Agnes Bennick, at (360) 458" 8404 at least 72 hours'pefore the meeting DO NOTPUBL.lSH BELOW tHIs LINE Published in the Ni~qually Valley News July 10, 1997 posted iti Public Areas July 8, 1997 Mailed to Adjacent Property Owners July 8, 1997 * Rec)'ckd paper o c r, v City o.f Yelm .... -.. 4".II~ ____ r "'-.... i05 Ydm Avenue West POBox 479 }eitn, Washington 96 '197 (36U} 4'd- -;24./ YELM WASHING-raN ** ** PUBLIC NOTICE ** ** The June 16.1997 Regular Planning Commission meeting has been CANCELLED The next regular meeting of the Yelm Planning Commission will be held in Council Chambers at Yelm City Hall, 105 Yelm Ave W , on Monday, July 21,1997 at 4 pm. If there are any questions concerning this change, please call the City Planner, Cathie Carlson at (360)458-8408 Agnes P Bennick City ClerkfTreasurer DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published in the Nisqually Valley News, Thursday, June 12, 1997 Mailed to the Planning Commission mailing list, June 4, 1997 Posted at Yelm City Hall, Court and Yelm Library, June 4, 1997 * Rt'.(....cled IXl/H;r GENERAL NOTES 1 NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2 RE~ER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMA TION ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, ECT . U..,JI ..L '-tl .J.. J -' I uu '-tu ....JWLI'-tJ...J':-'-+IU ..., c .. 4 . .. .4 ., R/W 10' c ITI ):>-C ~ :j /7 · :g:C l; ~~ -l lL! o fTl ~ ;p- o ^ VARIES o )> -l () :r: -0 o Z ~ o DC4-2B.DWG --'''-'H LI'1........'''-'I ~ 4.6 ~ 5' Cl 1 9 Of 11' 6' 6' 11 ' 5j r -l 5S f"I"I :;; ;l>- =16 )> -,., -,., -,., -i ~ :!! (') c: 1;> 0 0 ::0 -< r ;J>- Z )>. Z r Z fT! ):0- fT! z fTll -...-- R/W 1 D. 11' 11' 5' JJ..' -' ___.1 ITI ):0- C VJ-i ,..., - ~c ITI-i -., -< ..:.. -l Q2 ^ IfTl Q2 ;:>:: rl ;0 )> ..,., 2J o V1 o fTl ~ If? '" o > -I n :r: -0 o ;j )> ..,., 2J n r )>- ,~--.~ o )>. Z r'1 VARIES J:>- Z fT! r ;J>- fT! z -~ ~ l CEMEN T CONC, BARRIER CURB AND GUTTER 27.~ CI Ti OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAJOR ARTERIAL APPROVED DWG NO 4-2BREVDWG PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DA TE: DES DWN CKD DA Tt: rl I- 1 4 -1 '7 I I 7 1 r F l\~ r n :1 c c o '" '" '" '" " '" '" '" '" 4' '" '" . ,40 , '" '" '" .... '" , ~ .. '" '" '" ,4 ... '" f '" '" '" . , . GENERAL NOTES NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, ECT ~ ., . '" '" ... ... '" .... ... ... '" '" '" '" '" '" ... '" .... ... .... '" '" '" '" '" J '" '" ... '" '" '" . '". '. . . " . .' ~ ,. . . R/W 10' rr\ :t> C tf)-4 tTl- :s:: !:: m-i Z -< --l ~/'2/1'.~ 1"-~2;~* :' - -;;U I o ^)> 0 m r'1""l C :;f r 2! r )> ;l>- (; 0 r m ^ Z I ';;0 r'1 :t> Z f'Y1 10' ~ I R/W qo' , 10 rr\ ):>- c .... 12-' If)-i 10' 4' m - 11'-22' 5 $:C fTl-t -il/'J (.Il \!i ~ z -< ;ti -t ::0-1 I ^ 0 MO 0 )>- r'1 fTl )>;:IJ C .,., ~ -t~ r .,., r :s::~ 0 ("i )> p ARIES r fTl)> r'1 Z ^ z-t ;:0 r r'1 -1m )> tf);:IJ z m :E :I>- I"""" m o ):> -l (; I -lUl ::O-l mo )>?J -4:S:: s:~ m)> Z-t -1r'1 tf):::l:J ~ :I>- I m ~ V ARIES lJ Q z -t 2%..- "'* 11' WI TH 1 LANE n' WITH 2 LANES DG4-1A.DWC 1 6 1 {f//v SHOULDER BALLAST CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS BOULEVARD WITH SWALE APPROVED DWG NO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DES. OWN DATE 4-1ARE:v.OWC CKD DATE I I l- 1 4 - '1 '7 I I '7 1...1, p l.A F I I I ~/1fi~0 ~J S'~qq~ bJyt L(r J ;t:ll.L' ~ <.~~ ~~ ,n ,t~) ~ ~ o~,,J cJ tVUN~~ ~~~ ~ ~, ~, p Ivrr')' J t-L ~ p1JP ;J;.J# ~ ~;t J~ Iqq1- q~ I J~/ J-r 1 QVIJD ~ j) ~ )V7~ ~ ~ ~ tJU ~, ~~ ',~ d~ ~ , ~ r!:!{ ?Jg, 4. ,J7,a-/ ~ j;IVfI p ~- " .~. OOV.,J~ ~ .JJ~ frY' U, ) p~' ~, uJ (0~ J ~ 1 I 001 ~~ q'RS0 ~J~ o --~.~--- ~-- ---~ -~ c c c Ernestine Gray 1007 Yelm Avenue W. Yelm, WA 98597 July 27, 1995 Yelm City Council Yelm Planning Commission Yelm City Hall PO Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members, I recently received information concerning a commercial project being planned on Yelm Avenue, across from Killion Road that will share a boundary with my home. This project, located on slightly less than 5 1/2 acres, will provide just under 60,000 square feet of retail space. While I have never objected to any property owner using their property to the fullest advantage possible, I am very concerned about my peace of mind and privacy if this project is approved as shown in the city's recent mailing. I have lived in my home for 36 years and plan to remain here during the remaining years of my retirement. I hope my retirement years will not become a nightmare of noise, lights, trash and loss of privacy. To reduce the impact of this project on my life, I am requesting that as part of the approval of this project City Council and Planning Commission members require the developer to erect and maintain a 6' solid wood fence, in addition to the trees and shrubs shown on the conceptual plan, along the full length of our neighboring properties. Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ~IUZ~tfi b-h Ernestine Gray I cc: Armada/Lagerquist Company 2001 6th Avenue, Suite 3202 Seattle, WA 98121 Mike Edwards prairie Security Bank 608 Yelm Highway SE Yelm, WA 98597 A The meeting was p \.e.o/JV p ~ !)(~<< vi YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I^ LuXUP,0 . MAY 19, 1997 d~A I YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS ['6IL/l /~;:I /~~~ called to order at 4: 04 p.m. by lJ",_ ~~.............._______. c Members present: Joe Huddleston, Glenn Blando, Bob Isom, Ray Kent, Roberta Longmire and Margaret Clapp. Guests(s) Amos Lawton, City Council Liaison, Perry Shea, SCA and John Huddleston, JCH. Staff Cathie Carlson, Shelly Badger, Ken Garmann and Lynn Haigh Members absent: Tom Gorman, E J Curry and Ed pitts. Approval of Minutes: 97-05 MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY BOB ISOM TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 1997. CARRIED. Public Communications: There were none c Road Standards: Cathie stated due to more development, maintenance and parking needs, worksessions on changes in the guidelines have been held and that draft changes had been made as a result of the worksessions Local Access Residential - Main issue is on street parking, yes/no, one side or on both sides Option 1, allows parking on one side only, Option 2, allows parking on both sides. All standards will supply utility easements on both sides of road Perry explained that parking on both sides of street allowed safer movement of vehicles and pedestrians, versus one side parking often denotes vehicles parking in the planter strips causing narrowing of vehicle passage ways Cathie mentioned this also increases the ROW by 2' while Option 1 reduces the ROW by 4' Bob Isom questioned the benifits of Option 2 Perry explained it increased the ROW by 2' giving flexibility for parking Shelly commented with parking on only one side of street you often find cars parking the wrong way on the opposite side of the street Questions, comments and discussion followed with regards to the remaining access roads ie, Neighborhood Collector to move traffic, not park Commercial Collector, no swales and stormwater to be dealt with on a project by project basis as the city has no stormwater system in place Urban Arterial, Major Arterial traffic lanes of 11' Boulevards with swales and islands, change fn through lanes to 11' Pedestrian oriented streets to have 12~ walks to produce foot travel Cathie stated that all of these issues would be forwarded to the C Public Hearing in July or August LJ c 0-06 c 0' Development Guidelines - Irrigation Standards: Ken Garmann stated that the city is in the process of up-grading the development guidelines Landscape irrigation is not included in the current guidelines and it is being proposed to add this section to preserve required landscaping and on-site improvements. A video of examples of "no" irrigation within existing subdivisions was shown versus projects with irrigation and landscaping Also, to propose the Thurston County and DOE drainage manuals for drainage options with the applicant to choose which manual to follow Ken will review Lacey's standards, comment, add, delete, etc and bring entire proposed added guidelines before commission to comment and review Questions, comments and discussion followed with Roberta asking who pays for the irrigation water Commercial is paid by the city if in ROWand residential is paid by a homeowners association Bob Isom concerned with issue of city not maintaining irrigation, how can city require specs to be met Roberta on who owns timers and the location and protection of timers Ken stated any items deeded to the city should be maintained by the city Cathie mentioned that if the city maintains these areas, there is a great need for a larger budget, more staff and equipment to follow through with the standards Other: Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedings MOTION BY BOB ISOM TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PRATT PROPERTY, SECONDED BY RAY KENT. CARRIED. MOTION WAS MADE WITH REGARDS TO THE BIRKLAND PROPERTY TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS, A VOTE WAS TAKEN BY THE CHAIR WITH 4 IN FAVOR OF. Cathie requests members to check calendars for the scheduling of June and August meetings due to possible conflicting vacation schedules. Meeting adjourned at 5 45 P m Respectfully submitted, t/ Joe Huddleston Date c YELM PLANNING CO~lMISSION MI~UTES !-iAY 19, 1997 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order at 4:04 p.m. by Joe Huddleston. Members present: Joe Huddleston, Glenn Blando, Bob Isom, Ray Kent, Roberta Longmire Guest(s) Amos Lawton, City Council Liaison, Perry Shea, SCA and John Huddleston, JCH Staff Cathie Carlson! Shelly Badger, Ken Garmann and Lynn Haigh Members absent: l)itts Tom Gorman, Margaret Clapp, E J Curry and Ed ~pg9val of MinJJ.tes~ 97-05 MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY BOB 180M TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 1997. CARRIED. pub1-_ic Commu:p.ications: There were none c Roa_~J?J;andards : ~:at~hi-e _stated due to more development, maintenance and parking needs, worksessions on changes in the guidelines have been held ani tllat draft changes had been made as a result of the worksessions Local Access Residential - Main issue is on street parking, yes/no, one side or on both sides Option 1, allows parking on ODe side only, Option 2 allows parking on both sides All standards will supply utility easements on both sides of road Re1o.;J;.Y explained that parking on both sides of street allowed safer movement of vehicles and pedestrians, versus one side parking often den)tes vehicles parking in the planter strips causing narrowing of vel1i.cle passage ways ~i2:thie mentioned this also increases the ROW by 2' '\.I1hile Option 1 reduces the ROW by 4' ;Bob Isom questioned thE': benefits of Option 2 Perry explained it increased t:he ROW by 2 giving flexibility for parking S..helly commented with parking on only one side of street you often find cars parking the wrong way an the opposite side of the street Questions, comments and discussion followed with regards to the remaining access roads ie; Neighborhood Collector to mov(,' tra.ffic, not park Commercial Collector, no swales and stormwater to be dealt with on a project by project basis as the city has no stormwater standards in place Urban Arterial, Maj or Arterial traffic lanes of 11' Boulevards with swales and islands, change in through lanes to 11' Pedestrian oriented streets to have 12' wdlKS to produce foot travel o ~f:\.r,,-h;h~ stated that all of these issues would be forwarded to the PUbl.LC Hearing in July or P.l.ugust o 0-06 o pevelopment Guidelines - Irrigation Standards: Ken Garmann stated that the city is in the process of up-grading the development guidelines Landscape irrigation is not included in the current guidelines and it is being proposed to add this section to preserve required landscaping and on-site improvements A video of examples of Itnolt irrigation within existing subdivisions was shown versus projects with irrigation and landscaping Also, to propose the Thurston County and DOE drainage manuals for drainage options with the applicant to choose which manual to follow Ke~ will review Lacey's standards, comment, add, delete, etc and bring entire proposed added guidelines before commission to comment and review Questions, comments and discussion followed with Roberta asking who pays for the irrigation water Commercial is paid by the city if in ROWand residential is paid by a homeowners association Bob 1som concerned with issue of city not maintaining irrigation, how can city require specs to be met Roberta on who owns timers and the location and protection of timers Ken stated any items deeded to the city should be maintained by the city ~atl)i_~ mentioned that if the city maintains these areas, there is a great need for a la:cger budget, more staff and equipment to follow through with the standards o l;:J:teI;JL Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proceedin~ MOTION BY BOB 1SOM TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PRATT PROPERTY, SECONDED BY RAY KENT. CARRIED. MOTION WAS !~E WITH REGARDS TO THE BIRKLAND PROPERTY TO ACCEPT NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS, A VOTE WAS TAKEN BY THE CHAIR WITH 4 IN FAVOR OF AND 1 AGAINST. ~AJ.hie. requests members _ to check calendars for the scheduling of Q:.llIle and August meetings due to possible conflicting vacation sg.tledules. Meeting adjourned at 5 45 P ill Respectfully submitted, Jo,e Huddleston Date c o o 105 lefm Avenue West POBox 479 Yefm. Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 City of Yelm Date May 14, 1997 To CIty of Yelm Planrung CorrurussIOn From. CathIe Carlson, CIty Planner Re Road Standards Back2round: Over the last two years, as the CIty has approved development proJects, the staff has observed repeated SItuatIOns In whIch street standards have needed modificatIOn due to eXIstIng condItIons EXIstIng nght-of-way WIdths In the City tend to be SIgnificantly less than what IS reqUIred to accommodate the current road standards. EXIStIng right-of-ways throughout the CIty are generally 40 - 60 feet In WIdth. New road standards reqUIre right-of-way WIdths from 54 - 115 feet In WIdth. For projects, on vacant land, that reqUIre new Internal roads the larger nght-of-way reqUIrements can be met, however those same parcels arei, accessed through eXIstIng roads that need to be upgraded to the current road standards. The more dIfficult SItuatIon IS for those parcels that have eXIstIng development/structures Often after the reqUIred nght-of-way IS accounted for, eXIstIng buildIngs have rrnrumal or no setback from the new nght-of-way ThIs can create dIfficulty In proVIdIng safe vehIcle/pedestnan access to the SIte and satIsfymg on-SIte parkmg reqUIrements The City has also expenenced problems WIth on-street parkIng and damage to stormwater swales m five reSIdentIal subdIVISIons that were approved pnor to the current roadway standards. The roadway WIdth 10 these subdIVISIons IS 24 feet (two- 12' dnVIng lanes) WIth rolled curbs When on-street parkmg occurs m these areas traffic movement IS constncted to one lane Also, It can JeopardIze adequate clearance for emergency vehIcles. In an effort to create more room for parkmg, vehIcles are parked partially on the street and partIally In the stormwater swale, causmg damage to the storinwater swale. The CIty contracted WIth S Chamberlam and AsSOCIates to aId staff In evaluatmg the current street standards and developmg alternatIves for the Planrung CommiSSIOn and City Council to reVIew * Recl'clrd paper Proposed Revisions: The cntena used to assess CIty road standards and to draft proposed standards Include nght-of- 0 way WIdths (eXistIng and future), traffic calming techmques (curb extenSIOns at IntersectIOns), pedestnan safety, parkmg needs and CIty mamtenance Right-of-Way Widths The draft road standards reduce future nght-of-way needs for all street claSSIficatIOns DependIng on the street claSSIficatIOn the reductIon ranges from 4 - 30 feet. ReductIons In nght-of-way were accomphshed through applymg a combmatIOn of the follOWIng. . elllrunatIon of stormwater swales, . redUCIng WIdth of traffic lanes, . reducmg WIdth of paved shoulders, and . reducmg WIdths of planter stnps. The reductIOn m future nght-of-way needs has the followmg effects . retaInS more pnvate property for development; . reduces constructIOn costs, . requtres stormwater from nght-of-way be accommodated by development project; . reduces CIty maIntenance cost; and . encourages vehIcle traffic to travel at the posted speed lllruted. Traffic Calming TechniqueslPedestrian Safety There are many techmques to calm (slow down) traffic The draft road standards Incorporate only one techmque, curb extenSIOns, on those streets where parkmg IS penrutted. Benefits of curb extenSIons are . slows traffic speed on roadway, espeCIally at IntersectIOns, . no added costs to developer or CIty; . proVIdes better vIsibihty/safety for pedestnans, . clearly delIneates on-street parkmg areas, and . adds aesthetIcs to the streetscape o Parking DependIng on the functIon of a street, on-street parkmg can be an asset or a detnment. As referenced In the background section of tlus report, the CIty has expenenced illegal parkmg and damage to stormwater swales In subdIVISIOns that do not proVIde on-street parkmg. For local reSIdentIal and local commerCIal streets on-street parkIng IS deSIred to . aclueve close, easy and safe access to uses. . augment the on-SIte parking requtrements for commerCIal projects. By prohibItIng on-street parkmg on collector and artenal streets the benefits Include . safe (better Vlsibihty) and tImely movement of traffic. . reductIon In nght-of-way WIdths o o c c City Maintenance An Important element of City streets IS mamtenance In evaluatmg road standards every effort was made to recogmze the amount of addItIOnal mamtenance (tIme and cost) ofupgradmg eXIstmg roads and addmg new roads to the City transportatIOn system. The draft road standards lessen the cumulatIve Impact to the Public Works Department by. . reducmg wIdth of traffic lanes and paved shoulders thereby reducmg future repaIr and mamtenance costs, and . elImmatmg stormwater swales reduces grounds/planter stnp mamtenance I have attached reference matenal on traffic calmmg techmques taken from Traffic Calming, Report #456, CynthIa L Hoyle, published by the Amencan Planmng AssocIatIOn, July 1995 The report IS available for check out through the Plannmg Department. The attached draft street standards mclude consIderatIOn of all the cntena mentIOned above and the comments staff receIved from the Plannmg CommIssIon worksessIOn held on April 29, 1997 o Chapter 2. What Is Traffic Calming and How Does It Work? o Current planning techniques have not created communities that are efficient in their use of natural resources and available public monies, or that provide the best quality of life for all residents. Urban areas cannot go on indefinitely handing over more and more of their living space to cars. Many city and state planning authorities in other countries have already abandoned traditional planning methods and in their place have adopted a new planning approach. In some countries, such as Germany, this new planning approach has even been enacted into federal1aw Traffic calming is a holistic, integrated traffic planning approach that seeks to maximize mobility while reducing the undesirable effects of that mobility Another definition of traffic calming is environmentally compatible mobility management. This chapter discusses the nuts and bolts of how traffic calming actually works. It looks at the principles of traffic calming, the techniques used in traffic calming, and the results of employing these techniques. THE PRINCIPLES Principle 1. Streets are not just for cars. The function of a street is not solely to act as a corridor fat traffic. Streets are also for social interaction, walking, cycling, and playing. Different roadways will serve different functions in a community-but, on a street, no one function should dominate to the exclusion of all others. o Principle 2. Residents have rights. Residents have a right to the best quality of life a city can provide. This includes the least noise possible, the least pollution possible, the safest environment possible, and an environment that fosters a rich community life in which individuals are free to reach their fullest potential. All residents, regardless of age, financial status, or social standing, have rights to an equal share of the mobility that a city can responsibly provide for its residents No person or group has the right to increase their mobility at the expense of another person's mobility This means recognizing that an overemphasis on car transportation discriminates against a large section of society Principle 3 Maximize mobility while decreasing the costs. Trips are usually only a means to achieving a desirable end. Therefore a trip is a "cost" we must pay to enjoy a "benefit" at journey's end. That cost involves time, money, energy, and social and environmental effects. It therefore makes sense to minimize the costs a city and its residents must pay to enjoy access to a wide range of destinations. This principle involves managing the already existing transportation resources of a city with maximum efficiency It means maximizing the efficiency of an in,efficient road and public transportation network bdfore new infrastructure is built. THE TECHNIQUES Technique 1. Reduce the speed at which automobiles travel by altering roadway design. Reducing speed has the following effects: 1 Slower traffic emits less noise and fumes if traveling at an even pace. 2. There are fewer accidents. 3 Accidents that happen are less severe. 4. The capacity of the existing road space is increased. This last point surprises many people. It is natural to think that the faster traffic is traveling, the more traffic the road would be able to handle in an hour What is overlooked is that, as you increase speed, you must increase the safe traveling distance between each vehicle. There is an optimum speed for all roadways. At speeds below or above the optimum level, the number of vehicles the roadway can move in an hour drops. There are two types of techniques that can be employed to reduce the speed of vehicles on roadways. active and passive controls. A comprehensive document done in 1980, State of the Art Report. Residential Traffic Management, by Daniel T Smith et al. for the U.S Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration discusses in detail the effects of applying various traffic control techniques to residential streets. Key points of this report's findings, in addition to those of other research on various traffic control techniques, are discussed in the following paragraphs. Active physical controls include: speed bumps, speed tables, rumble strips, median barriers, cul-de- sacs, semi-diverters, traffic circles, chokers, inter- rupted sight lines, neck-downs, chicanes, changes in 9 direction, and protected parking Active controls change driver behavior and are therefore largely self-enforcing They create the visual impression that a street is not meant for through traffic and that other users of the roadway, such as pedestrians, cyclists, and children playing, have an equal right to use of the street. The drawback to use of active controls is their cost, the possible negative impact on emergency and service vehicles, and the negative response of motorists who are inconve- nienced by their introduction. Passive control devices are primarily traffic signs (e.g , Stop, Yield, speed limits, turn prohibitions, one-way, "Slow, School Zone," "Do Not Enter," "Not a Through Street," "Dead End," "Local Access Only," truck restrictions, etc.) Other passive control devices include traffic signals and pavement markings, such as crosswalks and lateral bars. Passive control devices, while using regulatory signs to inform drivers, do not physically prevent action. Thus, drivers easily violate the purpose of these devices. Their advantage lies in the fact that they can be in force during only selected time periods of the day, thus allowing full access to travelers at other times of the day They also do not block access for emergency or service vehicles. Passive control devices are most effective in areas where compliance can be expected to be high and enforcement is possible. In such cases, experience has shown that, even with some violations,the devices can produce a significant improvement in the level and effect of traffic. If there is little enforcement of the law and drivers resent the limits on their travel, however, compliance will be low, and the devices will be ineffective. For example, if Stop signs are used to try to reduce major traffic flow or No Through Traffic signs are installed in a neighborhood used for cut-through traffic where no better alternative exists, numerous violations can be expected. The following sections briefly discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various active and passive traffic control devices. 10 Speed Bumps and Speed Tables Speed bumps and speed tables are raised humps in the paved surface of a street that extend across the roadway Normally, they have a height of less than five inches. A speed table must be long enough for both the front and rear wheels of a car to be on top of the table at once, meaning that the table has to be 8 to 12 feet (or 2 to 4 meters) long. Speed tables can be comfortably crossed at 15 to 25 miles per hour Speed bumps are normally less than 3 feet in length (1 meter) Studies done in Great Britain on speed tables that were 12 feet (4 meters) long (in the direction of travel) and 4 inches ( 1 meter) high showed that they not only reduce the speed of vehicles, they also reduce traffic volumes (TRRL 1976, 1977) U.S. traffic engineers do not favor the use of speed bumps. In most cities in the U.S., speed bumps have been removed from public roadways where they are considered an unacceptable hazard. Speed bumps have also been ,reported to interfere with winter snow plowing operations. Speed tables appear less likely to cause such problems. Rumble Strips or Changes in Roadway Surface Patterned sections of rough pavemknt (rumble strips) or cobblestone strips across the road cause at>light vibration in the car, which causes the driver to become more alert and/ or slow down. Studies have shown the effects of a change in road surface on speed to be mainly at the upper end of acceptable speeds in residential areas. However, studies have also shown that such strips have noticeably reduced accidents when placed in advance of stop signs (Smith et al. 1980) Changes in road surface are sometimes objected to by bicyclists, but this problem could be addressed by not altering the road surface within a designated bike lane. The noise produced by rumble strips has raised objections from nearby residents in some cases. Diagonal Diverters A diagonal diverter is a barrier placed diagonally across an Bumps, Undulations o o Rumble Strips o o Diagonal Diverters o Cul-de-Sac Closures o 'i-', '1.;) 'i,,;.o',0 iJ,,\"1 at one end while physically restricting through traffic. Studies have shown cul-de-sacs or dead- end streets to be very effective in reducing traffic volumes. Due to the need for adequate turning radius, retrofitting an existing street can be very expensive. On existing streets, it is often the case that only an 18- to 20-foot turning radius can be provided, whereas in new subdivisions 35 feet (10.5 m) is standard. The appropriate length of a street that can be dead-ended should be determined by traffic volume and the number of houses on the street. In general, however, cul-de-sacs should probably not be installed on streets longer than 500 feet when lots are 50 feet wide, meaning there would be approximately 20 houses on a street generating eight to 10 vehicle trips per day (NAHB 1990, 55) Streets longer than 500 feet tend to lose the advantages of installing a cul-de-sac because there are likely to be increases in traffic speeds and mid-block turnarounds, a potential safety hazard. The number of properties on a longer street also means an increase in the volume of trips on that street, again reducing the safety factor that the cul-de-sac should bring. A cul-de-sac should be clearly identified by signs indicating that the street is not a through street. In some cases, provision for passage of emergency vehicles through the cul-de-sac may be desirable. Existing movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, and people with disabilities will need to be evaluated and accommodated by provision of through sidewalks and/ or ramps. The use of dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs to reduce traffic volumes is one of the most expensive and least desirable techniques employed for traffic calming due to issues of accessibility for emergency vehicles, buses, etc. Caution should be employed in making use of this technique. Semi-diverters, Neck-downs, Chicanes, Chokers, and Protected Parking A semi-diverter is a barrier to traffic at the intersection of two streets in which one direction of the street is blocked, but traffic from 11 intersection to convert the intersection into two unconnected streets, each making a sharp turn. Its primary purpose is to make travel through a neighborhood circuitous, while not preventing such travel. Used alone, the diverters will affect only the two specific streets involved. This application is most effective in reducing traffic volumes if used as part of a planned system for the neighborhood that will discourage through traffic. Smith et a1. (1980,31) note that "In a system of devices, traffic on streets with diverters can be reduced from between 20 to 70 percent depending on the system of devices in the area." Diverters are effective in reducing traffic volumes, whereas speed is reduced only in the immediate vicinity of the diverter, wlthin about 200-300 feet. Studies done in Seattle, Washington, and Richmond and Berkeley, California, have shown a significant reduction in the number of accidents in the neighborhoods. Usually, however, the actual number in each case was small originally (Smith et a1. 1980,31) In order to have diverters function safely and effectively, they should, incorporate the following features: · Visibility Devices should have painted curbs, rails, reflectors, directional signs, street lights, and elevated landscaping. · Delineation. Centerline pavement striping and, where possible, pavement buttons are helpful in identifying the driving path. · Emergency vehicle access. The design of the diverter should allow for passage of emergency vehicles while restricting automobile passage. · Pedestrian, bicycle, and disabled access. Sidewalks across the diverter should allow such access. Dead-end Streets or Cul-de-sacs In some communities, traffic volumes in older residential areas have become so problematic that streets have been converted to dead- ends or cul-de-sacs to prevent cut- through traffic. A cul-de-sac is a complete barrier of a street at an intersection or mid-block that leaves the block open to local traffic the opposite direction is allowed to pass through. A semi-diverter blocks only half of a street and is easily violated. Semi-diverters are best used when one direction on a street is used as a shortcut. Studies have shown that semi- diverters can significantly reduce traffic volumes. Studies of a neighborhood in San Francisco, where semi-diverters were placed at opposite ends of block pairs, showed an average reduction on four streets of 40 percent to an average of 1,000 vehicles per day on those streets (San Francisco Dept. of Planning 1977) The same study in San Francisco showed a 50 percent reduction in the number of accidents over a four-month period. Neck-downs are the same in design as semi-diverters but are located mid-block. They allow two- way traffic for only a portion of the block. Protected parking provides a landscaped island projecting out from the curb, the island creates protected parking bays. These devices are meant to reduce the speed of vehicles through neighborhoods rather than reduce traffic volumes, as do semi- diverters located at intersections. However, in some cases, they may also act to reduce traffic volumes. Chokers are basically the same type of device as a semi-diverter or neck-down, depending on whether they are located at the intersection or mid-block on a street. They can also be alternated from side-to-side on a street, thereby creating a chicane. Chicanes are a form of curb extension which alternate from one side of the street to the other A study of the use of chicanes in Seattle, Washington, done in 1988 showed varying decreases in traffic volumes ranging from six percent on very-low-volume streets to 48 percent on higher-volume streets (Seattle, Transportation Division 1988) The study also found significant reductions in vehicle speeds-a decrease of 26 percent in speed since the chicanes were installed. The authors of the study concluded that "Speeds have continued to increase on neighboring streets without chicanes. Thus chicanes have 12 Semi-Diverters ~- proved to be a long-term effective means of reducing speeds in residential areas." Accident rates appeared to be unaffected by chicanes. Emergency vehicles were not slowed significantly by the chicanes, however, it was recommended that the chicanes be constructed by use of curb bulbs rather than wooden barriers to allow emergency vehicles to run over the curb when opposing traffic was met. Maintenance of the wooden barriers was also problematic due to breakage. Chicanes have the advantage of not blocking emergency vehicle access, however, drivers are also more likely to violate chicanes, especially at intersections with low traffic volumes. The devices should be made visible with signs, painted curbs, landscaping, reflectors, and street lights. o Traffic Circles or Round-abouts A traffic circle or round-about is a raised island, which is usually landscaped and located at the intersection of two streets. The use of these devices is recommended on residential nonarterial streets where they have been found to be very effective in reducing traffic speeds and accidents without diverting traffic onto adjacent residential streets. Wallwork (1993, 240) reports that traffic circles reduce crashes by 50 to 90 percent when compared to two-way or four-way Stop signs and traffic signals by reducing the number of conflict points at intersections. He also notes that they are cheaper to maintain than traffic signals, provide equal access to intersections for all drivers, and provide a good environment for cyclists. o Chicanes J Parking No l _ __J ~ Permitted Parking ... ~ ,- - --... ..- - -~ 1-- "'- - --'" ...-- - -"" I No Parking 11 0 Parking Permitted o o o Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, have done extensive analysis on the effectiveness of traffic circles. In Seattle, the city's engineering department did a study that found the circles to be "highly effective in reducing both intersection and mid-block collisions. Intersection collisions are reduced by up to 90 percent and mid-block collisions are reduced by at least 39 percent" (von Borstel n.d., 80-81) Traffic circles were also found to significantly reduce the speed of traffic on nonarterial streets both at the intersection and mid-block (McLaughlin et al. 1987,7) While the studies did not find that traffic volumes were significantly decreased by the installation of traffic circles, residents perceived that there was a reduction in traffic volume. The explanation offered for this phenomenon was that the reduced speed of the vehicles in the " i neighborhood made them less noticeable and, therefore, made it seem as if there were fewer cars on the street. Seattle has chosen to limit the use of Stop, Yield, and speed limit signs as speed or volume reduction traffic control devices because they were found to be much less effective than traffic circles. Seattle has installed 190 traffic circles with a 98 percent success rate in providing effective traffic control (von Borstel n.d., 81) Portland, Oregon, reached similar conclusions in its study of traffic circles. That city's technical evaluation committee found that "Traffic circles are successful at reducing the number of vehicles traveling at high speeds (30-35 mph) on residential streets. After traffic circles were installed, vehicles rarely exceed 35 mph" (Port,land 1992, 1) Portland also found that traffic volumes on streets with traffic circles {j L ___8'- did not significantly change and that accidents had been reduced by installation of traffic circles. The report also concluded that larger radius circles appear to reduce vehicle speeds more than smaller traffic circles. Traffic circles have been found to be a popular and effective way of providing safer and quieter neighborhoods in the view of the residents. If the traffic circles are installed strictly as speed reduction devices, they should be installed about 600 to 800 feet apart to maintain the reduced speed (von Borstel n.d., 81) Traffic circles should be well marked with appropriate traffic signs, pavement markings, street lights, and landscaping Traffic circles must also have adequate lane width (16 to 20 feet) to allow passage of larger vehicles like emergency and service vehicles. CONCEPTUAL TRAFFIC ROUNDABOUT 22' flY A traffic circle installed in the center of an intersec- tion may be the most effi- cient way to discourage through traffic in residen- tial neighborhoods. Circles should be large enough to slow down traffic, but not so large as to constrict it. Usually this means about an 18-foot diameter Circles should be mounded in the center, planted with trees, and enclosed by a curb ~ <] f> VNO~ Turn sign LrYield I Pavement Edge (City Code requires 24' width; however, typically the existing pavement width is 22') Right of Way 6. YIELD I Source: City of Fort Myers Planning Department Q Cement Traffic Island ~()*" Tree 13 Forced Turns Other Active Control Devices Forced turn channelization is usually installed in the form of traffic islands that prevent traffic from executing specific movements at an intersection. These devices basically function in the same way as a diagonal diverter They are mainly used to prevent traffic flow from one neighborhood to another at the intersection of a major and local street. In some cases, a reduction in traffic volume will likely result. These devices should be marked in the same fashion as diagonal diverters. Their design depends on the 10cational needs Median barriers are usually used to improve traffic flow on major streets. They can also be used, however, to reduce traffic flow onto residential streets by preventing left turns off a major street onto a residential one or preventing traffic from one neighborhood crossing the major street into another Studies done in Sweden documented a 70 percent reduction in traffic volumes on streets inside a loop road around the central business district and an increase of 25 percent on the circumferential street (Elmberg 1972) Studies have shown median barriers to be effective in reducing traffic speed on small radius curves on arterial and residential streets (Smith et al. 1980, 50) 14 Interrupted sight lines can be created through many of the devices noted above-chicanes, semi-diverters, chokers, neck- downs, or protected parking The same effect can be created by use of "Residential" or "Pedestrian Streets," which are discussed below Interruption of the sight line of a street causes motorists to slow down and can also mean that they are compelled to widen their field of vision, becoming more aware that there may be pedestrians and cyclists near the traffic way (See Figure 2-1 ) Residential or Pedestrian Streets are used extensively in European countries with great success. They were first used as part of program in Delft, Holland, and are called "woonerf " The concept is to equalize the right-of-way on the street between cars, pedestrians, bicycles, and children at play This is accomplished through elimination of sidewalks and curbs l- i>:: <( U Qj u ... ;:l o <fJ 8.50 with the entire surface being paved for pedestrians. Streets are broken up into small sections by the use of large planters, walls, benches, barriers, and mounds. The width of the street is about six feet (two meters) with a widening for passing every 100 feet (30 meters) Parking spaces are limited and designed for use by automobiles only The "woonerf" streets are marked with signs to warn motorists that they are entering a pedestrian area. Conversion of streets into pedestrian streets is very costly and would be even more expensive on the typical American street. Changes in direction are accomplished with the use of 45- degree bends in the roadway Various techniques discussed above could be used to achieve this change. o Stop Signs Stop signs are designed to assign the right-of-way at intersections o n ............ ~ Figure 2-1 (Above) Unobstructed Sight Lines, (Below) Interrupted Sight Lines o o with high traffic volumes or high accident rates. The need for a Stop sign should be clearly established Stop signs not warranted by traffic volumes or site-specific safety concerns (e.g., inadequate sight distance) may tend to increase traffic accidents because, once drivers become aware that the sign is unwarranted, they will disregard it. The presence of several unwarranted Stop signs may, in turn, create a general disregard of all Stop signs in the neighborhood (Homburger et al. 1989,82) Citizens regularly request Stop signs with the misconception that they will reduce the speed of vehicles and/ or reduce traffic volumes. Numerous studies have shown that Stop signs do not significantly reduce either speed or volume of traffic in neighborhoods. Other studies have shown that Stop signs effect speed in the immediate vicinity of the sign, but, according to Smith et al. (1980,64), "between intersections they are either ineffective or produce the contrary effect." o Speed Limit Signs Speed limit signs are meant to inform drivers of the speed limit imposed by the local governing body They are usually established based on the 85th percentile speed on a road. (The 85th percentile speed represents the speed at which 85 percent of the vehicles drive at or under) But as Smith et al. (1980,65) report, "In the United States, studies have shown that speed limit signs have very little impact on driver speed on surface arterials." Various studies of speed limit signs have come to the same conclusions. c · Traffic consistently ignores posted speed limits and travels at speeds drivers consider reasonable, convenient, and safe under existing conditions. · Drivers do not operate by the speedometer but by the conditions they meet. · The general public pays little attention to what speed limits are posted. · The general public has a false conception of speed. -J,~'~',T', Ir( t.o;:' :i;'1 :,.. the restrictions by telling people travelling the wrong way on a one- way street that they are, in fact, in violation. It is also true that violating a one-way street means a violation that may last the time it takes to travel the length of the street, thereby reducing a driver's impulse to violate the law (Homburger et a1. 1989,85) Other Passive Traffic Controls Traffic signals can have a dramatic effect on traffic in neighborhoods. Frustration with delays at arterial signals are a major reason for shortcutting. Operating signal systems to reduce delays, especially at peak periods, can reduce through traffic in neighborhoods. Because of their expense and the need to meet warrants, traffic signals would rarely be used as a device to directly reduce traffic in neighborhoods. Studies have shown that Yield signs can be effective in terms of reducing accidents at intersections Welke (1976) reported that, given a volume of 200 to 800 vehicles per hour, "Yield signs are as effective as Stop signs in terms of accidents and are superior in terms of energy and delay costs. Above 800 vph, Stop signs are more effective." Evidence indicates that Slow signs are only effective in locations in which a physical feature of the roadway makes higher speeds dangerous. Use of a Slow sign in a neighborhood simply to slow traffic will probably have no effect at all. Adequate information is not available on the use of Do Not Enter and Local Access Only signs as traffic volume and speed reduction devices. These signs could be used in a fashion similar to semi- diverters to prevent traffic from entering a residential street from an arterial. Flashing yellow beacons on School Zone signs have been found to be effective in reducing average speeds by 3 to 4 mph (5 to 6 kph) (Welke 1976, 24) However, the use of signs and flashers timed to periods when children are present appears to be important in achieving compliance from drivers. Signs that are continuously present are not as effective. Bars can be painted laterally across a roadway with the space between 15 Similarly, speed limit signs have little effect on traffic volumes or distribution. Studies have shown that, even with enforcement, little effect is seen in traffic with changes in speed limit signs Turn Prohibition Signs No Right Turn or No Left Turn signs can be used to prevent turning movements onto residential streets with or without peak-hour limitations. It is best if they are used around the periphery of a neighborhood to prevent unwanted traffic from entering (Homburger et al. 1989,84) Such signs can limit turning movements during specified hours of the day, which can be particularly effective in preventing shortcutting during peak traffic periods. This allows residents full access during the rest of the day The success of these signs depends on their acceptance by drivers. There must be voluntary compliance or heavy enforcement for these signs to be effective. One study (Welke and Keirn 1976) found that peak-hour turning prohibitions reduced traffic volumes by as much as 90 percent. However, if traffic control has not been planned for the entire neighborhood, the result of such turning prohibitions can be to simply divert the traffic onto another residential street. No direct effect on traffic speed srtould be expected, although a reduction in traffic volume may result in the perception of reduced speed. One-way Streets One-way streets have been used to make travel through a neighborhood difficult, thereby discouraging through traffic. Providing limited entrances to the neighborhood and making streets that intersect with collectors or arterials one-way exits can effectively discourage traffic. This provides the advantage of allowing emergency and service vehicles access (they can even travel the "wrong" way), but it can face stiff opposition from residents. If this technique is to be used, an effective and comprehensive citizen participation program is a must to ensure neighborhood support. Another clear advantage of one-way streets is that violations tend to be very low; citizens often help enforce Ii I' I ! them growing shorter and shorter to give a driver the illusion that there is an increase in speed. The bars are usually painted over a distance of a quarter mile or so The bars might also make a driver believe that some change in road feature is coming up, causing a decrease in speed and an increase in awareness. Applications of this measure have been limited, and it is regarded as an experimental device (Homburger etal.1989,90) Marked crosswalks do attract pedestrian use, but, unfortunately, driver reaction and accident rates are not usually effected A study done in San Diego, California, found that marked crosswalks attracted 75 percent of the pedestrians crossing the streets, but 85 percent of the accidents occurred at the marked crosswalks The study concluded that "pedestrians showed less caution in using marked crosswalks than shown at unmarked locations. Limited sample studies at the University of California showed that the painting of a crosswalk did increase the percentage of drivers who would yield to a pedestrian, however, the majority of drivers still failed to yield" (Welke 1976,76) For these reasons, the use of lateral bars and painted crosswalks by themselves should not be expected to provide greater pedestrian safety Additional active control devices should be considered at or in the area approaching the crosswalk to provide a safer crossing Technique 2. Change the psychological feel of the street through design or redesign. Wide and straight stretches of paved streets say to a motorist, "This is your turf" Streets that use paved strips, landscaping, and narrowed lanes have a relaxed, pedestrian feel that says to the driver, "Beware, this is shared space." Homburger et al. (1989) and Appleyard and Bosselman (1982) have described a series of ways\o use design to influence driver behavior They emphasize the number of ways that changes in the; physical environment can alter the ways that drivers and all other users of the street "experience" the street. Most importantly, they stress the necessity to create a sense of place on streets, much as one tries to create,a,sense of place in a neighborhood and a community Recognizing the street as a place rather than as a channel designed for the benefit of the car and driver will change the psychological feel of the street for all users. To create this sense of place, Homburger et al. (1989,61-63) recommend a number of measures that community transportation planners and citizens might consider when designing or redesigning neighborhood streets. Those "policies for street design" are summarized here. 1 Traffic management devices and changes to the street design should be compatible with the character of the neighborhood Using materials that are in harmony with the colors and textures of the streetscape signal a change in environment. A visible change from asphalt, for example, to colors that are in character with the surrounding residences 16 immediately tells a driver that he or she is entering a different space. The changes also mark the street as more clearly belonging to the residents of the 0 adjacent houses than to the driver 2. Traffic control deVIces and street designs should be easy to maintain Allowing for easy maintenance of traffic calming devices means that they will remain attractive and effective. Residents may feel a pride of ownership in the landscaping used to define the street space or in their local traffic circle. Neglect of such devices gives a signal to both residents and drivers that the devices are not important, which may lead to drivers ignoring them. 3 The landscaping used for street design should be safe for pedestrians A landscape architect might be consulted to help planners and citizens choose landscaping that, when mature, will allow both pedestrians and drivers clear lines of sight while still creating a sense of place. 4. Street trees should be planted to enhance the image of a street as a place with which residents can identify Some of the traffic calming devices described in this chapter can give the space needed for large trees to grow that is not provided for in typical three-foot-wide (one-meter-wide) sidewalks. Homburger et al. (1989,62) note that in typical street design plans. To prevent sidewalk cracking and interference with utility lines, public works officials favor smaller 0 "lollipop" trees. These provide little shade and tend to be petty and ornamental. They fail to impart a truly dignified character to the neighborhood. As Duerksen and Richman (1993, 9-16) describe, large trees not only provide shade, enhance property values, and contribute to sense of place, they act as very effective buffers to traffic noise and create visual and psychological barriers between parked cars and residential spaces. Planners and designers should never forget that all residential streets are not the same. Traffic volumes and the behavior of the users of the street will need to be documented. Homburger et al. (1989,65-77) describe six different scenarios for street design based on different periods and styles of development. In general, observations of various activities on the street, including travel speeds, pedestrian circulation, and cyclist behavior, may be necessary to determine what designs will truly change the psychological feel of the street. Eye-level perspectives taken through the windshield of a moving car and from various pedestrian and cyclist crossing points may help designers. A variety of visual simulation tools, like those described in Duerksen and Richman (1993, Appendix A), may be useful, effective, and efficient in producing these perspectives. Presenting citizens with 0 these perspectives throughout the planning and decision-making process can help get feedback that ensures that safety, mobility, resident access, and sense of place are all enhanced and politically acceptable. o Technique 3. Increase incentives to use public transport. It our society's goals are to increase energy efficiency, improve air quality, and reduce traffic congestion while increasing mobility options, we must address the efficiency and compactness of our land-use patterns. Private automobiles take 30 times more road space to move each person than buses. In many cases, expanding our streets has not led to moving more people, but moving more cars. Studies have shown that efforts to ease traffic congestion by expanding road capacity and improving vehicle flow discourage the development of housing and small commercial uses and result in further migration, longer commuter trips, and even more congestion. The dramatic differences in energy usage between most U.S cities and European and Asian cities is a result of more compact land-use patterns. "The The enormous success of German pedestrian areas in which cars are often banned altogether can be accounted for by such a combination of techniques. In Nurenburg, for example, the city council wanted the pedestrian system expanded in 1971 The city planners were opposed to the expansion for fear of overloading surrounding streets. The feared overloading of parallel streets did not occur Several strategies were employed to make the pedestrian areas succeed First, parking is restricted on the central city streets to residents only, and parking spaces in garages are limited. Second, the mass transit system was upgraded along with the bicycle and pedestrian systems. One lane on a street was often converted to bike lanes. Third, commercial establishments in the central business districts are encouraged, and new outlying development was discouraged through rigid land-use control provisions. o biggest factor accounting for these difference in energy use appears to be not the size of cars or the price of gasoline, but the efficiency and compactness of land-use patterns" (Reglogle 1990) As was made clear in the seminal study on sprawl more than 20 years ago, "sprawl is the most expensive form of residential development in terms of economic costs, environmental costs, natural resource consumption, and many types of personal costs This cost difference is particularly significant for that proportion of total costs which is likely to be borne by local governments" (Real Estate Research Corporation 1974) To make public transit more attractive, automobile users will have to be made to bear more of the costs of providing the infrastructure cars require (Moore and Thorsnes 1994, Appendix B) More of the money spent on expanding streets should be spent to upgrade transit systems, especially buses since they appear to be the most efficient system in US cities. "Improving bus systems appears to be a cheaper and more efficient way of increasing mass transit ridership because of their relatively low capital cost and because bus routes can be easily shifted to meet changing demands" (Highway Users Federation 1986,29) Increasing the efficiency of public transit by giving it time advantage over cars and offering attractive fares can encourage mass transit use o Technique 4. Discourage use of private motor vehicles. Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is usually used in tandem with incentives for using public transit. Measures that can be used include parking restrictions in the CBO, higher parking fees, or banning cars from the CBO and other "congestion pricing" policies (Moore and Thorsnes 1994) Technique 5. Encourage people to organize their own travel more efficiently Through the combination of a public education campaign, introduction of traffic restraint measures, and better mixed-use planning, authorities can encourage people to organize their own travel more efficiently This may mean providing a better mix of land uses to allow people to find jobs close a to home or, when buying a home, to buy one which is close to number of high-use activity centers (job, school, and shops) It may mean combining a number of trips into one, or using public transportation for work instead of buying a second car, or organizing a car pool. Technique 6. Create strong viable local communities. Rather than building large roads to large centralized facilities, the facilities can be brought to the people. Strong, compact communities are created with a wide range of facilities at hand. This policy reduces the amount of traffic on the road because: · People can drive shorter distances to get to where they want to go · Trips which had to be made by car can now be made by walking, cycling, or public transportation. · Children and the elderly are given independent mobility through walking and cycling, resulting in less chauffeuring · A strong local economy leads to a higher level of localized employment. · Measures that can be taken include making local shopping centers more attractive places to shop, grouping of activity centers, and encouragement of 17 local festivals and entertainment. Most important is the need for long-term commitment to avoid carving up existing, viable communities with large roads. THE RESULTS Based on research from Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, America, England, Canada, and Australia, where these planning techniques have been tried in various degrees or combinations, the following results can be expected. · Noise and pollution reduce by 50 percent · The top speed of traffic down by 50 percent (Even though speed is dropped by 50 percent, journey time is only increased by 11 percent because there is less stop-start driving) · Less heavy traffic and less cuHhrough traffic · Smaller roads move the same number of people. The extra space created by closing lanes or narrowing existing lanes is transformed into tree- lined avenues, bike-ways, walkways, mini-parks, or squares · Greater safety for drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and children playing in the street 18 · A 43 to 60 percent less chance of being killed or seriously injured in an accident involving a car · Up to 30 to 50 percent less traffic on the roads in peak hours o · Greater choice of travel methods for everyone, particularly for those who don't have access to a car · Increased viability of community life · Less stop-start driving · Enhancement of neighborhoods with an increase in greenery and a decrease in the visual intrusiveness of the roads and parked cars, also a decrease in the number of traffic lights and signs In sum, traffic calming aims to give you the best of both worlds-mobility and a better quality of life. Clearly, traffic calming is not a narrow concept. It involves cars, streets, roads, public transport, layout of the city, and the education of residents. It is a holistic planning approach that is aimed at improving the quality of life. It involves a whole new attitude and outlook. o o C---OEDESTRI AN- ~ORIENTED STREETS- ** YELM AVENUE Between Solberg Wand 4th Street E. ** FIRST STREET Between Mosman Avenue SE and Jefferson Avenue NE ** SECOND STREET SE Between Washington Avenue SE and Yelm Avenue E ** THIRD STREET SE Between Washington Avenue SE and Yelm Avenue E ** ALL PUBLIC STREETS Within 1000 feet of the intersection of Yelm Avenue Wand Killion Road NW (J () DG4-68.DWG .~ I I (g)lRl& 1i . . . . <> TREE . . TYP <> <> . . <>. R/W ~ I R/W VARIES 12' VARIES VARIES 12 S!1 --< --< \!1 0 ;:0 ;:0 0 fT1 :t> J> fT1 ~ 'TJ 'TJ ::E J> ::J 'TJ J> r () () r ^ ^ r r J> J> Z Z fT1 fT1 2%_ CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS TYPICAL PEDESTRIAN- ORIENTED STREET SECTION I APPROVED I owe ~O I I PEDAL TDI;VG , I DES. OWN CKD DATE I I L-J- I ! I .~ ,. . () . ~ '. -I I o , . . .. . , . ,. . .. R/W 10' rrl ;:t> C U) -i "," rrl - :s::C 5' .,,' 5' 12'-24' 4' rrl-l , () Z--<' ~ \J ~ -l VI -l 0 r ^ ;u :r: rrl :to- f"T'I :to- O ::a: z: 'T) c:: ):.- ---I r 2) r rrl )>- 0 0 r ;u ^ Z r'l r'l r ;u > Z rrl VARIES 3' Cl I 82'-106' 16' :1: r'l o )>- z o ):. -l o :r: \J o Z --< CEMENT CONe BARRIER CIJRB & GUTTER '''-CEMENT CONe BARRIER CURB ~ :\- ,~ 'Y' ~ ** 12 WITH 1 LANE 24' WITH 2 LANES () GENERAL NOTES 1 NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOprvl[NT GUIDELI~~ES FOR A.DDITIO~\J~,I_ INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE. STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMEr\jT STRUCTURE, ECT DG4.-1A.DWC 7' R/W ..-I_~O' fT1 )''" c ~=:! 51 ~ C ,..,..,-l (/) z-< e; --I f"T1 ~ :p r ^ ** 4' 12'-24' 5' VARIES 1'1 MI ~I 01 zl -ll I + ----r----~ ~y i 10% rvy ! M~_7 I I I I 1 1 I CITY OF YELM i DEPT OF PUBLIC W(JRI<:S I : BOULEVAPO I W / CEf\~TRAL ISLANJD / LlJ :r: o C r o f"T1 :;0 APPROVED 2%_ ~ :;r.: r'1 OJ r J:. Z -I fT1 <J -l :;0 1:> 'T) 'T) n r ;;; M C)A TE I DWG iNO I I 4-1ElNt~ Dwe , I PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DES DWN CKD DATE n~-14-97 07 IHAM i p n I .1 I I , r- - - - - -- I- I ~ .... .... .... ,. . .... "' .... , .... .... .... '" () '. .... .... .... '" .... '" '" .... '" ... '" '" .... .... .... '" '" . . 1 ~.. ] .... ~, . ". .... .... '" ~, ", '" .... .... .... .... .. .... '" 9' .... .... . 4, . ... '" '" .... ... . . . .... .... .... 4 .... .... "' : .... '" .... " Cl R/W I R/W 10' 84'-106' 10 fT1 fT1 )> c: e;c Ul-4 m- ** 4' "'''' 7' fT1 :::! '!!:: ~ 5' 7 5' 11'~22' 4' 10' 10' "'-22' 5 5 ~ c:: () fTl-l fT1 -1 Z -< z -< -I ~ 1] m -l V1 -lUl -Ill) Ul :ti 92 1] ~ -4 0 r ^ ;:0 I :::0...., :::0-1 :J: ^ r 0 fTl ~ fT1 );> 0 fT1Q MO 0 ):> fT1 )> fT1 :a; 2: "T) C ):0;:'] );>;:IJ c "T) z: =i ...., r ~ r --I~ -I~ r 'T) r -1 ::J> M ~ 0 0 ~~ ~~ ~l ;=; > fT1 ~ VARIES r r ^ :::0 M fTl)> fTl)> Z ::0 ^ fT1 r ;::0 2-1 Z-I ;;n r fT1 )> ""'fT1 --lfT1 );> Z (j)Al v;;:IJ z f'Y1 fT1 ~ ::E )> :to- r r-'" fTl fTl G );> -l o :r: LJ Q z -I 2~L I + ~~/ ~--3/ L CEMENT CONe BARRIER CURB 6 7 1ft/v 'I.- \ ~l\>J "<-\' SHOULDER BP,llAST ** 11' WI TH 1 LANE 22' WITH 2 LANES CITY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORk S () GENERAL NOTES NO "ON STREET" PARKIf\JG PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFOPMA TION ON STORM DRAIN A,GE, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, ECT BOULEVARD WITH SWALE APPROVED I Dwe :NO I I I 4-1ARE:vQwQ I I PUBLIC WORI,<S DIRECTOR DES. OWN DATE: CKD DATE DG4-1A.DWG 11<= 14-q7 1!71=:/\1,1 I F I ".1 I I I I ...IUL'-t_I.....J.L..'-t, I... -J',-!H L...I'1'-'1I........ I, (-.-J PROPOSED OPTION #'l CL R/W I R/W 10' 50 10 ,." r1 ;l>e l>- c Vl-l ~:;:j ,." - 12' ;;:::c 6' 5 7' 11 1 '6 5 ;;:::c fTl-l r1-l z-"< -U -l -l (J'U VI Z -< -l ("') -0 ..... () r e :t>- ::0 ::0 er B :p ;l) ;l) :> ;I> ;0 )> r1 % m ^ .,., ..,., mZ ~ VARIES M Z .,., ::;) -l F;o (') p;-r>1 ;0 i;) ("') ::0 r ("') 7<: ". C) r r gUl VJ e r ;l> 1> c::J -l ::::l ~ z Z -I..... ::0 r>1 ,." r;t22 J: 'U r1 r>1 ;:0" l:) VARIES ;:0 Q 4 Z ...... () ". (:J I -0 o Z -l ~ ~ L CEMENT CONe. ROLLED CURB AND CUrlER CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS () GENERAL NOTES 1 "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEvANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Of\l C"lTORM DRA.INAGE, STREET LIGHTING, P A vEME~n STRUCTURE, ErT LOCAL ACCESS RESIDENTlp,L t.,PPROVED Dwe. NO 4-S0JrW.owc DES OC~-~A.OI\IG I II r - 1 4 - 17 II~' 1 AM f II i ~I I I I , I H......L... I IU~ :1 r- I I I I~ (J PROFJQ'3EO OF' TI O~~ #~ R/W R/W (~ 10' 55 10 J [T1 [T1 t;c .,.. c;: ()')~ [T1::::! 11' r'1 - .;;:: t: 6' 5 7' 11 7 1 .6 ~ .;;:: c S2::Z "l;J n "t) ()') ~::;! --I () "'IJ -I jJ 1) -I r- c: ;l> ;;u :0- cr e; ~ ;<;J ;;u ;l> :0- ;<;J ;:0;1> [T1 OJ '" ." ." ^ OJZ ~ Vt..RIES ;;:j Z .." :J Z -I ~ (=) () R-fT\ ." 0 ;) ;:0 r n "'" 1;) r r G)v> ;l> (J1 r ;I> ;I> r- ~ -l C ;l> )> c~ 0 ;:0 -I Z Z Z ,-.,. -I;;;; I -I r'1 ", "- -I- "6 r'1 r'1 ,.., ""'1) ;:0 ;:0 \l VARIES Q 4 z -I L. () :r> -I 2 "1J Q 2; -I ...-r:..l5 f11- 10% 0" i ~ C(MENT CQNe ROLLED CURS AND GUTlER CIT y OF YELM OEPl OF PUBLIC WORKS , y ,. GENERAL NOTES, 1 "ON :;TREET" PL\PKING PERMITTED 2 REFEP TO RELEVANT SEe TIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIOI'~ UN STORM DRAI~MGE, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEME~n STRUCTURF, ETe L()C~\L AC CESS RESIDENTIAL APPROVED owe NQ 4-8DNEW.DWG f)(;~-l;IA,bWO D/l TE --6'(5, r! r_ - 1 4 - -1 '7 I I ~ !:-:, M F I I I U..J .1.""'t .1. -'_II LIU ""'tLI .JUU""'t _I__.....""'t I U -=-"-'H LI'tUI....U I HUL... 1'"1' .___,__",_,_.__~~l^___ c- (~ o PROPOSEO ,j II I[ I' I !I I[ II II Ii Ii " I' ,[ Ii I R/W Cl I 56' 16' 16 ::a -{ AJ > > ." ~ ." 0 n r r ;Do > 2 :2: l"'1 fT1 I R/W 10' 10 VARIES [T1 Gic rrt~ s:: c 5' 7' ~=< -{ ~ Cl IT1 ~ r- ^ f"') p. c ~ :;j 7 3 ..: C rrI -{ :z -< LJ I.f) -{ r is J>- l"'1 Z ~ VARIES M :> ;:0 s;;: (> ;po ....j n J: "1J ~ .<. .~ (J ~ ~ "- 'l.- _~___J --23 -I- r---- ~V '" / 'l.-/ / () :> ~ () :r: "lJ o Z -t l CEMENT CONC BARRIER CURB AND GUTTER I CITY OF \ELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORf\S GENERAL NOTES 1 NO "ON STREET" PARkiNG PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES F'OR ADDITIONAL ( INFORMATION ON STORM DRAI~MGE, STREET L1GHTIt.~G, P A VEMUH S TRUe TURE, EC T IJ -""-;"~ NEIGHBORHCjC)[J COLLEC TClR DES cvo- Dwe NO : , , 4-6eRrvowe: I , ;- , , , , , APPROVED D.A TE , i I , , , "c 1 4 '7 "7 I ,- .".M } ":1 I I , , ~ , : (IJ PROPOSED OPTIOI\! 1 (J :-\-- ~,?-, ~// ------- ' I R/W vARIES ~ ~ CEMENT C BARRIER cONe ANt) GIJTTEUpR8 I DEPT C bTFY pCW YELM L (' ~ UBLlC WORKS -lLAl A('CE COMMER-/CIASS APPROVED L GENERAL NOTES 1 ., ON STREET" P 2 REF ARI'ING PE '\ DEVELOE:M TO RELEVANT RMITTED (J '''FORMATI~T OGUIDELlNE~E(JIONS OF THE L LIGHTING, P A. VE~E STORM DRA~~:gDITIONAL '0'-"'.0>0 NT S TRUCTuR E. STREET E. ECT DES. lie 14 - .17 11'7 ! - .".M I I I- i I ,. ~-7CNEw.Dw6 1 1 , 1 I , 1 , , I I 1 I I _---1 , P 1\ r: : .1 : 1 (J PROPOSED OP TI O~\J :2 i I-~ I R/W ~ 10' S8 r1 )>-c Vl -l f'l - 5' 6' 7' 11 ' 11' ~C f1l ...., Z -< !Ll "tJ V --l -l -l 0 r ;p ":\J A:l rTJ ;I:- ;;JJ > )>- ;:E z 2S ." ,.., -l "Tt ..." > f'l Z (=1 ?) r ;;n '" ;<: r r r (j1 ~ ~ ~ )>- Z ;;n Z fT1 m "0 .." V,A.RIES (J (", ;p -l '" I V Q z -l ;- ~ '" 'V/ ~ ~ 2.%~_ l CEMENT CONe BARRIER CURB AND GUTTER GENEP AL NOTES 1 "ON 'STREET" P ARKlr\jG PERM ITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITION i\L (\ INFORIv1A TION ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET ( L ...UGHTI~4G' PAVEMDH STRUCTURE, Eer LOG4- ,",ow R/W 10 7' ,..,.., t-- c f;i ::! 6 5 ~ 5 z -< "1J !Ll -l r '=' :po fT1 Z ~ VARIES ;:;1 ;l:- X! ';; Vl ~ 'ti o .,., -l o :c 'D g Z .... "tl P- Al ^ Z G) r :l> Z fT1 r+ --~- ",'I- '" '\ CITY OF YElM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORf\ S LOCAL A CCE~)S COMMERCIAL. APPROVED OWl. NO I I I 4-70NEW,OW~ I I DES DATE 1 IIC~14~ 17 117 [r.".M FUI-, i I .1 I I I I L (J (J () I GENERAL NOTES 1 ~W "mJ STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2. REFER TO RELEvANT SECTIONS (;F THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELlN(S FOR ADDITIONAL !NFORMA TION ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING, P~VEMENT STRUCTURE, ECT PROPOSED VARIES o ~ (:j I -0 Q z -< :'\- ,0/ <[,/ _J OG4-68,QWG . ._------_._--~- .If Cl R/W I / 10' 56' r'1 ::t>>c g:]:::t 5' 7' 11' 11 ' ;;;:c 5 2~ ~ U)"O -< -i -i 0 I):> ::u :;0 rrl O~ ;to ):> ~ ..." "Tl ~O ::J :!] .P- O 0 (j r '" fT1 ;:0 r r )> )> z <::: ~ rrl R/W 10 5 r'1 J>- C VI -l 71 5' ~ e rr1 -l Z -< VI .... is rr1 ~ r ^ ">0/ ~--. V)"1J I> gr;;; .-0 o M ::1J VARIES n > -i o I "iJ 9 Z -< r+ '.".~ ...\;: ..... '\- l CEMENT CONC. 8ARRIER CURS AND GUTTER CI TY OF YELM DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMERCIAL COLLECTOR APPROVED Dwe NO I , , 4-!jCNE:W,DWG , , , , I I I I D E S~.,,- DATE "l- I . I'--~ i \ Ii I I rI C - 1 4 '" '7 11'7 I ~ AM I F 11'7 I .1 () <1 <l <l od 4 () Cl R/W I 10' 72' rrl >c (f1 --i rr1 - 6' 8' 5' 11' 6' 6' s::C rrl-l z-<: !L1 "lJ \6! -t r -t --l 0 r ^ ;:0 rn :€. rr1 )> rr1 )> ....., 0 :a: z "TJ :I~ :J> ~ r ~ r :;0 )> n c "bo ^ :z ;:n -< f'T1 r Z )> ~ r ):> Z rr1 VARIES o fr -t ("") :r: v Q z -1 ~ L CEMENT CONe BARRIER CURB AND GUTTER () GENERAL NOTES NO "ON STREET" PARKI~~G PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMEN T GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAlt-JAGE, STREET LIGHTING, P I\VEMENT STRUCTURE, EC T DG4-3B.DWG r I-- I I-- I q .0 <1 R/W 10' 11' 5' 8' rr1 )> c (J)-t rr1 - ;;;: C rr1~ Z -< -t 6' <,,0 o rr1 ;? > r "\ -l ;:0 J> .., "TJ (') co ^ [Tl "lJ r > Z -l rr1 ;::0 r ):> z ;;;: "., UJ Z i! ~, "1J "\ VARIES () ~ -l o J: lJ ~ Z -l .2%__ +r-'-- .} "I ""'/'" 'l,,' C I T'y 0 F YE L M DEPT OF PU BLI C WCJRk S LJ R B A I \~ ARTERIAL APPROVED OWG 'NO I I 4-3BREV.DWG I I I PUBLIC WORKS DIREr'TOR (1/-1 TE DES DWN-CKO [lATE I n ", .- 1 4 - ,j '7 II 7 1 ~ r.lvl F I I >-- C lJ)-i m - 6' 8' 5' 11' ~C () :E~ \L' -0 ~ ;;j -I 0 r ^ r'1 )>- rr1 l:- ~ Z 'I -I r :J P' r'1 ;t>- O r "-tt ^ z r'1 r l.I1 ;:t> -1 3! '/ r'1 -0 VARIES Cf. 1 R/W 94 10' 8' 1"'1 )>- C ~:j 6' ~ C fT1 -., :;:: -< III -., o r'1 ::E )> VARIES r ?; 11' 6' 6' 11 ' 11' 5' Jj r -., ;;j -i Q;l r'I ~ :;0 "" l> 'l 6 l> J:> 'I -i 'I 'I 1"'"1 :J -i ::E :J ::J r n c p n n );> AJ -< :z r z r r r'1 ;:t> )>. )> Z r Z ~~ r'1 ); fTl z rr11 V r :r> z -i fT1 -:0 10% MAl 2~__ () P -I o I -0 o Z -l ~2% ~f ~ l CEMENT CONC BARRIER CURB AN 0 GU HER DEPT () ('E~JERAL NOTES 1, NO "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED 2 REFER TO RELEvANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDlTlm~AL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAIN ti.C,E, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRUCTURE, EeT r\~ A~JOP APPROVED PUBLIC WOPVS DIRECTOR DES OWN DATE CVD DG4-2B.DWG I I H"-"lL IUJ I I I) p. ...; n ::rr I V o z -i I I '....-- ~i "I ! ~ i I I I I I OWG :NO I I 4-2BRE :/DWG I I DATE :----- I I I I I rl c 1 4 Ii" 7 I ~ .w M F II I,j I I I Pedestrian-Oriented Streets COnsist of "~;- (Q) lR1 ~ ~ lfi I I Yelm Avenue between Solberg W and 4th Street E. First Street between Mosman Avenue S.E. and Jefferson Avenue N.E. Second Street S.B. from Washmgton Avenue S.E. and Yelm Avenue E. Thtrd Street S.E. from Washmgton Avenue S.E. and Yelm Avenue E. All public streets Wlthm 1,000 feet of the mtersectIon ofYelm Avenue W and Killion Road N W Pedestrian-Oriented Use (or Business) - A pedestnan-onented busmess 15 a commerCIal enterpnse whose customers commonly amve to the busmess by foot, or whose slgnage, advemsmg, WIndow display and entry ways are onented toward pedestnan traffic. : Pedestnan-onented busmess may mclude restaurants, retail shops, personal sernce busmesses, travel sernces, banks (except dnve-through WIndows), and sunilar establishments. I , Scale, Human - The perceived SIZe ofa building relatIve to a human bemg. A building 1S I considered to have "good human scale' rf there IS an expression of human actlVlty or use that I mmcates the buildings SIZe. For example, traditIonally sIZed doors, WIndows, and balcomes i are elements that respond to the SIZe of the human body, so these elements m a building I mdicate a building's overall size. Scale, Architectural - The perceived relatIve height and bulk of a building relatIve to that of nelghbonng buildings. A building's apparent height and bulk may be reduced by modulatmg facades. Streetscape - The streetscape IS the VISUal character of a street as determmed by various elements such as structures, greenery, open space, View, etc. J, Structured Parking - ParkIng spaces winch are housed Wlthm a structure or below grade or covered. City ofYelm: Design Guidelines Page 79 I I I I , I I , , , FROM THURSTON REG PLNG CNCL TO Yelm Cit~ Hall MAY 5, 1997 12 52PM ~609 P 02 RECAP o Thurston Regional Planning Council Meeting, MUJ' 2, ] 997 Regarding transportation, dlC Regional Council. 1. Authorized staff to conduct a freight and passenger origin-destination survey on 1-5 and US 101, lIsmg $65,000 awarded from the Washington State Department of TransportatIOn (WSDOT); 2 Certified as consistent wIth the RegIOnal Transportation Plan, WSDOT's proposed widening of' 1-5 from the May town Interchange to 93rd A venue; 3. Heard from WSDOT's Rail Of11cc that environmental analysis of the PacIfic Northwest Rail Corridor Plan WIll be narrowed to the first five years of construction along the corridor. The Plan has been revJsed to lllcrease the 1997 Olympia/Lacey~to-Portland service from 3-4 roundtrips per day, to only 8 per day in 2002-2005, and then to 17 by 2017-2020. In wOl'kSeSSlOll, staff from vanous jUrisdictIOns and Councll members reVIewed how l11terjurischetlOnal pOhCICS and local plans together form this area's response to the State Growth 'Management Act. The presentation and discussion covered' o J. Planning Prior to the Growth Management Act (GMA) A 1981 - Comprehensive Plan CoordinatlOn B 1983 ~ Urban ServIce Boundary C. 1988 ~ Urban Growth Managcment Agreement II Washington's GMA A. Goals B. How the GMA differs from "regular old planning" III. Local Response to the GMA A County-wide Planning PohcJCS B Implementing GMA Goals and County-wide Policies 1 Urhan Growth Boundaries 2 Cntlcal Areas protcction 3 County Farm, Forest and Rural deSignations 4. Regional Transporlal1011 Plan 5 State CapJtol Master Plan 6 Cltles' higher densJty, mIxed use, urban vIllagc, and urban design provisions 7 Jomt city/county planmng and nnplcmentatlOl1 of development regulations and standards 8. Capital FacJhty Plans to support land use plans o IV. IndlvuJual Junsdiction Emphasis Fmally, staff presented TRPC's Internet WEB site The address is. ..http://www.halcyon.com/trpc/It , I I I I I OlIn: I I I i I I I I .i ,~ I FROM THUR51UN ~cu ~LNb CNCL TO Yelm Cit~ Hall MAY 5, 1997 12 52 PM ~509 P 02 RECAP (\ U Thurston Regional Planning Council Meeting, May 2, 1997 Rcgarding transportation, the Regional Council. 1. Authorized staff to conduct a freight and passenger origin-destination survey on 1-5 and US 101, usmg $65,000 awarded from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); 2 Certified as consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan, WSDOT's proposed widcnl11g of" 1-5 from the May town Interchange to 93rd Avenue; 3. Heard from WSDOT's Rail Officc that envIronmental analysis of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor Plan will be narrowed to the first five years of construction along the corridor. rI11e Plan has been revised to increase the 1997 Olympia/Lacey-to-Portland service from 3..4 roundtrips per day, to only 8 per day in 2002-2005, and then to 17 by 2017-2020. In worksession, staff from various jurisdictlOns and CouncIl members reviewed how interjurischetional policies and local plans together foml this area's response to the State Growth 'Management Act. The presentation and discussion covered: o Planning Prior to the Growth Managemcnt Act (GMA) A 1981 - Comprehensive Plan CoordinatlOn B 1983 - Urban Service Boundary C. 1988 . Urban Growth Management Agreement II Washington's GMA A. Goals B. How the GMA differs from "regular old planmng" 1. Ill. Local Response to the GMA A County-wide Planning Policies B Implementing GMA Goals and County-wide PolIcies 1 Urban Growth Boundaries 2 Cntical Areas protcction 3 County Farm, Forest and Rural deSIgnations 4. Regional Transporlation Plan 5 State Capitol Master Plan 6 CIties' higher density, mIxed use, urban village, and urban design provisions 7 Jomt city/county planning and implementation of development regulations and standards 8. Capital Facility Plans to support land use planfi o IV, Individual Jurisdiction Emphasis Fmally, staff presented TRPC's Internet WEB site The address is. "hUI>:/ /www.halcyon.com/trpc/tl OlIo I I I I I ,I I I I I 105 Yelm 'Avenue West PO Box 479'" Yelm, Washington 98597 :(360) 458"-3244 ---~ i-~c I ' I I I I -, I , I ,I I 1 I I ,) ! o Ciffy {}) f Yeilffj1) ~ ,AGENDA CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION ) .. ,..; , MONDAY, MAY 1~, 19974 00 P.M. YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMt:;Jt;:R,S, 105 YELM AVE. VI! ~ , 1 Call to Order; Roli C~II, Approval of Minutes .. Apnl 21, 1997';'mlnutes ,enclosed 2 Public Communications - , ('".. ~ (Not asso91ated with measures or tOPICS fat whIch public he.anngs have been- . . ' . I {,_ held or fat whIch are antICIpated ) 3 Road Standards -Work session Complete review of proposed road sfandards Staff report and reVised draft road, standards enclosed .0 4 Development Guidelines - Work session 'IrrigatIon standards,.. staff report enclosed 0, 5Correspondehc;:e - . ' I _ , Thurston Regional Planl1lng 90uncrl - RECAP frQm May 2, 1997 meetIng 6 ' Other ~. 7 Adjourn ,.. " Enclosures are avallaole.to 'npn-Commlsslon membeq3 l,Jpon request. , If you need speCial arrangements to attend or partIcipate In thisrheeting, please cqntact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3244 ~Exr REGULAR MEETING JUNE'16, 1997, 4'OOF?M @ I I l I i.._'JI I I i , I J .:... I I I ' I o Reiyt;led paper c c c APRIL 29, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION 4:00 PM, PRAIRIE MOTEL MEMBERS PRESENT: JOE HUDDLESTON, TOM GORMAN, MARGARET CLAPP SPEAKER: PERRY SHEA, SCA GUESTS: WALLY PURDON, Yelm Telephone, CHERYL PARAS, puget Sound Energy, JOHN THOMSON, Yelm School Dist. STAFF: SHELLY BADGER, CATHIE CARLSON, KEN GARMANN, TERRY VANDIVER, LYNN HAIGH Handouts of Current Standards and Proposed Amendments were distributed followed by a slide show of a "Field Trip" taken by Cathie, Ken, Perry, Glen Blando and Don Miller, to illustrate several examples of other jurisdictions' street standards Comparisons were discussed for Local Access Residential, Neighborhood Collectors, Local Access Commercial, Commercial Collectors, Urban Arterials, Major Arterials and Boulevards Comparisons of current and proposed standards were used to evaluate future right-af-way needs with existing roadway widths and right- of-ways Details regarding easements, sidewalks, planter strips, lighting, on-street parking, swales and bike lanes were shown and discussed Questions, discussion and benefits of proposed amendments were approached It was the consensus of those present, that the changes proposed would facilitate parking, control speed within developments and support pedestrian safety, while reducing the overall need to obtain additional right-of-way from private property owners Utility easement areas on all streets, except boulevards, is proposed as la', on one side of the street Sewer and water will be installed in the street Swales have been deleted as a requirement in all areas, except boulevards Deletion of swales will require property owners to provide on-site stormwater facilities Swales I if constructed, should be the responsibility of the homeowners as well as the planter strips These standards are the minimum and all developers have the option to increase or up-grade within given projects Planning Commission Members, Guests and Staff were asked to review the proposed draft, comment and return to Cathie by May 7, 1997 Adjourned 6 20 pm Respectfully Submitted by LC3f:;;~;;EeY , , I l I I , I I , , I I , I I I I l I I .j I I o ~ o o rci111y @! J1elm \ ' 105 Yelm Avenue West P Of Box 479 Yelm, Was~ingtoi1 98597 (360) 458-3244 Public Notice F?1~~nihg Commission Special Meeting The Yelm Planning Commission will holdaspeqial meeting to discuss City Hoad St~ridards 'The meeting will be hela 'from 4 00 - 6 00 pm, at the. Pr~lrie Mofel Conference Room, 70b, Prairie Park Lane, Yelm the date of the meeting will'be i Tu~sday~ April 29, 1997 Alj illterested parties are invited"t9 ~ttend For, Information orif.yo~ n<~eo sp~cial accommodatio'ns to attend 'or participate, call. ' Cathie Carlson, (360.) 4!?8..B408 " ' i ;. Agnes Bennick \ Oity Clerk ' DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Published ,Nisqually Vail~yNew?, Thursday; April 17, 1997 Posted Wednesday, April 16, 1997 , ' .1 I , ' , .. " .; , @,,' Recycled paper .~.~_.,~~_ 0""': ~ .J......>.'^--'- ...-~_. ........---- c Agenda Item! Motion No. 97 -04 c o YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 21,1997 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order at 4 03 P m by Roberta Longmire Members present: Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, E J Curry, Bob Isom, Ray Kent, Roberta Longmire, Ed Pitts Guest(s) Amos Lawton, City Council liaison Staff. Cathie Carlson, Dana Spivey Members absent: Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY E.J CURRY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 1997, WITH THE ADDITION OF BOB ISOM'S INQUIRY ABOUT THE CHERYL PORTER - "CATERING BUSINESS" MATTER. CARRIED Public Communications. There were none Zoning Code Amendments: Cathie Carlson summarized the proposed changes from work sessions which have been held to date Cathie asked the commission members if there were any questions or comments? There were none Correspondence: Cathie talked about the Regional Transportation Plan Update, which will be presented by TRPC at the April 23rd City Council meeting Cathie told the commission about the open house meeting regarding the Y-2 Corridor, to be held at Mill Pond Intermediate on April 22nd, 4-7pm Perry Shea Will be there with her to help field questions Cathie also reminded the commission of the special "Road Standards" workshop to be held on Tuesday, April 29, 1997, 4-6pm at the Prairie Motel Conference Room Perry Shea will be there with a presentation, including a slide show Yelm Planning Commission April 21, 1997 Page 1 I I , I _____~"J.___________--J I , I I , I : I o c o 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket: (E J Curry left the meeting at this point, 4 15pm, due to her position on the Thurston County Planning Commission) Cathie stated that this IS a FYI topic, to look at what updates the City will be taking to the County for their review by June 1 st. The updates include Transportation Plan Update, Capital Facilities Plan Update and the Intercity Transit Policy Amendments Roberta Longmire questioned the Intercity Transit Policy Amendments, stating that she thinks I T is trying to be In control of how the poliCies are worded Cathie stated that the city, along with Perry Shea's help, will go over these amendments very carefully and will bring back their findings to the Planning Commission for their review and approval, in the fall Roberta then asked Cathie how the "fee in lieu of' open space policy is working? Cathie explained that we have not collected any funds to date Staff Will be revieWing the Open Space Ordinance later this year Meeting adjourned at 4 30 pm Respectfully submitted, ~nAb Dana SpiV I Roberta Longmire Date Yelm Planning Commission April 21, 1997 Page 2 -____~I- o o Q' J 105 Yelm Avenue West pO Box:tj79 Y~lm, Washington 9t!.59i (360) 4,58-3244' C4t1Jl @f Yellm 1fJEJLM - WASt4INGTQN Date Apnl 16, 1997 To Y~lm Planning Commls~ion Frqm Cathie ~arlso~~ty Planner Re .S0mmary 'of Zoning C'ode AmenpmenLWork Sessions I.,. Beginning In November 1996, the Planqlng Commission has held, five, vyork sessLons on vanous Zoning Code ISSU~S In June or, July fh~ Planning Com'mlsslon will hold a least ,one public heamig on 'the proposedamel)dments to the zoning code. and development gWldellnes and wll"makea Jormal re.,commendatlo,n to the City Co~ncll regardlng'the amendments The,followlng is a summary of Issues discussed and the' general direction the Planning Commission directe,d staft' to' pursue ' Densltv 'High DenSity Resldentla[-(R-10) , . , Increase maximum allowed dens1ty'from 10 Units t9 14'ur:)itsper acre , Central Business Distnct "' Increase maximum den?ity for apartments from to units to 1,6 units per acrE3' Note The. Policy for 'high.qensity developmenffound In-lhE3 Compr~henslve Plan, pag~ 111-2, states that apartmeht denSity s.hould range from a medium de(lsityof 10 umts per acre up to 20 units per acre for pan:::els of 15 acres.or more ' 'V ,,,- .... .' t Resldentralbeveloprrient In CommerCial Districts , Removereslde'ntial development, including manufactured home subdivIsions and parks, as ,,1n allow-eel use In Commercial. Olstricts Exceptions woula be allowed for' ap?rtments In the Ge[1traJ BUSIness [jistrict at 16 'units per acre and residential.' @ R~C)'i:led pilper - ,,' r~-~-I I I I r I 1 , ' 1 1 1 'I , , , , I 1 , 1 ., 1 f I. I I I 1 I c 2 development as an element of a mixed use project In all Commercial Districts Manufactured Home SubdivIsions and Parks Reduce the maximum parcel size for a manufactured home subdivision from 40 acres to 20 acres With this change the parcel size allowed would be from 5 to 20 acres Reduce the maximum parcel size and density for manufactured home parks Parcel size would be reduced from 3 to 20 acres to 3 to 15 acres per development project a maximum density of 8 units per acre in the R-10 (Possible R-14) zone BUlldinq Set-Backs In the CBD Delete the 15' setback requirement from public right of ways to allow for site specific determination of bUilding placement. This would only be applicable in the Central Business District all setbacks in the other Commercial Districts would remain the same Townhouse Construction With the exception of one model home, no construction of townhouses can occur prior to recording of final plat. c Off-Street Parklnq and Loadlnq Require all parking areas to be surfaced with asphalt. Current language requires paving for parking areas for more than four vehicles Revise text in the Development Guidelines to requIre paving of eXisting and/or new parking areas for all projects required to obtain site plan approval Landscaplnq Add Type VI and VII landscaping for consistency with Design Guidelines Type VI landscaping IS intended to create a decorative landscaped display wIth colorful flowers or foliage as focal setting for signs, special site elements and/or high visibility or pedestrian areas Type VII landscaping is Intended to enhance natural areas and to integrate developments into the eXIsting site conditions c Site Plan Approval Exempt development proposals from the sIte plan revIew process if they meet the follOWing criteria. 1 No addition of tenants 2 Addition of square footage is for storage purposed only Future conversion of storage space to useable commercIal/retail space shall require full site plan review and approval 3 The proposed change of use is categorized within the same Major Group of the Standard Industrial Classification 4 Increase/addition of 250 square feet or less I _l- I I I I c 3 Street Frontaqe Improvements RevIsion would require Street frontage improvements for projects which Improve the value of the eXisting structure by 50% or more of the estimated value of the eXisting structure The estimated value is determined through the Thurston County Tax Assessment. The improvement value IS determined through bUilding permits The current requirement IS a 60% increase In value of the eXisting structure requires street frontage improvements The proposed 50% threshold represents the median opinion of the Planning Commission members c c I I , , , i I I .1 I I I .////111111111111111111//// / / c March 31,1997 Intercity , r 8_ n_~_ i_ t I '--""__' , ' \ . -"1 If'" r-',. - ~ ~ l '. I. I I ; . ;";~. \ :...i. ...~ _._-~ ~M___" ; \ Dana Spivey CIty of Yelm POBox 479 Yelm, W A 98597 526 Pattison Sf PO Box 659 Olympia, WA 98507-0659 (360) 786-8585 FAX (360) 357-6184 '\.\ .-1_ ,,~ \ , \ \\ lL~ \.' 4~ L---,---- - I " ~ t . ") ~ ~ .' \1 I, ,'. ,J I Dear Dana. Thank you for the opportunity to propose amendments to the City of Y elm's Comprehensive Plan. Intercity Transit is always happy to be Involved. I propose changes to a number of the policies throughout the document. AddItions to text are underlIned, and suggested deletions are marked WIth a strikethrough. Use of the Transportation Goals and Policies, Page 10 Please change the first bullet to read. neighboring jurisdictions Thurston County, IntercIty Transit, and c Please change the third bullet to read. By Intercity TransIt and other transportabon providers to coordInate services WIth Coordination, Page 11 In the goal statement, I suggest hsting InterCIty Transit along with Thurston County and WashIngton State In the Pubhc Parbcipabon Policy paragraph, please add, IntercIty Transit has provIded assistance to the City of Yelm in the past and would like to conbnue to be included In planning efforts. Intergovernmental Agency Coordination Policy, Page 12 Add a fourth bullet, Continuing to serve on the Intercity TransIt Authority Regional Transportation Policy, Pages 12 and 13 To the first paragraph, add Intercity Transit after PIerce CountIes To the last bullet In this section, add and the facilibes necessary to support them. c OJ o c o c Apnl1,1997 Page 2 Transit Service Policy, Page 14 I suggest changmg the first sentence to read. Intercity TransIt provides transIt service to Yelm on Routes 92 and 94. InterCity TransIt is scheduled to proT,Tide transit sef'/ice to Yelm in 1993. In addition, the city ".rill encourage alternabTyTes to this serVIce, such as T.ranpools. The CIty will encourage the use of transit, carpools, vanpools, and other alternabves to drivmg alone. Park-and-Ride Policy, Page 14 Please add. The City will work WIth WSDOT, Intercity TransIt, and private property owners to site park and ride facilities m the Yelm area and will encourage the use of exisbng pnvate parkmg lots that are not normally used during the day (such as churches) as park and rIde facilities. Connectivity Policy, Page 18 I suggest these changes to the statement of purpose: To provide a hIghly mterconnected network of streets and trails for ease and variety of travel to allow for movement of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles To the last paragraph on page 18, I suggest addmg, The city will provide for efficient access for emergency and transit vehicles. Transportation System Management (TSM) Policy, Page 19 Please add a second sentence to the goal statement: These strategIes will enhance transit, carpool and other alternatives to the single occupant vehIcle to reduce the rate of mcrease m the number of vehicles on the roadways. Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Transit Policy, Page 20 Please add. The City will work to make all transit facilities accessible to mdividuals with special needs. Transportation Demand Management (TOM) Policy, Page 22 Please add these bullets . Working WIth IntercIty TranSIt, as the admimstratorllead agency for CTR, to reduce the total number of vehIcle miles traveled and to mcrease vehIcle occupancy for commute trips according to the state's Commute TrIp Reduction law , I I I I I I I I I I "I I I -L--.- , , I c April 1, 1997 Page 3 . RequirIng that pedestrian and bicycle facilIties be constructed in conjunction with major residential, commercial, Industrial or office construcbon. To the last bullet In the TDM secbon please add. shower and locker facilIties to encourage people to bicycle, walk, or run to work, bICycle lockers or racks, Education Policy, Page 23 Please add this bullet: . Working with IntercIty Transit, the bUSIness community, and the schools to encourage employees and students to use tranSIt and other alternatives to driving alone to and from work and school. Environmental Protection and Conservation Policy, Page 24 Please add these bullets: C Promoting CTR programs to Improve air quality and conserve energy Future Travel Conditions, Pages 34 and 25 Please add this informabon to this section. In partnershIp with Thurston RegIonal PlannIng Council, IntercIty Transit developed a long-range system plan to set the direction for publIc transportation In Thurston County through 2020 This plan serves as a blueprint for implemenbng the transit component of the Regional Transportation Plan. The system plan identifies crIbcal issues that affect transportabon services in Thurston County such as land uses, parking policies and facility needs, environmental impacts, travel behavior, community goals, and finanCIng The plan also provides long-range direcbon for coordinating possible high-capaCIty transportabon services and the land-use change necessary for a successful system. Dana, I would like to add a couple of descripbve secbons enbtled PublIC TransportatIOn, and Alternate Mode TransportatIOn to the comprehensive plan. However, these sections don't seem to fit "bdily" in the transportation plan as It was written In 1992. I want to prOVIde them for you anyway, because I think they are important elements to the plan. Perhaps there is a place in the update where It makes sense to Include them. c ~i :- I , c c c April 1, 1997 Page 4 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Intercity TransIt provides connections between Yelm, Ramier, Tenino and the urban areas of Thurston County Route 94 operates along Yelm Highway and HIghway 510 connecbng Yelm with Lacey Passengers may make connections WIth urban and other rural routes once they reach the Lacey TransIt Center Connections to Tacoma are also available once passengers reach the urban area. Route 92 provIdes service on HIghway 507 between Yelm, Raimer, and Temno In Temno, nders can transfer to Route 99 and nde to Tumwater and downtown OlympIa to make connections WIth other routes. Frequency of service on Route 94 is hourly Monday through Saturday, with more frequent servIce dunng peak commubng hours. Route 92 operates hourly in the early morning, the late afternoon, and the early evening Monday through Saturday IntercIty Transit does not operate Route 92 in the mIdday In addition to transit service, Intercity TransIt provides ndesharing serVIces, matchmg people WIth potential carpool partners. Intercity Transit also coordmates vanpools, WhICh allow a group of people to share rides usmg a vehicle that IntercIty Transit owns and maintains. Vanpool riders pay a monthly fee based on the operating costs of the vehicle and mileage. Intercity TransIt is the lead agency implemenbng the Commute Tnp Reduction plan m Thurston County The provide technical and educational services to employees, employers, citizens, and governmental agencIes throughout the county AL TERNA TE MODE RECOMMENDA TlONS Transit Increasing the use of our exisbng transit service, developmg m a manner that supports easy access to transit, and adding more and better service are goals for Yelm' s future Better transportabon opbons, mcludmg transit, are important to meebng the goals of the regIonal growth management efforts, the commute trip reduction law, and the Regional Transportation Plan. Full utilization of the transIt system that IS currently m place is important. The policIes and goals of the comprehensive plan will make Yelm a more pedestrian and transit-fnendly city This "friendliness" will hopefully increase ndershIp on Intercity Transit. Intercity TransIt's presence m Yelm offers many advantages. It connects Yelm residents WIth the urban center and other parts of the county and region. Major centers m Olympia and Tumwater, and rural centers m other parts of the county are currently accessible. ----'- , , o c c Apnl 1, 1997 Page 5 Express services to Tacoma (WIth connecbons to Seattle), are also offered. IntercIty TransIt also offers serVIces to the Lacey jOlympia Amtrak Station. One of the major benefits of a transIt system is Its ability to alter routes and schedules to meet the changing needs of the commumty This IS parbcularly important in Yelm where development and congestion are increasmg Yelm will see increasing demand m services for commuters. Major employers operate programs to meet CTR reqUIrements, and they need to be able to present realistic transportation alternatives. Intercity TranSIt considers new serVIces as part of ItS TranSIt Development Plan (TDP), whIch is updated each year The TDP is a six-year combined comprehensive and capital facilibes plan for transit, and it outlines programs and facilibes that InterCIty TranSIt should pursue. In partnershIp with Thurston Regional Planning Council, InterCIty transit developed a long- range system plan to set the direcbon for public transportation in Thurston County through 2020 This plan servIces as a blueprint for Implemenbng the tranSIt component of the RegIonal Transportation Plan. The system plan identifies critical issues that affect transportabon services in Thurston County such as land uses, parking policIes and facilIty needs, environmental impacts, travel behaVIOr; community goals, and financing The plan also provides long-range direction for coordinating possible hIgh-capaCIty transportation services and the land-use changes necessary for a successful system. Thank you once again for the opportunity to propose amendments to the plan. If I can be of any further assistance, please call me at 786-8585 Sincerely, . " . It, . Ct~L U -mu~,---, lmIe D Haveri Semor Planner copy' Michael Harbour, General Manager Roger A. Dean, Director of Development ~J ,0 o City@fJlelm 105 Yeim Avenue WeSt'i . \ piQ }Joi.419 'felm, Wa~hington 98597 (360) 458-3,244 .' \ . AGENDA , . . CITY-OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, April 21, 19974.00 P.M. _ YELM GITY'HAlL CqUNCILCHAMBERS, 105 yeLM AVE. W 1 Call to 'Order, Roll' Call, Approval of Minutes - March 12, 1997, minutes enclosed ,2 Public 'Communications (Not gSS091ated with measares or tOpiCS for whICh public hearings have been held or fbrwhlch are anticipated) 3 Zoning Code Amendments -.Work session ,\ ReView of proposed .changes discussed In work SeS~IGnS.1 Staff'r~port enclosep c . 41997 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Oocke~ \ Trqrlsportatiorl Plan Update Capital. .Facjlities PI~n Updafe Intercity Tran~j1t PoliCY Amengments Other 5 Corre~~ondence- 6 Other - TRPC Reglor:lal Transportation Plan Update.- City Councll~Meetlng, Apn(23" 1997 \ R~q~ StC\ndards .Wor~shop - April 29, 1997 Pralne Motel Conference Room, 4'00. pm to 6 po pm ' I 7 .AdJourn - Enclosl;lres are available to non-Commission members upon request. If you need'speclal arr?ngem~nts. to atteild or participate In thls.meetlng,pll3ase ' contact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETING MAY'19, 1997, '4:00 PM 0' Recycled /JO;per 'I i, ! ' , \ o o o Agenda Item! Motion No. YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 1997 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order at 400 P m by Tom Gorman Members present: Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, E J Curry, Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent and Roberta Longmire Staff Shelly Badger, Cathie Carlson, Ken Garmann and Dana Spivey Members absent: Ed Pitts Approval of Minutes The minutes of the February 10, 1997 planning commission meeting were approved as printed Zoning Code Amendments - Work session Site Plan Review exemptions and project thresholds - Tom Gorman went over the options with commission members Cathie Carlson gave staff report. Discussion followed Tom asked Cathie for her overview on staff's perspective on the options Cathie stated that she has talked with Ken Garmann, PW Director, and his recommendation was to lower the threshold The result of projects that are exempt is the street frontage Improvement becomes the financial responsibility of the City The City's street budget is very limited and can not absorb additional expenses Glenn Blando asked how often can an applicant do the added 250 sq ft. (In option 2)? There was discussion about applying a time frame Shelly Badger stated that this has not been a problem in the past, the city will monitor it, if it becomes a problem - the issue can be addressed Tom Gorman asked if the Site Plan Review issue can be separated from the Street Frontage Improvement issue? Cathie Carlson stated that the Site Plan Review and Threshold language are different issues being dealt with at this time Margaret Clapp asked about a "tier system"? Cathie explained that the proposed process is basically a "tier" type of system Cathie explained further Yelm Planning Commission March 17, 1997 Page 1 o E.J. Curry asked how many building permits have been applied for that fall under the 60% improvement threshold? Cathie and Shelly stated that they will investigate this There was more discussion An informal poll was taken of the Planning Commission members on what Option they prefer, and what the percentage should be on the Street Frontage Improvement Issue The Planning Commission preferred Option 2 for Site Plan Review exemptions Preference for what percentage of site improvements would require an applicant to install the improvements varied The group average was 50% Correspondence - Cathie Carlson explained about the significant flooding that has been happemng in the Yelm area. Cathie showed the commission members an aerial map of the February 1996 flood There was discussion Cathie also explained the emergency ordinance which was adopted by City Council after the recent November '96 flooding The emergency ordinance (no 595) will be in effect until FEMA Study is complete, late summer - early fall Roberta Longmire asked when will the city determine a new flood line? Cathie stated that decision is made by the FEMA Study Cathie handed out copies of the new Development Fee Schedule with new language adopted by City Council o Other - Cathie explained that Perry Shea has put together an informative slide show and presentation on Road Standards Cathie would like to hold a special work session for this presentation There was discussion A separate meeting date was chosen, Tuesday, April 29, 1997 4 00-6 00 pm Other: Bob Isom inquired about Cheryl Porter's catering business Cathie gave a brief explanation concerning City of Yelm codes and regulations that are applicable to the project. The applicant, Cheryl Porter, has been contacted by Shelly Badger, City Admin, who explained the requirements and appeal procedures Respectfully submitted, .11717 Chtlel{ j1~C/lZl/~T Jd :-11 ';/ :? -j c.; . t;D ,Y'l/l ~ 7-! 7 l/C f/2~r-:J $ (~'lJ1j!4LC{A~U4~t!:- f1lJ 01lJ.5e C! c:-~c;/ ?~(J71R al i 2/-1 7 pc ld./'dj) ~ Meeting adjourned at 5 15 pm Tom Gorman, Chairperson o Yelm Planning Commission March 17, 1997 ~'0J ~/\ / (;~ ~l~ . ^', ~ ~~\) ~ ~~p YELM PLANNING CO SSION MINUTES ~\"\)Y MAR 17,1997 I^~ \i) v YELM CITY L COUNCIL CHAMBERS Agenda Item! Motion No. (\ o eeting was called to order at 400 P m by Tom Gorman Members present: Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, E J Curry, Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent and Roberta Longmire Staff' Shelly Badger, Cathie Carlson, Ken Garmann and Dana Spivey Members absent: Ed Pitts Approval of Minutes The minutes of the February 10, 1997 planning commission meeting were approved as printed o Zoning Code Amendments - Work session Site Plan Review exemptions and project thresholds - Tom Gorman went over the options with commission members Cathie Carlson gave staff report. Discussion followed Tom asked Cathie for her overview on staff's perspective on the options Cathie stated that she has talked with Ken Garmann, PW Director, and his recommendation was to lower the threshold The result of projects that are exempt is the street frontage improvement becomes the financial responsibility of the City The City's street budget is very limited and can not absorb additional expenses Glenn Blando asked how often can an applicant do the added 250 sq ft. (In option 2)? There was discussion about applying a time frame Shelly Badger stated that this has not been a problem in the past, the city will monitor It, If it becomes a problem - the Issue can be addressed Tom Gorman asked if the Site Plan Review issue can be separated from the Street Frontage Improvement issue? Cathie Carlson stated that the Site Plan Review and Threshold language are different issues being dealt with at this time Margaret Clapp asked about a "tier system"? Cathie explained that the proposed process is basically a "tier" type of system Cathie explained further o Yelm Planning Commission March 17, 1997 Page 1 (~ ~ (\ o o E.J. Curry asked how many building permits have been applied for that fall under the 60% improvement threshold? Cathie and Shelly stated that they will Investigate this There was more discussion An informal poll was taken of the Planning Commission members on what Option they prefer, and what I the percentage should be on the Street Frontage Improvement issue The Planning Commission preferred Option 2 for Site Plan Review exemptions Preference for what percentage of site Improvements would require an applicant to Install the Improvements varied The group average was 50% Correspondence - Cathie Carlson explained about the significant flooding that has been happening in the Yelm area Cathie showed the commission members an aerial map of the February 1996 flood There was discussion Cathie also explained the emergency ordinance which was adopted by City Council after: the recent November '96 flooding The emergency ordinance (no 595 ill be In effect until FEMA Study is complete, late summer - early fall berta Longmire asked when will the city determine a new flood line? Ie stated that decision is made by the FEMA Study Cathie handed out copies of the new Development language adopted by City Council Other - Cathie explained that Perry Shea ha ut together an informative slide show and presentation on Road Stan rds Cathie would like to hold a special work session for this pres ation There was discussion A separate meeting date was ~o e, uesday, April 29, 1997 4 00-6 00 pm ./ Meeting a JOu{\ at 5 15 pm / Tom Gorman, Chairperson Date Yelm Planning Commission March 17, 1997 Page 2 o City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458:'3244. ~ j Date March 12, 1'997 To Yelm Planning Commission From Cathie carlscCf,..6ty ~Ianner Re Development ThrElshold Options o At the Feoruary meeting the Planning Commission discussed various thresholds for 1 ) exempting smaller projects from Site Plan Review and 2 ) site Improvements which woUld ,tnggerstreet frontage Improvements As a result, the staff was asked to provide the Planning ,Commission with two options reflecting the refined thresholds as discussed at the meeting Site Plan exemption thresholds are sllQhtly different In eath option Option 2 Includes additional situations whlCh would allow exemption from the site plan review process Projects which meet the cnteric;l for site plan exemption are not exempt from complYing with other r~gulations such as the Health Department, Uniform BUilding Code, and water/sewer Improvements .necessary to accommodate the purposed use , The difference between O!='tlon 1 and 2 for street frontage Improvements IS the percent threshold used to det~rmlne when street f(ontage Improvements are reqUired Option 1 requires street frontage Improvements when project 'Improvements- exceed 25% of the current structure value Option 2 requires street frontage Improvements when project Improvements exceed 60% of the current structure valu~ Option I Site Plan Approval Projects which meet the following critena shall be exempt from the site plan review , process o 1 No Increase/addition of square. feet, ,tenants or employees 1 * Recl'cled paper -~~-- G'. .-':// o o 2 Addition of square footage is for storage purposes only Future conversion of storage space to useable commercial/retail space shall require full site 'plan review and approval The purposed change of use is categorized Within the same MaJor Group of the Standard Industrial Classlfic€ition ,; 3 ** Projects that are not exempt would be evaluated for compliance With the fgllowing dE;lvelopment regulations Parking, Landscaping, Design Guidelines, Stormwater, Traffic (TFG), Sewer/Water Infrastructure and capacity, Street Lighting, Fire protection, Etc Street F'rontaqe Improvement Threshold All Improvements Including commercial and residential (Including multi-family) development, plats, short plats, and any change made In ,the character of occupancy or .use of the building or alterations and Improvements which constltute'25 percent or more of the estimated vi3llJe of the existing structures on the property or as require per SEPA mitigation, shall install frontage Improvem.ents at the time of construction as required by the: City Such improvements may Include, curb and gutter; sidewalk, street storm drainage, stre~tllghting system, traffic signal" modlficatl9n; relocation or insta!latlon,utlllty relocation, planter strip landscaping and Irrigation, and street widening and transit stops; pads and sh~lters all per these st~ndards Plans shall be prepar~d and signed by a licensed cIvil engineer registered in the State of VVashlngtofl The design of frontage Improvements will take Into consideration and shall show on the design plans, sections of the eXisting roadway extending a minil)1um of 300 feel in each direction from the section to be Improved ' Option 2 Site Plan Approval ProJects which the following criteria shall be exempt fromthe site plan review process 1 No addition of tenants 2 Addition of square footage IS for storage purposes'ohly Future conversion of storage space to useablecommerclal/retail space shall require full site plan review and approval 3 The purpo$ed change Of use IS categOrized within the same Major Group of the Standard Industrial Classification 4 Increase/adc:iltlon of 25Q square feet or less ** ProJects that are not exempt would be evaluated for compliance With theJollowlfl9 development regulations Parklhg, Landscaping, DeSign GUidelines, Stormwater, Traffic (TFC), Sewer/Water Infrastructure and capacity, Street Lighting, Fire protection, Etc 2 c o o Street Frontaqe Improvement Threshold All Improvements Including commercial and re~identlal (Including multi-family) development, plats, short plats,. and any change .made In the character ,of occupancy or use of the ,building or alterations and Improvements which constitUte 60 percent or mor.e of the estimated value of the existing structures on the pr6periY oras require per SEPA mitigation, shall Install frontage Improvements at the time of construction as required by the City Such Improvements may Include, curb and gutter; sidewalk, street storm drainage, streeUightlng system, traffic signal modification, relocation or installation, utility relocation, planter stnp'landscaping and Irrigation, and street widening and transit stop~, pads and shelt~rs all per these standards Plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer registered in the State of Washington The design of frontage Improvements will take Into consideration and shall show on the design plans, sections of the existing roadway extending a minimum of 300 feet In each direction from the section to be Improyed , i 3 ___t___ ," -;7'~ - o PJ Understanding Floodplain Resources c What Are Floodplain Natural Resources? - The term "natural resources" often brings to mind products, such as tImber or fossil fuels that may be extracted from their natural environments and sold as commodities for profit. But the natural values of floodplains are different; their value lies not in their removal and sale, but in the functions that they perform within the floodplain environment. Floodplain natural resources include the soils, nutrients, water quality and quantity, and diverse species of plants and animals that exist in the areas between the water's edge and the higher ground adjoining flood-prone areas. These can be considered as natural "infrastructure." But what is it about these resources that make a naturally functioning floodplain so valuable? We will begin the discussion with some basic information about how floodplains are formed. Rivers Shape the Landscape - The formation of a floodplain is intimately tied to the adjacent river or stream, which over long periods of time carves out the surface geology of the landscape and deposits sand, silt, and other material (these deposits are refered to as alluvium) that form rich soils. A typical river corridor has several features that result from the geological and hydrological processes that form these landscapes (Figure 4). The river channel meanders through the landscape, carving through the terrain and de- positing sediment as it goes. Sediment deposits and depressions around the water's edge may result in the formation of wetlands, areas that are always or periodically inundated with water. The level areas bordering river channels are known as floodplains. These portions of river valleys are frequently defined in terms of the likelihood of flooding in a given year. Hence, the" 1 DO-year" flood is the flood having a 1 % chance of occurring during any given year. (Similar definitions can be made for the 25- or 50-year floods.) As the river cuts downward it may leave terraces, formed from a time when the river flowed at higher elevations. These landforms are a part of the larger river corridor, and are ex- tremely important to the functioning of the floodplain ecosystem. o Watersheds - While the floodplain and its resources are the centerpiece of dIscussion for this guidebook, watersheds are central to the understanding and management of resources in floodplains. A watershed includes the area of land that is drained by a river and its tributaries. Different watersheds are separated from each other by ridges or divides. Like floodplains, watersheds are formed over time by various climatic, hy- drological and geological processes. But a watershed is much bigger than a floodplain lID Terrace Floodplain and can therefore be more difficult to manage, since large land areas are usually cov- ered by a number of separate municipalities with different governments and land-use strategies. It is important to understand, however, that upstream uses of land and water within a river's watershed are likely to have adverse impacts downstream including the potential for increased flooding. Natural Resources and Ecosystems - Both the hydrological and the geological char- acteristics of the landscape play an extremely important role in determining what veg- etation will inhabit the area. Many of the plant species that grow in floodplains are adapted to thrive in the specific conditions created by the soil types and water flow cycles that characterize river corridors. In turn, this vegetation plays an important role in determining how water flows across the land, and is a major factor in controlling erosion and sediment deposits that can change the face of the landscape. In a mutually supportive cycle, the living and nonliving parts of natural floodplains interact with each other to create dynamic systems in which each component helps to maintain the characteristics of the environment that supports it. These systems of inter- acting parts of the physical and biological worlds are called ecosystems. Together, these parts of the floodplain ecosystem function to store and convey floodwaters, pro- tect water quality, prevent erosion, and maintam rich habitats for fish and wildlife. In recognizing the relationships between the hydrological, geological and biological fea- tures of these systems, we can begin to understand how changes to one feature can alter the entire system in significant ways. This was dramatically demonstrated during the Great Midwest Flood of 1993 when the Mississippi River reclaimed much of its flood- plain. The flood reconnected the river to traditional spawning areas, resulting in a significant increase in fish populations. Natural Communities - Throughout a floodplain and its adjacent landforms there may be a number of different ecological communities, groups of plant and animal species that coexist in a certain area. The various plant species within an ecological community may share the need for a certain soil type or level of soil moisture that is available only in , I', , I ~ Figure 4 - Major phl'siographic elements of a tvpical floodplain. o o Figure 5 - The Mississippijloodplain during the Great Midwest Flood of 1993 Figure 6 - Major elements of the Hydrological Cycle in floodplains. o c c' Evaporation & T ransporation a particular portion of the floodplain. Wet meadows, bottomland hardwood forests, and riparian shrub wetlands are examples of such communities. The boundaries of these ecological communities can be identified by the landform, soil, and plant types that cover a portion of the floodplain. Summary - This section has introduced floodplain natural resources with an explanation of floodplains, watersheds, ecosystems and natural communities. The basic characteris- tics of floodplains and their natural resources function in ways that make them so valu- able to humans and to wildlife. This is the subject of the next section. How Do Natural Floodplain Systems FunctIOn? The Floodplain Ecosystem - Floodplain ecosystems are typified by the bottomland hard- wood forests found in southern regions of the U.S., the floodplain forests of central and eastern areas, and small wooded areas and streambank vegetation in the western portion of the country Each floodplain ecosystem has specific conditions that make it unique, and it is important to recognize these distinctive attributes when planning projects for a given area. But there are some general characteristics that are common to the functions of ecosystems in stream and river corridors. Hydrology - Flooding is extremely important to the maintenance of floodplain ecosys- tems, and may be the primary reason for their biological richness. Floodwaters carry nutrient- rich sediments and trigger chemical processes that cause beneficial changes in the soil, which contribute to a fertile environment for vegetation. The degree of soil saturation from flooding (and resulting elevated groundwater levels) determines the types of vegetation that can grow throughout the floodplain and can create wetlands along stream channels. This is especially important in dry climates, where water is a particularly limiting factor for vegetation. In these areas, floodplains may be far more bIOlogically productive than surrounding upland areas, which are often dner. The ultimate determmant of the structure of floodplain ecosystems IS the hydroperiod, IIIi.I or the timing (frequency and duration) and intensity of flooding. The hydroperiod, whIch is governed by the climate, soils, and geology of the area, determines the amount and movement of water in soIls across the floodplain. ThIs nse and fall of flowing water typically occurs at least once within the groWing season. The saturatIOn of soils for at least part of the year is one reason why wetlands tend to form In floodplains along stream channels. These hydrological features, combined wIth the connectIOns to upland and aquatIc ecosystems, are what make nparian ecosystems so special. (See Figure 7 ) Soils and Nutrients - The distinctIve attributes of soIls In riparian ecosystems are di- rectly influenced by the hydroperiod, which determines the soil aeratIOn (or oxygen level) as well as nutnents and content of orgamc matenal. In turn, the soIl affects the structure and function of plant communitIes In these ecosystems. The aeration of sOIls is extremely important for rooted vegetation. When the corridor IS flooded for long periods of time, low oxygen condItIOns can be created. Some plants have adaptations that help them to survive in such conditions. Soils in riparian areas (especially wetlands) generally have a high level of nutrients because of the continual replenishment ofnutnents during flood- ing. The periodic wetting of the soil also releases nutrients from the leaf litter. (See Figure 8, page I 0 ) Vegetation and Habitat - Any ecosystem that forms the edge of two other distinct eco- systems tends to be more biologically diverse than its neighboring systems. This is in- deed the case with floodplainS, as nutrients, energy and water provide for high biological productivity The soil conditions that result from varying amounts of moisture in soils leads to a greater dIversity of plant species in riparian areas. Floodplains may be charac- terized by different zones of vegetation, with shallow aquatic vegetation shifting gradu- ally to shrubs and trees toward the upland elevations. This variety in plant life translates into greater diversity of habitats for wildlife. (See Figure 9, page 11 ) Diverse vegetatIon can support a wide variety ofwildhfe and smaller organisms that feed on the plants. In addition, the trees and shrubs of upland areas offer protection and nest- ing and roosting areas for many species. Trees standing or fallen adjacent to the nver's Evapotranspiration Precipitation Overland Flow & Runoff Fluctuating Water Table ----- ___~gh Water Level_ Average Water Level Recharge (Bank Storage) Low Water Level 1:1II o o Figure 7 - Hydrologic Features in the floodplain. o Table I - Natural Resources and Functions of Floodplains. o o o o Water Resources Natural Flood and Erosion Control Provide flood storage and conveyance Reduce flood velocities Reduce peak floods Reduce sedimentation Water Quality Maintenance Filter nutrients and impurities from runoff Process organic wastes Moderate temperature fluctuations Groundwater Recharge Promote infiltration and aquifer recharge Reduce frequency and duration of low surface flows o Biological Resources Biological Productivity Support high rate of plant growth Maintain biodiversity Maintain integrity of ecosystems Fish and Wildlife Habitiats Provide breeding and feeding grounds Create and enhance waterfowl habitat Protect habitats for rare and endangered species. o Societal Resources l, i I I Harvest of Wild and Cultivated Products Enhance agricultural lands Provide sites for aquaculture Restore and enhance forest lands Recreational Opportunites Provide areas for active and passive uses Provide open space Provide aesthetic pleasure Areas for Scientific Study and Outdoor Education Contain cultural resources (historic and archeological sites) Provide opportunities for environmental and other studies Adapted from: A Unified Program for Floodplain Management. 1994. edge act to stabilize its banks, while fallen branches and root masses create aquatic mi- crohabitats in the form of pools, breaks, and ripples. A stream itself can be a source of food and cover for wildlife, and the corridors themselves offer pathways along which birds, mammals, and fish can migrate. Wetlands are particularly valuable as nestmg and feeding areas for fish and waterfowl. Vegetation and Water in the Floodplain - While the type of vegetation inhabiting a nparian ecosystem is largely determined by Its hydrological conditIOns, the vegetation itself plays an important role in mamtaining these very conditions. The interaction of 11m Winter NH. in leaf litter immobilized Summer Drawdown of surface Exposure of surface sediments to air acce!. erates ammonification (organic N .10. NH.) and nitrification (NH. .to-- NO,) Spring NH. in leaf litter released by decomposition Autumn vegetation and water influences local microclimate conditions. Plants in river corndors provide natural floodwater storage capacity by retarding runoff and increasing the rate at which water infiltrates sOlis. This can result in the reductIOn of flood peaks downstream. Vegetation also allows the water to spread honzontally and more slowly, rather than running directly from upland areas mto rivers or streams. In addition, the leaf litter and soils associated with floodplain vegetation act as sponges m absorbing some floodwa- ters. Vegetation also passes water to the atmosphere through transpiration. Surface Water Quality - Maintainmg the ecological mtegrity of riparian areas can help IliW Figure 8 - Nutrient Cvcling in a floodplain .(<)rested wetland eco.l'vstem. o o o ,I,l:' Typical Floodplain Wildlife Habitat Ranges o I Red-Winqed Blackbird I I Raccoon I · . I White-Tailed Deer I I Wood Oucl< I [Qjjlli . I Great Blue Heron I '0 '0 C C ~ ~ .~E '0 lic ~- " o~ ~ ;:~ ~ ~o al c'e CO ~ Cal 0 ~8. ~~ urg g-g ~ ,,~ ~ ~c ~e ~~ ~~ ~ EO E~ a <( w~ wI\- r Upland Floodplain Upland r Typical Floodplain Plant C9mmunities o Figure 9 - The structure of plant communites and interconnecting wildlife habitats are strongly influenced by spatial and temporal pallerns in the floodplain to protect and even enhance the quality of surface water This is true because of the critical role that riparian vegetation plays in these systems. First, trees and shrubs along streambeds can maintain the temperature of water by shadmg it. This is important as lower temperatures increase the capacity of the water to carry oxygen, which IS critical for the support of aquatic life and decomposition of organic material. Second, floodplain vegetation filters sediment and nutrients that move toward rivers and streams from upland areas. This function is crucial because excessive nutrients in aquatic ecosystems can disturb the balance and growth of species and reduce the availability of oxygen in the water. The results can include reduced diversity, unpleasant odors, and, ultimately, human health problems. The degree to which floodplain vegetation performs its filtration function is dependent on several factors, including the slope and width of the floodplain and the nature of the vegetation. Excessive sediment m waterways can also blanket the gravel beds that are home to inver- tebrates such as insects and crustaceans. These creatures are an important link in the food chain, and destruction of their habitat can have far-reaching effects on other species in the ecosystem. Excess sediment can also disturb the areas in which fish eggs and young fish develop, with harmful effects on populations that may be essential to recre- ational fishing areas. o Groundwater Supply and Quality - Floodplains and wetlands can play an important role in contributing to sources of water supply for human consumption. The slowing and dispersal of runoff and floodwater by floodplain vegetation allows additional time for this water to infiltrate and recharge groundwater aqUIfers. Floodplain soils and vegeta- tion can also help to purify the water as it filters down to the aquifer The ability of wetlands to contribute to groundwater recharge vanes with geographic location, season, soil type, water table locatIOn and preCipitatIOn, as well as wetland type. 1m In additIon, water can also flow from hIgher groundwater systems Into lower surface waters dunng periods of low flow, so that the frequency and duration of extremely low flows may be reduced. Many wetlands store water that is important for wlldlt fe and may be used for irrigatIon during periods of drought. o Summary - Natural resources In floodplains interactIvely functIon to determine the dis- tinctive attributes of soils, vegetatIon, habitat, and water They also carry out valuable functions that provide benefits both to humans and to wlldltfe How these functions can be encouraged or impeded by human activitIes on the land IS the subject of the next sectIOn. o o InI o II Human Activity - Multiple Uses of Floodplains While it is important to understand that natural resources of floodplains serve many valuable functions, we must recognize that humans use the land in ways that can impede these natural functions. If vegetation and soils play crucial roles in maintaining water quality and retarding runoff, then their disturbance or removal can inhibit or eliminate the functions that these ecosystem components perform. Loss of these functions should raise concerns for those communities in which floodplam land uses are not compatible. o Every community makes choices about land use. These choices will vary according to the characteristics of a particular community, and in many cases choices are lImited by land-use decisions of the past. Current land-use patterns may reflect inadequate consid- eration or understanding of the consequences of altering natural features of the environ- ment. Even so, it is important that an awareness of the value of natural functions is incorporated into the land-use decisions that will affect the future of any community Different levels of development and disruption to natural systems will have varying im- pacts on natural resources. For example, if the floodplain in your community is already fully developed, your management objectives will be quite different from those of a community that has a considerable amount of open space. Here are some different levels of land use development and corresponding considerations' o Urban Areas - It is lIkely that the floodplain within an urban community is already highly developed. Here, the management options include restoration of natural areas and the relocation of structures that are particularly threatened by flood hazards. o Suburban Areas/Urban Fringe - Urban fnnge areas often face great development pressures, but may be fortunate enough to have some open space to work with. Ef- fective planning is critical in these communities, and can include a focus on main- taining existing open areas along waterways and restoration of vegetation. c o Rural Areas - Agncultural commumties have a different set offloodplam concerns. They have an advantage in the fact that open space is probably already plentiful in the floodplam. Management strategies here should focus on controlling erosion and excessive nutnent loadmgs, as well as revegetating stream banks to restore natural ecosystem functIOns. IIDJ o Wildlands - CommunIties with very low-density development and much more open space already have functioning natural systems. Local officials In these areas have the opportunity to safeguard floodplain functions at the outset, and to maintain valu- able habitats and superior water quality It may seem burdensome to plan for the protection of natural resource functions, particu- larly In heavily developed areas where economic concerns and space limitatIOns are pressIng issues. But every community must recognize that decisions about floodplain resources are deCISIons about the commumty's future. With careful consideration and planmng, rivers and streams can be aesthetIc and functional assets that reflect commu- nity pride and ingenuity However, a community that ignores the importance of natural floodplain functions may ultimately face flood losses and deteriorating water quality In the end it would be less costly to plan well now Of course, not all human actIvities are incompatible with healthy, functioning floodplain ecosystems. Land uses that allow native vegetation to flourish and do not disturb soils are highly suitable within the floodplain. Well-placed parks or recreational areas that include vegetation are often ideal for maintaining flood storage capacity, and help to support the floodplain functions that protect water quality and sustain habitats for di- verse wildlife species. Even open space areas such as agricultural lands can help to main- tain flood storage capacity In addition, there are proactive measures to restore naturally functIOning floodplaInS, such as protecting or plantmg vegetated buffer strips and creat- ing channel alterations for fish habitat improvement. The following sections describe specific land uses and theIr relationship to floodplain functions. Urban and Urban Fringe Areas - Development within floodplains often occurs without consideration of the effects on floodplain natural resource functions. If an area is built up during a period when there have been few floods, the need for the flood storage capacity of a naturally functionIng floodplain may have been overlooked. The loss of natural floodplain functions in heavily developed areas not only Impedes flood storage, but also increases erosion and reduces the mitigatmg effects that vegetated areas can have on the pollution of waterways. Impermeable surfaces such as buildings and pavement replace vegetation as ground cover, increasing the runoff that would have infiltrated in a natural floodplain. The removal of vegetation, destruction of wetlands, and paving in urban and suburban settings can thus increase the risk of flooding. Upstream development outside the floodplain can also result in increased runoff. VegetatIOn loss and excessIve runoff within the floodplain can also cause increased erosion and sedimentation, which may cover spawning areas and bury food sources in streams. Loss of vegetatIon also removes sources of shelter and food for wildlife, and human-made structures may present barriers to migration and re- productive activity The lack of naturally functioning floodplam resources m urbanized or developing areas also has significance for water quality Diffuse "nonpoint sources" sources of pollution related to urbanization, such as lawn fertilizers, leached materials from waste disposal areas, and chemicals leaked from automobiles, present a threat to water quality Although it is most effective to address such problems at their source, vegetative buffers along waterways can help to mitigate such pollution. Urban areas also present direct "point sources" of pollution to waterways, such as sewage treatment plants and industrial dis- charge Riparian vegetatIon would have little effect on this type of pollution. Wetlands are particularly vulnerable to loss through human intervention. The draining and filling of wetlands for development and agriculture results in the loss of an important natural system for reducing runoff and maintaining the quality of surface and groundwa- u. Figure 10 - Human uses of floodplains urban, suburban. /'lIral. & wildland 10 o o \'iii ' Figure II - Agriculture is a significant and important land use in many floodplains. () o o ter, and destroys the diversIty and habitats for whIch these areas are recognized. In general, it is important to recognize that there must be a balance between the need for some floodplain occupancy and the tremendous benefits to be gained from maintaining naturally functioning floodplains. Agriculture - WhIle agricultural land uses do not impede the absorption of floodwaters as urban development does, agriculture can present other problems for floodplam re- sources. Fertilizers and pesticides associated with farming are major sources of non point pollution of waterways. Erosion from poorly managed agricultural operations can cause excessive sedimentation in streams. The removal of vegetation along stream and river banks compounds these problems by efiminating valuable filtration functions. Recreation and Open Space - Parks or recreation areas are one type of land use that is generally considered to be quite compatible with the healthy functioning of floodplain ecosystems. A tremendous variety of recreational activities can occur along rivers and streams. A simple trail provides an opportunity for hiking, jogging, cycling, or horse- back riding, as well as increasing accessibility of the waterway to birdwatchers, photog- raphers, and beachcombers. A more ambItious recreation plan might include provisions for water-based activities such as swimmmg, boating, and canoeing. Well-planned pic- nic or camping areas may encourage waterfront use by families, and some waterways and wetlands may be ideal for fishing or hunting waterfowl. If recreational land uses are planned for the floodplain, it is wise to layout a strategy carefully and to recognize the needs of different recreational groups. For example, swim- ming and powerboating in a narrow waterway might not be compatible activities, while pollution may detract from water recreation possibilIties altogether. Wetlands may have particular value in performing natural floodplain functions, and are better suited to trails or waterfowl hunting than to picnicking. A good starting point is to take an inventory of existing recreation patterns for a waterway and of floodplain features that are unused but have potential. When planning for recreational uses of floodplains, it IS important to deSIgn areas in ways that minimize potential damage. Heavy recreational use of riparian areas can destroy vegetation, thus reducing its water quality maintenance functIOns. Tram- pling off-trail vegetation can also lead to disruptions that reduce diversity of plant and animal life. Aesthetic Resources - Scenic vistas can enrich the quahty of life in any community, and are quite likely to be found overlooking waterways. Such areas make excellent targets for floodplain natural resource management plans. Existing or potential scenic areas can be identified easily with input from the pubhc, who are most familiar with a community's special landscapes. Cultural Resources - The centuries-old tendency of humans to settle near waterways has resulted in many historic structures and archeological sites along rivers and streams. Protecting these artifacts of our heritage may be an important part of a floodplain protec- tion strategy Greenways - Greenways are lmear parks or corridors of open space that may extend across many communities. They embody a strategy for keeping riverside areas largely undeveloped while providmg recreatIOnal, cultural, and aesthetic resources. These chains of green may be dotted with nature centers, historic structures or other seml-open-space land uses, m additIOn to parks and WIld areas WIth native vegetation. Greenways can help to protect long stretches of floodplain ecosystems, and serve as mIgration corridors for wildlife. ~ The Floodway - The floodway is the most significant component of the floodplain, rela- tive to maintaining the flood-carrying capacity of rivers and streams. The floodway IS defined as that area of the watercourse plus adjacent floodplain land that must be pre- served in order to allow the discharge of the base flood without increasing flood heights more than a designated amount. Communities are required to prohibit development within a floodway that would ca~se an increase in flood heights. Because a floodway is, in many respects, a de facto preservation tool, it also acts to protect critical npanan habitats, minimize degredation of surface water quality, and provide for greater ground- water recharge. A number of states and local communitIes have adopted a more restrictive floodway which generally results in a wider floodway; thus a greater area of floodplain, especially sensitive riparian areas, would likely remain undeveloped. Some 5 8 million acres of floodways have been delineated along 40,000 stream and river miles in 7,800 communi- ties natIOnwide. This is an area the size of Vermont or more than 2 1/2 times that of Yellowstone National Park. Watersheds - The Big Picture - While it IS Important for commumtIes to plan and take responsibility for the land uses that occur in their own floodplains, it must be recognized that flood level and water qualIty can be very much affected by land use activities that occur elsewhere in the watershed. Land uses along tributatries are likely to have an im- pact on downstream communities. Wise management of tributaries is therefore extremely important, as their protection can Yield benefits for the entire network. Broad planning efforts among communitIes within a watershed can thus have far-reachmg advantages. ITitI Figure 12 - Recreation takes many forms in the floodplain. o .0 o ;":iT,'::;ty, --cr.- \ B.P.LB. February 10, 1997 - Page 3 (Jakings Landowner claims town's flood-plain restrictions reduced land's value Town seeks dismissal, arguing previous lawsuit barred landowner's claims Leonard v. Town of Brimfield, 666 N.E.2d 1300 (MassachuseUs) 1996 Leonard owned 16 acres of land in the town of Brimfield, Mass. The property, which previously was used for agricultural purposes, was in a designated flood-plain zone. Leonard wanted to build a subdivi- sion on the property, and applied to the town zoning board of appeals for a special permit to build on her land. She needed a special permit for any construction on her land because it was in a flood plain zone. The board issued Leonard a spe- cial permit that limited construction to land at or above the 370-foot eleva- tion mark. This effectively limited construction to about six of Leonard's 16 acres. Leonard had built a house for herself on the property. Leonard sued the board, claiming Cl1e permit's restrictions were arbi- trary and capricious. A court upheld the board's decision, and an appeals court affirmed. Leonard then sued the town, claiming it was artificially channeling water onto her property so the property could be designated a flood plain zone. Leonard and the town settled Leonard's water-chan- neling claims out of court. Leonard sued the town again, claiming it owed damages for artifi- cially channeling water onto her property. She also claimed the town's enforcement of its flood plain restric- tions amounted to a compensable tak- ing under the federal Constitution. The town asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the settlement in Leonard's previous lawsuit barred her claims. The court dismissed the claims based on the channeling of water, but held a trial on Leonard's claim that the town should pay her Page 4 - February 10, 1997 o damages for "taking" her property. Under federal law, when a regula- tory restriction involved neither a physical invasion nor a complete dep- rivation of use, the court had to con- sider three factors to determine whether a compensable taking had occurred: the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; the extent to which the regulation interfered with distinct investment-backed ex- pectations; and the character of the governmental action. At trial, Leonard argued she in- tended to subdivide the 16 acres when she bought the land, and claimed the special permit's restric- tions caused her to lose the market value of two parcels in her proposed subdivision. She claimed she didn't know the property was in a flood zone when she bought it, and that the town should have recorded the flood plain map in the registry of deeds - not the building inspector's office. The town claimed there was no compensable taking of Leonard's property, because the complete 16 acres were suitable for agricultural and recreational purposes. It also pointed out the permit's restrictions had not prevented Leonard from building her own house on the property The court ruled for the town, dis- missing Leonard's claims. An appeals court transferred the case to itself, to consider only the issue of whether the town should compen- sate Leonard for the decrease in her land's value, caused by the flood zone restrictions. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the town. ignored the fact the zoning restric- tions existed before she bought her property. Even if this were not the case, the economic impact of the building restrictions was not severe. Leonard w~ able to build her own house on the property, and the full 16 acres could still be used for aJZricul- CASE NOTES: Under federal law, when a regula- tory taking involves neither a physical invasion nor a complete deprivation of use, several interre- lated factors have to be considered in determining whether a com- pensable taking has occurred. These factors are the economic im- pact of the regulation on the claim- ant, the extent to which the regula- tion has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations, and the nature of the governmental action. The lower court properly ruled for the town. Leonard had no reasonable, investment-backed expectation to subdivide her property, and the eco- nomic impact of the special permit's restrictions was not severe. Leonard could not have had a rea- sonable, investment-backed expecta- tion to subdivide her property because the property was in a designated flood plain zone that required a spe- cial permit for construction. When Leonard bought her property the town zoning map was available to the pub- lic at the building inspector's office - nothing required the town to reg- ister the map in the registry of deeds. Because she bought the property sub- ject to the flood plain's building re- strictions, she could not complain about the loss of a right she never had. Moreover, Leonard's property was a single 16-acre parcel, not indi- vidual lots; she had done nothing to subdivide the property. Leonard's claim for damages, based on her inability to build houses on about 10 acres of her 16-acre parcel, B.P.L.B. ture and recreation. The land previ- ously was used for agriculture and could still be used as such. Finally, Leonard's takings claim was based on the town's zoning re- striction and the special permit pro- cess - not a physical invasion of her property by the town. see also. Penn Central Transportation Company v. New York City, 438 U.s. 104, 98 S.ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978). see also: Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 475 U.S. 211, 106 S.Ct. 1018, 89 L.Ed.2d 166 (1986). o o o CITY OF YELM ORDINANCE NO. 595 AN ORDINANCE adopting a temporary interim amendment to Chapter 15.32.240(A) of the Yelm Municipal Code relating to flood damage prevention. The Yelm City Council makes the following findings of fact: In February 1996 and during the last week of December of 1996, Yelm Creek has received flood waters in excess of designated flood hazard areas (100 year floodplains, as mapped on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps "FIRM") resulting in the flooding of existing platted lots. To avoid threat to lives or property from these excessive floods, the City and FEMA are conducting are-evaluation of the designated 100-year floodplains. 2. The City desires to impose a temporary flood management standard in the interim to assure adequate warning and safe construction in flood prone areas. 3 In order to preserve the City's ability to effectuate long-term planning decisions and to plan in a rational manner, it is necessary to prohibit construction in flood hazard areas without adequate flood protection, temporarily through adoption of this interim ordinance. For the reasons set forth in these Findings, these circumstances constitute an emergency 4 This Ordinance also has the purpose of allowing full and open public debate on any proposed permanent measures regulating construction in flood hazard areas. The City is directed to hold a public hearing on amendments to Chapter 15.32 of the Municipal Code within 60 days of adoption of this Ordinance. 5 Under WAC 197-1-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirement of a threshold determination under SEP A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE YELM CITY COUNCIL as follows: SectIOn 1 Yelm Municipal Code Section 15.32.240(A) is amended to read as follows: 15.32.240 Residential Construction. A. New construction and substantialilllprovement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more above base flood elevation, or the highest know recorded flood elevation, whichever is greater, as shown for the areas depicted on the attached Exhibits A, B, and C. Section 2. This Ordinance shall expire and its terms be of no force and effect 180 days from its adoption herein - July 7, 1997 Section 3 This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage by this City Council. ADOPTED' January 8, 1997 ~~//r1' ;Jt4 KathJ:yn M. W 0 f, Mayor ATTES PASSED, APPROVED, and EFFECTIVE. January 8, 1997 PUBLISHED: Nisqually Valley News, January 16, 1997 rOUND ~,.. IROI ROO 'Mni 'I"tU.OW Pl.AS1\C CJJ> HSCRl8EO "'lU.'1tS 1121cr (HELD) """'-- AT lHt ~~CnoH CI g z;;::zt~ lMOOlL ST. AND IUAWAY 1m. " - NL:::;'n~ LOCATED IN SHORT SUBDIVISION NO ~:" SS-0560 AUDITOR'S FILE NO 1003657 """,,"U'" IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 19, T17N, R2E, W M CITY OF YELM THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON S1JR't'E'l'D) AUGUST 24, '99~ o o PLA T VOL. tIl < gj < ~ ::0: < ~ :i! 8 ..:l r... :a:: H ..: r>l ... ~I :z: H r>l 00 . < is ~ ~ . ~ ... !~ ~ H i%l H i:l: II '=iI= >< H r>l ~ fil ~ 0 !t .... ~ NClRTHIJN(.Sl:V4stClt COt1[.SIC11OH..<;C......A-- s_...~ _ ~...._... RAILWAY ROAD S.E. rWNOrMASSw'C.:{,-...-r- 123.":--- --- (lIElD) ~~~~~;-\"st 5 88'~'35. E - \ 3.55.00' .l.LCI'tC PRO"f.RTY LM. 2700" Il!l. - 1111.00' ~~. PIN AHO wAStO . ~ 29~&9- -- ADDRESS SCHEDUL.E FOR ih '8 DONOvAN COURT 5.E. :X s aa-,wl:j" [ ;;: " 120.00' ~ ~8 2 N 2 S "'40'>>" E 120.00' -8 il f~ j!! li (; "8 4 z ~ S 18"4(1'J5" E 122.00' ~ ~ ~i ~ 8 ~ :it ~ ~ w ~ tJ 8~"< ~ :i~:- '" o " z ~ PARcn. "J,,' IKJtJNl)ARY t.H AD.lJSl\IOfT NO. 101O ALl .IoDDRE.$sn 4JlE: DCiI'fO'Jo\N COUflT SL 'll.LW,w.A ~17 25 . .... " . ~AIlCC.T~YLN Al).lJSTWEHT JtO. II.>> "'UD"TOIrS'.u:NO.t~ot01. " " , , , ,~ '" ',~.f , <'t o! 2t 'g~~ +0' ~~<..~ q.(",~c,....", z. Ci <( rt-~ ...~\ , qq.'t':# " ~ " III " ,. CUR'o'( C11 CENTERUNE CURVE DATA ''''~~1XI I lEN'';',02 I CH~" I ,!~~ .1 ~;;..I " lO' , o . "0 n " , . " o PAGE FILE NO. 3003(Q~8 WOODFIELD D(TAI. NOT TO SCAU SCAl!: " - 00' LEGEND GRAPIllC SCALE ID t..1 10 ~-- ~ -- (III Jar) lbDb"'eoft. . - SETr'IRASSCJ#INCI:*CRElE o _ ~AS~t~ l;r lION JIOll .1M mJ,.OW PLASTIC C>> IGCRlIIEI) "HNCS(H t71)4~ IItSIS OF MEJa[)IAM IS a..A-11~ NOTES: rno Sl..IIt'oa' CQlDIJCTtD 1Il1tl " LOTZ SET ... 'TOT...... ST"nCIN c::lC)ISI.JM:1 12,000 1.) THE NQIIlH LN': S M SOUTH NGMT-Of'-WAY OF "ALWAY 1tOAD. 'THE u.ST LJC II mE EAST I.lME OF OF f'AACfl. I Of SHORT Sl..IIJC)M5ICJ' NO. S5-0M0 Al.lClfTaI"S fU NO. 1())J1$7. THIS EAST lH: IS AlSO 3U LUT OF 1K 'lEST l.N. f1F LOT 11 WQC[MNA lMlGA1r.:IM 1JtACTSAHDP~TDlT. thE HW. ~ OF lOT '1. IllJ( Ji WAS E5TASUSHEtl .... PlIlORATJ(Jrt FROW 'THE rOJNO WOMUWDIT "T 1HE C[HltIlIJHE ..TtRSE~ or WlOOLf ST. AKJ RAILWAY lIID. AHJ 'THE rD.HD COf1Dt OF stCTKltt. 1I1l 5OJ0l lINt IS 'M SOUTH lJII[ OF 1HE AlJ(Nf. WEHTItWUl iJAIlCD.. 1 NID ALSO 1HE NORlHERl. T UNE OF NAMl[ CItED( $l.I8OMSION- 1K ItEIlU.lNlIG LJ€S IIOlE CRUTED nta.I ICUCl)AItT UN&: oIrlUJSlWEHl NO. 1132 ,wonOlf's FU NO. 1tI031401'" 2.) TItAClS .". Notl T S'latWW"lD' I 0PfN ,.Aa: SHAU IE OIHED AND MM'lI1AI€D ''1' tHE lIlOClOfl[l.O HOW[ ~ A$SlX:IA1IOM. J,,) LOTS I liMO 26 SHAU.. NOT ACC[$$ ClHTO JWl....T 1tOAD. 4.) ~~~~~~\"~~lk.Nf) 1J. MS WOIDlllS ALSO" !.) [ASEWOlTS \..lSIDI UHDVl Ri:~C; NO. 7437'12. 71.J.Wl. NIIJ 8I1121lOO1l DO HOT AFfECT 1ttlS lRAC~. PAGE 1 OF 2 PRD'ARED BY: G . L lAND SUR\€'I1NG. iHC. 811. SOW. N1WBUS AVE.. BEAVERTDN. OREGON 87OQ5, PHONE: 541-0301 JalII340 o ORDINANCE NO. 595 EXHIBIT "B" LEGEND LOTS WITHIN THE INTERIM FLOOD HAZARD AREAS ~ I'l.AT Of PRAIRIE CREEK A PORTION OF TRACTS 9 Ie 10 OF BLOCK 36. McKENNA . IRRIGATED TRACTS, SITUATE IN SECTION 19. TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH. RANGE 2 EAST, W.M. " I I I I I I 1 : 1_ 50 ...J I : I L ! I~ : I~ : :1\ I \'" ~ I ! ? .I I~ ~ 1 \ ~ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ '.\ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ,%\ \ \ ~ ~ \ \ ~\ \ \ 'e \) , I! ~ \ -;, \ -<. \ --------------\ \ ,oG \ \~ \ \ \ \ ~~ :A~~ ~ov::c~~ \ ~~~TO~. ~~ ~ ~AlNU::= \ \ OF CO&ltIUHITY AR[AS. lH( OllNfRSNP IHtrlfCST t r: ~~fRt;:' SHAU. I{ STAllD 4J',,4 ~ ~ ~'\ , , \ ~ ~ \ (). ';xl '" '" ~ , , H...., of' r ..... _& -& -& -& 25 ~ ~ 26 a~ 27 a~ 28 ~~ 8:; 8:; 8~ ~:; ,.,'" '.'4 [',00 "ZII cn 42.00 ..... C7P C> o ~ ~ C ....~ ;Xl"" 1"~ -< C> .-. la ~ ... '.:: to \l r 3> "\ 50 to o ~ ~ --J ~ ~ ~ \J\ l C5~':fI' Cf - & ~t; ~~. 11 ~ 8 'J.Z! (PI .fZ'40'3Q- E POt M.A r OF lIc<<EHIM ll'tRrGA TED lRACTS) 155.00 H 4J7.0r r 1144:.1. . - SET ,. MASS CAP IN CONCMTr CURl'[ TABLE / ,.,. O(lTA ItNJIlJ> lfN;TH ,.,. p(~r" ItNJIIIS LCHliTH <0$ JVI'O'. 1,0.00 10.00 C7Z 4J." 'Z"- 50." .H.lT /~~ tf"J.:!'ot'" 1.0,00 ..... C73 ""J' '25- 50." .... 11-;,5'0'- 1.0.00 ".00 .,. "-lO'OT 25.00 ..... I .. 18..,,'06- 110.00 ".00 C75 47'15'''- 25.00 10.12 ~. ".,,'04- ,to.OO ".00 C7f 1"<f.4'ZS- 112.50 $J. " '----" GSO 314'4Z" .to.OQ 10.7' cn 2Z,,,'J3. 111.60 IJ.JZ "" 5'02'08" 115.00 10.1' C78 '7"-". IU.50 ".04 SCAlL, '--.50 cn U.,,'J.J. 115.00 15.4% cn "."',,. 17$,00 ".J5 "" ,,,,'U. lU.50 6.21 CllO .....J'J'. U5.00 ft.,. ~~oo CO. z......n. IU,50 70.21 Cll' 21'24'". IU.5O 41.0' .,.. 'O".7'JZ. IU.6O N." CO, .5'40'12- IIZ.50 117.'" CH u',u "0- '..00 1<1.10 CIJ 1..'U'I1. llZ.1O 41.'4 CO, >>"2 '51- ..... '''.71 CO, .,...... "'.00 ".ft .Aft OF IJCNfIHC: CH 23'37'2.. ..... ".7. .,.. 24'1' '%f- IU.oo 70.00 $Ult\CY WfJ'tlDfAH ASSl./'lIIO) "" 4.5'30'11. ..... ..... e.. ~'JC. If$.oo 2'0." C70 ,M'"'.. 50." '5.00 CO, Jnt'oo. 140.00 ,0.51 en 4.$'$O'U- se.Do ..... CH 40",'J:r. 1400.00 '00.00 ~ ~ ~ g ~ LOT AOORc5Sa ARC SHOltN IH /TAVCS NfO ME. N.J~(O TO 1H( "OADS THA T JH(T' ARt ASSIG'fHED TO. N..J.. ARC IN; mJf "A~n:w. '4"7 SH'o- J or J HANSEN &: SWIFT INC. Professional Land Surveyors ....00 CAPITOL BLVD" $VI1'[ 0 TIJ\I\U,t[llt, WA. '~I (201) 7$.1-ntt Ie,;, ----------..,.,"~ I' City of Yelm o o \/ 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (36Q) 458-3244 WASHINGTON AGENDA CITY OF YELM pLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,MARCH 17, 1997400 P M YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YELIVi AVE. W 1 Call to Order, Roll Call, Approv~1 of Minutes - February 10,1997, minutes enclosed , 2 Public Comment 3 Zoning Code Amendments - Worksessipn Site Plan ReView exemptions and project thresholds Staff report encloseq 4 Correspondence - Floodplain Information Smardonj RicHard ahd John Felleman Protectinq Floodplain Resources . A GUlaebo~k for Communities (pp5-16) FEMA. "Takings - Landowner claims town's flood-plain restnctions reduced land's '> I value II BUlldmq Permits Law Bulletin February 10, 1'997 City of Yelm Ordinance No 595, Temporary Amendment to Chapter 15 32 '240(A) relating to flood damage prevention January 8, 1997 5 Other - Next Meeting Date, Place and Content 6 AdJourn - Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. If you need special arrangements to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21, 1997,4.00 PM * ," I , ) Recycled paper :, v I o YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 1997 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Agenda Iteml Motion No. The meeting was called to order at 400 P m by Chair Tom Gorman Members present: Glenn Blando, Margaret Clapp, E J Curry, Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston, Ray Kent, Roberta Longmire, Ed Pitts Guests Enc Anderson, John Huddleston, Amos Lawton-City Council Liaison, John Thomsen Staff Shelly Badger, Cathie Carlson, Ken Garmann, Dana Spivey Members absent: Bob Isom 97-02 Approval of Minutes MOTION BY MARGARET CLAPP, SECONDED BY ED PITTS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 13,1997 AS PRINTED CARRIED o Vista View (Prairie Vista) Final Plat - Applicant: Mark Carpenter/Eric Anderson Proposal: Finalize plat approval of 63 lot manufactured home subdivision, located off of Burnett Road Ken Garmann gave staff report. Review of the plat has been completed by Skillings-Connolly, Inc., Professional Land Surveyor and Ken Garmann as Public Works Director/Health Officer Staff Recommendation Recommend final plat approval to the Yelm City Council and that the City Council grant final plat approval for Vista View With the following conditions to be met prior to signature by Mayor Wolf and final recording by the County Auditors Office *Signatures by the County Assessor, County Treasurer and Public Works Director as required The County Assessor is currently reviewing the final plat; *Conditions on final plat checklist. Upon signature by Mayor Wolf, the final plat, plat certificate, warranty agreement and bills of sale will be recorded with the Thurston County Auditors Office As perYelm Municipal Code Section 1604150, the staff recommends that one building permit be issued for the plat, until such time as the plat IS signed by Mayor Wolf and recorded Ken showed a video of the sub-division Discussion followed Joe Huddleston asked about the depth of the drainage area, if there is a potential hazard for younger children playing in the area? Eric Anderson stated that installing a fence around the drainage area is not required, but they will be putting up a fence for the safety of all 97-03 MOTION BY E.J. CURRY, SECONDED BY RAY KENT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL ON VISTA VIEW, WITH CONDITIONS AS STATED IN STAFF REPORT. MOTION CARRIED. Zoning Code Amendments - Work session, Site Plan Exemption - Improvement Threshold. o Yelm Planning Commission February 10, 1997 Page 1 -------;~- o o o Cathie Carlson gave staff report. There was discussion Margaret Clapp asked Cathie if she could priontize items, most important to the city down to the least important. Cathie stated that sewer, water and fire flow are probably the most important Issues to begin with Tom Gorman asked if a list could be compiled to show the major vs minor issues and what the pros and cons to each? Cathie started a list of the pros and cons on the white board After a list of information was compiled on the white board, there was more discussion Tom stated that we need to see where the Planning Commission wants to go with this whole issue, and we should have Cathie refine further from there Cathie stated what two options could be Option A - Eliminate SPR for smaller projects and keep the 60% threshold for frontage improvements Option B - Loosen up Option A for smaller projects, increase threshold for larger projects Cathie said she will go back and work some more on Site Plan ReView Draft Merchant Ordinance - Cathie Carlson gave staff report, which she prepared to aid the Planning Commission In the review of the draft Street Merchant Ordinance There was discussion Ed Pitts asked it this will exclude sandwich trucks that travel around the City, visiting different bUSinesses? Cathie stated that It would limit the trucks to certain places In the city, they would need to be set up in a pedestrian friendly place There was more discussion It was decided to put this draft ordinance in the "hold file," until Steve Craig develops a more detailed proposal for a Farmers Market. Correspondence - Cathie spoke about the recap of the 1/17/97 meeting with TRPC Other - Shelly Badger gave an update on the Water Reuse Bill and process with State Legislature Meeting adjourned at 5 30 pm Respectfully submitted, Tom Gorman, Chairperson Date Yelm Planning Commission February 10 1997 Page 2 n c o --;-T U_ City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue .West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 45.8-3244 r Date': February 10, 1997 To: YeJ,m Pl.cinning Commission Members, Mayor Wolf and Yelm City ,Council Members From: Ken Garmann, Public Works Director Re: Staff Recommendation, Vista View After staff review Of the fihal plat application for vista View, the PubllC Workq Department recomm~nds that the City Council conditionally approve th~ finalplat~ bas~d upon a favorable recommendation from the Planning C9f!1mission. Review of the plat has been completed by Skiliings .I Connolly, Inc , Professional La:qd Surveyor and Ken Garmann as Public Works Director/Health Officer STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend final plat approval to the Yelm City Council and that the City Cquhcil grant final plat approval for Vi~ta View with the following co:qditions to be met prior to signature by Mayor Wolf and final recording by the County ~uditor's Offlce . Sighat~res by the County Assessor, County Treasurer and Public Works Director as required. The County Assessor is currently reviewing the final plat ** Conditions on final plat checklist. lJpon signature by Mayor Wolf, the final plat, plat certificate, warranty agre~ment and bills of sale will be recorded with the Thurston County Auditor's Office. As per Yelm Municipal Code Sectioh 16.04.150, we recommend that ~i one building permit be issued for the plat, until such time as the plat is signed by Mayor Wolf i?-nd recorded. G)' Recycled paper o Q' " ,0 ------r ~ STAFF REPORT Vista view FI~AL PLAT CHECKLIST ** Request final plat inppection by City of yelm ** Punchlist items addressed either by correction or entering into "Ag:reeme'nt for Completion of Improvements and Repairs" Vii th City of Yelm P~at owner submits reqUest to City for ~roposed items in agreement, along with estimated value. . Final plat map, along with survey c+osures (see Y~lm Municipal Code 16.12.220-16 12 280)' and plat certificate, submitted to City for review and approva,l. City to supply addresses for plat and will forward final plat map to Thurston. County Asses- sor's Office for their review (maximum 10-.day review by Thurs- ton County) f I I I I I 'I' ., 1 *,* "Warranty Agreement" to besi'gned by City and "plat owners. ** ~ills of sale (~ater and sewer), street dedications and as- bu~lt ~ngineering drawings for the plat submitted to City. ** ,ppon City staff approval and certification, of plat, it will be placed on the next available P+anning Commission agenda for review and a,recommenctati.on to the City Council (YMC16. 12.300) ** UpOB Planning,Commission recommendation, the'plat will be,pla<;-:- ~d on the next ~vailable City Council agenda for review and approval (YMC .16 12 31-0) After City Council approval, the ~lat wil~ be signed by Mayor Wolf .(after all other signatures) and forwcl.l:'ded to Thurston County Auditor's Office for recording, as per YMC 16.12 320. As per YMC 16.04 150, the City of Yelm's policy is to issue one building permit (if available) after City Coundil ~~proV- al and prior to recordihg of said plat ** Residential ~greement to~aintain storm~ater faciliti~s and to implement a pollution source co~trol plan i i ** Homeowner's Association Agreement. ** ITEMS COMPLETED __1 " PRAIRIE VISTA PUNCH LIST CIVIL MIKE WOOD 11 1'1 I ; ! 1 Seed or hydroseed all on-site and off-site (dirt) ~Broken pavement from 510 to new pavement ~Tar street crossing 3-Burnett Rd , I-pizza Depot 4 Fix broken sidewalk Lot 60 & 61 ~Clean up fill piles at 510 & Burnett 6 Fill back of curb, front and back of sidewalk to finish grade or top of walk ! f; 7 Fix/replace ramps that do not comply with the print (ADA) ~ Fairway Motors ~ Off-site property owners acceptance c c -~. , '~ u Date February 5, 1997 To Planmng CommIssIon From CathIe carlSO~ Re SIte Plan ExemptIOn/Improvement Threshold At the January 13, 1997 Planmng CommIssIOn meetmg, the threshold for project Improvements and possible project exemptIon from the sIte plan reVIew process were dIscussed. The dIscussIOn covered two major tOpICS The first tOpIC deals wIth the current 60% threshold. As stated m the Development GUIdehnes, the 60% threshold trIggers street frontage Improvements when the sIte Improvement constitutes a dollar amount whIch IS equal to or greater than 60% of the current value of the structure As wrItten, the ~ 60% IS for street frontage Improvements only, all other development standards such as parkmg, storm 0' water, and landscapmg are apphed through the sIte plan reVIew process. Secondly, IS the Issue of sIte plan reVIew reqUirements As wntten, sIte plan reVIew and approval IS requIred for the use of land for the locatIOn of any commercIal, mdustnal or publIc buildmg or actIvIty, mcludmg envIronmental checklIst revIew, and for the locatIOn of any buildmg m whIch more than two dwelhng umts would be contamed QuestIons WhIch need to be addressed 1 SIte Plan RevIew a. Should all projects reqUire sIte plan reVIew or IS there cntena (type/threshold/or use) whIch should be used to determme If a project IS exempt from the process? b What cntena should be used to determme If a project IS exempt? 2 ProjectIOn Threshold a. Should It remam at 60%? b Should It be applIcable to street frontage Improvements only or all development standards (excludmg storm water and ADA reqUirements) such as desIgn gUidelInes, parkmg and landscapmg reqUirements? o In the followmg responses staff has tned to present a vanety of optIOns whIch the Plannmg CommIssIOn can reVIew and consIder as alternatIves to the eXIstmg language o o o SIte Plan ReVIew Assurrung that certam projects should be exempt from the SIte plan reVIew process, followmg IS a lIst of possible cntena whIch could be used for establIshmg exempt status The lIst IS not mtended to be all mclusIve, the Planrung CornrrussIOn can select the appropnate cntena from the lIst and/or develop addItIOnal cntena. 1 The applIcant proposes no mcrease/addItIon of square feet, tenants or employees 2 The applIcant proposes the addItIOn of square feet for storage purposes only Future converSIon of storage space to useable commercIal space would reqUIre full SIte plan reVIew and approval. The applIcant proposes a change of use that IS categonzed wIthm the same Major Group of the Standard Industnal ClaSSIficatIon (see attached table of contents) The applIcant proposes an expansIOn of less that 250 square feet The applIcant proposes an expansIOn WhICh IS of a value less than 25% of the assessed value of the structure .., -' 4 5 Project Threshold Threshold - Frontage Improvements Only a. If Improvement value IS 60% or greater than the assessed value of the eXIstmg structure or; b If Improvement value IS 25% or greater than the assessed value of the eXIstmg structure or; c All projects reqUIred to comply WIth SIte Plan ReVIew shall be responsible for frontage Improvements The PublIc Works DIrector may allow for deferment of frontage Improvements, prOVided the Improvements are not speCified m the Traffic AnalYSIS and Study as an Immediate need and the applIcant submits a Waiver of Protest 2 Threshold - All development regulatIOns, excludmg storm water and ADA a. If Improvement value IS 60% or greater than the assessed value of the eXIstmg structure or; * b If Improvement value IS 25% or greater than the assessed value of the eXlstmg structure or; * c All projects reqUIred to comply With Site Plan ReView shall be responsible for full complIance With development regulatIons The PublIc Works Director may allow for deferment of frontage Improvements, provided the Improvements are not speCIfied m the Traffic AnalYSIS and Study as an Immediate need and the applicant submIts a Waiver of Protest * Would exclude City's ability to require necessary upgrades or improvements to: STEP system servmg the site, water system servmg the sIte, on-sIte fire hydrants, street lighting, off- street parking and loading, landscaping, deSign gUidelines, environmental performance standards llluoduction Part I. Titles and Descriptions of Industries Division A. Agriculture, forestry, and fishing Major Group 01. Agricultural production-crops.................................................... Major Group 02. Agriculture production livestock and animal specialties......... Major Group 07 Agricultural services Major Group 08. Forestry Major Group 09 Fishing, hunting, and trapping Division B. Mining Major Group 10 Major Group 12. Major Group 13. Major Group 14. Division C. Construction Major Group 15. o Major Group 16. Division D Major Group 17 Manufacturing Major Group 20 Major Group 21. Major Group 22. Major Group 23. Major Group 24. Major Group 25. Major Group 26. Major Group 27 Major Group 28. Major Group 29 Major Group 30 Major Group 31. Major Group 32. Major Group 33. Major Group 34. Major Group 35. Major Group 36. Major Group 37 Major Group 38. o Major Group 39 Contents Metal mining Coal mining Oil and gas extraction................... Mimng and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels Building construction-general contractors and operative builders Heavv construction other than building construction- contractors....................................... . Construction-special trade contractors Food and kindred products Tobacco products Textile mill products Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and similar materials............................ Lumber and wood products, except furniture Furni ture and fixtures........................................... .... .................... Paper and allied products Printing, publishing, and allied industries Chemicals and allied products...................................................... Petroleum refining and related industries Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products Leather and leather products Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products Primary metal industries Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation equipment Industrial and commercial machinery and computer equipment... ..... ....... .......... .................... ...... ... ..... ... .......... ....... ..... ..... Electronic and other electrical equipment and components, except computer equipment.......................................................... Transportation equipment Measuring, analyzing, and controlling instruments; photographic, medical and optical goods; watches and clocks Miscellaneous manufacturing industries Page 11 19 21 23 27 31 35 36 39 40 43 45 48 53 55 58 61 67 69 84 85 96 107 114 119 126 132 151 153 159 163 173 182 199 221 234 243 255 7 8 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION Part 1. Titles and Descriptions of Industries-Con. Division E. Transportation, communications, electric, gas, and sanitary services Major Group 40. Railroad transportation Major Group 41. Local and suburban transit and interurban highway passenger transportation... ......... .......................... ......................... Major Group 42. Motor freight transportation and warehousing Major Group 43. United States Postal Service Major Group 44. Water transportation Major Group 45. Transportation by air Major Group 46. Pipelines, except natural gas........................................................ Major Group 47 Transportation services Major Group 48. Communications.............................................................................. Major Group 49 Electric, gas, and sanitary services Division F Wholesale trade Major Group 50 Wholesale trade-durable goods Major Group 51. Wholesale trade-nondurable goods Division G Retail trade Major Group 52. Building materials, hardware, garden supply, and mobile home dealers Major Group 53. General merchandise stores.......................................................... Major Group 54. Food stores Major Group 55. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations Major Group 56. Apparel and accessory stores........................................................ Major Group 57 Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores................ Major Group 58. Eating and drinking places Major Group 59 Miscellaneous retail Division H. Finance, insurance, and real estate Major Group 60 Depository institutions........ Major Group 61. Nondepository credit institutions Major Group 62. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and servi ces.............................................................................................. Major Group 63 Insurance carriers........................................................................... Major Group 64. Insurance agents, brokers, and service....................................... Major Group 65. Real estate Major Group 67 Holding and other investment offices Division I. Services. ..... ...... .................................. ........... ...... ...... .... ... ... ... ..... ...... ............ ........... ......... Major Group 70 Hotels, rooming houses, camps, and other lodging places Major Group 72. Personal services Major Group 73. Business services Major Group 75. Automotive repair, services, and parking Major Group 76. Miscellaneous repair services Major Group 78. Motion pictures Major Group 79 Amusement and recreation services Major Group 80 Health services Major Group 81. Legal services................................................................................... Major Group 82. Educational services Major Group 83. Social services.................................................................................. Major Group 84. Museums, art galleries, and botanical and zoological gardens .... .... ... '" ........ .......... ....... .... ... ........ ............... ........... .... .......... Major Group 86. Membership organizations Major Group 87 Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services Major Group 88. Private households Major Group 89 Miscellaneous services P'~ i"f~ i' .tr~ \pp 31 3lL. 319;' .\1, 321ifl;. 323~ 325!.!1! 32~lti ""';J. 329,:- 3351; 'Ii> 33h 339 p~ 265 266 26' 270 )- - v )- , ';"'''' 27'" 279 280 282 281 287 289 J03 ;13 15 1" 19 21 23 .5 .8 '9 o ~J CONTENTS I. Titles and Descriptions of Industries-Con. PDrt Division J Public administration Major Group 91 Executive, legislative, and general government, except finance............ ..... .... .... ......... ............ .... ....... ......... ... ........... ...... ......... Major Group 92. Justice, public order, and safety Major Group 93 Public finance, taxation, and monetary policy Major Group 94. Administration of human resource programs Major Group 95 Administration of environmental quality and housing programs..... .............. ... ............................. ........ ....... ....... ..... ............. Major Group 96. Administration of economic programs........................................ Major Group 97 National security and international affairs Division K. Nonclassifiable establishments Major Group 99 Nonclassifiable establishments Part II. Numerical list of short titles Part Ill. Alphabetic index.............. Appendixes: A. Conversion tables: Section 1. Relation of 1972 to 1977 SIC industries Section II. Relation of 1977 to 1972 SIC industries Section III. Relation of 1977 to 1987 SIC industries Section IV Relation of 1987 to 1977 SIC industries B. Principles and procedures for the review of the Standard Industrial Classification C. Glossan' of abbre\'iations 9 Page 407 408 409 411 412 414 416 419 421 422 423 445 659 660 661 679 699 705 c c c Preliminary Draft Section for Street Merchant Ordinance January 29, 1997 Chapter 17 _ STREET MERCHANTS Sections 17 010 17 020 17 030 17 040 17 050 17 060 17 070 17 080 17 090 17 100 17 110 17 120 Intent Definitions Site plan review application and approval required Design standards for retail stands Approved retail stand merchandise General location standards Specific location standards Leasing of City property for retail stand activities Issuance Permit limitations Permit revocation Appeals 17 _ 010 Intent. The intent of this chapter is to A. Provide an opportunity for street merchants in zones where the use would enhance the pedestrian experience and be supportive of the intent and vision of the commercial zone in which it's located B Provide regulations for the appropriate siting and design of street merchant activities to provide for the compatibility of such use with adjacent retail activities C Provide standards that protect the public's health, safety and welfare with operation of these activities 17 020 Definitions A. "Handcrafted goods" means goods produced or created by the vendor from raw or basic materials B "Original art" means art crafted by the vendor or by artists the vendor acts as agent to on consignment of the art work. C "Pedestrian Plaza or Space" is an area between a building and a public street which promotes visual and pedestrian access onto a site and provides pedestrian-oriented amenities D "Pedestrian Oriented Streets" means those streets which provide a walkway surface at least 12 feet wide and are designated as pedestrian onented streets in the City of Yelm Design GUidelines E "Retail stand" means a small cart or structure used for retail sale of approved merchandise The cart or structure is operated from a fixed location within a parking lot, pedestnan plaza, public property or right-of-way and designed and sized to be readily ..J.--_~__ , c c c moved The location of a cart or structure shall be located to enhance the pedestrian nature of the zone and shall not be located so as to attract or serve vehicular traffic. F "Street fair or market" means a location where multiple street merchants and activities are organized as one function, including but not limited to, the Yelm Prairie Days or a seasonal farmers' market. G "Street merchant" means a merchant, temporary or permanent, selling goods from a fixed location within a parking lot, pedestrian plaza, public property or right-of-way using a cart, structure or temporary structure H "Temporary/Seasonal retail stand" means a stand to sell seasonal retail items on a temporary basis These include fireworks stands and Christmas tree stands A temporary/seasonal retail stand shall be located to attract and serve vehicle traffic 17 _ 030 Site plan review application and approval required A Site plan review application Street merchant applications shall include detailed scale drawings of the location of the stand, the device to be used, materials specifications and drawings showing all four sides of the vending structure and any logos, printing or signs which will be incorporated Color schemes must be indicated on the drawings For existing vending devices, color photographs may be substituted for drawings The application shall contain a plan for scheduled hours of operation for the season that includes time of day, days of week, months of the year, and scheduled closings Written approval of the landowner shall also be submitted at the time of application B Approval required 1 No street merchant shall be permitted to operate within the City of Ylem without first obtaining site plan approval pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 17 84 2 All street merchants must operate from an approved retail stand or temporary/seasonal retail stand or approved street fair or market and must be approved by the site plan review committee One combined approval may be given for street merchant activities within street fairs or markets C Permitted street merchant activities The site plan review committee may only approve street merchant activities meeting the definition of retail stands and temporary/seasonal retail stands Provided the committee may approve street fairs or markets for fixed temporary periods based upon findings consistent with the intent of this chapter D Site plan review committee consideration and decision 1 The site plan review committee shall review each application for consistency with the standards and intent of this chapter 2 The site plan review committee shall review each merchant's proposal with major emphasis upon how the proposal will enhance the attractiveness of the pedestrian environment in which it is located 2 o c c 3 All street merchant activities shall be designed, oriented and operated to serve pedestrians with the exception of temporary/seasonal retail standards location in parking lots 4 Based upon consideration of the application and its consistency with the intent and standards of this chapter, the committee may approve or deny an application In approving an application, the committee may require any conditions on operation, location or design it deems necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter 5 The committee may also administratively approve any modifications from the standards section of this chapter it deems necessary to fully satisfy the intent of this chapter to provide an exceptional pedestrian experience at strategic locations within the City 6 When authorizing modifications to retail stand criteria, the applicant shall demonstrate to the committee's's satisfaction the approved design will be compatible with surrounding architecture, will add to the pedestrian desirability of the area, and will be a benefit to the neighborhood and zone in which it is locate 17 _ 040 Design and development standards for retail stands A small retail stand shall generally comply with the following requirements 1 Retail standards will normally no be more than 60 square feet provided the site plan review committee may approve any size of retail stand it determines meets the spirit and intent of this chapter 2 A canopy or umbrella my be included with the stand The canopy or umbrella shall be of vinyl, canvas, or similar durable material Any part of such umbrella or canopy must have a 7 feet of vertical clearance to the ground Framework shall have a minimum of 8 feet vertical clearance to the ground 3 Retail stand materials shall be low maintenance and cleanable, preferably painted and of non-corrosive metal 4 Temporary/seasonal retail stands may be of the size necessary to carry out their temporary operations as approved by the site plan review committee 5 Each retail stand shall be a self-contained unit, provide, however that self- contained electrical power generators are not permitted Utility service connections are not permitted except that electrical service connections may be permitted when provided by the adjacent property owner and when the following requirements are met: a) b) electrical lines are not allowed overhead or lying on the sidewalk. the outlet location must be placed outside the walkways which are accessible to public and private use length of electncal hookup must be within 15 feet of the stand no extension cords will be allowed hookup must be permanently wired to the retail stand and meet National c) d) e) 3 o Electrical Code requirements as to type, size and grounding, terminating in an approved outside weatherproof type receptacle each retail stand shall require an electrical permit unless previously approved, and will require inspection prior to operation of the stand f) 6 Advertising signs may only be placed on the cart. Provided street merchants selling food or non-alcoholic beverages within pedestrian plazas may have one sandwich board sign with a menu and prices which would be limited to 2 % feet wide and 4 feet high Such sandwich board sign must be located within the pedestrian plaza and oriented to pedestrians at the site 7 All required licenses and permits issued by the City of Yelm must be displayed in a prominent, visible manner 8 Retail stand operations must have a permit from the Thurston County Health Department when required and must comply with all applicable Health Department requirements 9 All persons conducting a retail stand business within the City must keep the site clean and orderly at all times and pick up any refuse or debris and clean up liquid spillage deposited by any person uSing the business location Additionally, all such persons shall provide a refuse container for litter This container shall be of a design approved by the City and must be emptied on a regular basis 10 Support equipment and accessories shall generally be self-contained within the retail stand Support equipment and accessories must not be placed as to impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic or distract from the pedestrian experience o 11 Retail stands selling food within a pedestrian plaza may have accessory seating and table Retail stands selling art and crafts may have merchandise displays set up adjacent to the retail stand for pedestrian view only Art and craft displays shall be approved by the site plan review committee only when the site plan review committee determines such accessories will enhance the pedestrian expenence at the site and be compatible with the intent of the zone and neighborhood in which it is located 12 Noise-making devices designed to attract attention and loud shouting or yelling to attract attention are prohibited 13 All persons conducting a retail stand business shall obey any order of a police officer to temporarily move such retail stand to avoid congestion or obstruction of the surrounding area for pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic. 14 All retail stands shall comply with the Uniform Fire Code requirements for fire extinguishers, including mounting on the stand 17 _ 050 Approved retail stand merchandise The following merchandise may be sold from retail stands A Food c 4 o c c B Non-alcoholic beverages C Newspapers and magazines D Original art and handcrafted goods E. Other items the site plan review committee determines are appropriate to pedestrian areas that will enhance the pedestrian experience 17 060 General location standards A. Retail stands may only be located in the following zones 1 All commercial zones 2 Mixed use planned developments 3 Pedestrian activity areas and plazas 4 Open space institutional zones 5 Pedestrian- Onented Streets B Retail stand locations shall be compatible with the pedestrian and the vehicular nature of the zone, the use of the nght-of-way as a public thoroughfare, the use of parking lots as public parking areas, and/or the use of an open air plaza The site shall be located to enhance the pedestrian nature of the zone and shall not be located so as to attract or serve vehicular traffic C Temporary/seasonal retail stands may be located to attract and serve vehicle traffic D In determining whether or not the proposed location would be permitted, the following criteria shall be considered 1 The type and intensity of the proposed use and the type and intensity of existing uses, 2 The width of the sidewalk, pedestnan plaza or parking lot in which it is to be located, 3 The proximity and location of eXisting street furniture, including but not limited to signposts, lampposts, bus shelters, benches, phone booths, trees, newsstands, as well as the presence of bus stops and truck loading areas, 4 Established or proposed pedestnan and vehicular traffic patterns, 5 The number of available retail stand sites in a given area or zone of the City and the number of existing retail stands in such area 6 Other factors deemed relevant by the site plan review committee, consistent with 5 --~ I o o o the purpose of this chapter and intent of the zone proposed for the use E The retail stand and location shall promote the diversity of retail stand activity; F The site and retail stand together shall not create a pedestrian or vehicular traffic hazard, G The retail stand shall be compatible with uses in the general vicinity and adjacent properties H The retail stand location shall promote the pedestrian nature of the general area in which It is located, The retail stand location shall be compatible with the public interest in the use of the sidewalk as a public right-of-way and the use of a public or private parking lot for the primary intended use of vehicular parking, and, as such, shall not endanger the public health, safety and welfare 17 _ 070 Specific location standards A. When the abutting owner or tenant has submitted to the site plan committee written request for denial or restrictions of the retail stand site, the site plan review committee shall give due consideration to the impact that the retail stand would have on abutting property owners' business No retail stand shall be placed directly abutting a business which specializes in an item that the retail stand offers for sale unless applicant owns the establishment or has written consent from the proprietor of the establishment, e g , a retail stand selling ice cream may not be located directly adjacent to an established ice cream parlor B If neighboring owners have submitted written requests for denials or restrictions, the site plan review committee shall give similar consideration based on distance from the sIte and impacts to such neighboring owners c Each retail stand shall be placed so it does not obstruct or impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic o Each retail stand shall be limited to one assigned location In the event that two or more applicants for the same location are received, the general location standards of this chapter shall be used to determine which application, If approved, shall be assigned the location Only one permit may be issued for each approved location and, normally, no permit will be issued for a location within 50 feet of another approved location which already has a permit issued Provided the site plan review committee may vary from this standard where it finds that the pedestrian experience will be enhanced by such close location of retail stands E. Only one retail stand site shall be approved of each pedestrian activity area or plaza or parking lot unless the site plan review committee finds that additional stand(s) would be consistent with the intent of this chapter to promote the pedestrian experience and will not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation or be detrimental to the intent and vision for the surrounding zone 6 c o c F Any retail stand located in a parking lot shall comply with the following minimum standards 1 The retail stand shall not block entrances and eXits of the parking lot or fire exit doors of any buildings, 2 A retail stand shall only be permitted in parking lots containing more than 20 parking stalls, 3 Retail stands should normally not occur in parking spaces directly in front of entrances or windows of the building, 4 The retail stand shall comply with all other applicable City ordinances G No retail stand shall be located within 8 feet of an abutting property 17 _ 080 Location and leasing of City property for retail stand activities The site plan review committee may designate approved retail stand sites In any zone approved for such use on publicly owned parks, pedestrian plazas or City right-of-way designated as a pedestrian oriented street. In doing so, the number of approved sites shall be limited to what the site plan review committee determines is appropriate to the pedestrian experience of the site and consistent with the intent and vision of the zone in which it is located The site plan review committee must also find that the location of such retail stand space will not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular traffic flow or create any undue hazard and will generally meet location criteria of Sections 060 and 070 In such cases, the City may competitively lease such spaces to street vendors consistent with policy for leasing of vending spaces to private entrepreneurs in City parks Retail Stands on City sidewalks on those street designated pedestrian oriented in the Design GUidelines shall be an extension of the use of the adjacent building 16 _ 090 Insurance If an area to be approved for a retail stand is City-owned, such as a sidewalk or street right-of-way, the applicant must obtain and retain public liability and property damage insurance coverage, naming the City as a co-insured, and must sign an agreement to indemnify and hold the City harmless The amount of coverage shall be determined by the City consistent with City policy 16 100 Permit limitations A. A retail stand site plan review approval may not be transferred to another person or to a location other than that stated on the permit. B Retail stands Issued for public right-of-way or public property shall normally be reviewed once every year and may be extended each year for additional one-year increments if the site plan review committee finds that the retail stand has been operated in a way to enhance the pedestrian experience and is still a benefit to the zone in which it is located When granting extensions, the committee may attach additional conditions to an approval it deems necessary to comply with this chapter or new City regulations This shall not prohibit the City from entering into multiple year contracts if such is considered appropriate for the site and consistent with City polley C Any permit or approval issued by the City for a retail stand on pnvate property does not 7 o c c affect the permittee's responsibility to secure and maintain a contract or written approval from the property owner 16 -- 110 Permit revocation The site plan review committee may immediately revoke or suspend a permit or deny either the issuance or renewal thereof it the committee finds that. A The applicant or permittee has violated or failed to meet any of the provisions of this chapter or conditions of the permit; B The cart or operation is detrimental to the surrounding businesses or the public due to either appearance or condition of the stand, C Any required licenses, including business license, have been suspended, revoked or canceled, o The applicant or permittee does not have a current, effective insurance policy in the minimum amount provided in this chapter; E The scheduled hours of operation are not followed, or F The property owner has withdrawn approval or revoked the contract allowing the use on his/her property Upon denial, suspension or revocation, the site plan review committee shall notify the applicant or permittee in writing of the action the committee has taken and the reasons thereof After giving such notice by mail or in person, if the retail stand has not been removed within 15 days, the City may cause a removal of any retail stand found in violation of this chapter, and is authorized to store such stand until the owner thereof shall redeem it by paying the removal and storage charges 17 _ 120 Appeals Any person aggrieved by a decision of the site plan review committee may appeal the site plan review committee's decision pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 15 49, Section 15 49 160 of the City Building And Construction Title 8 C Date February 5, 1997 To Planmng CommissIOn From Cathie CarlsoJY Re PrelImmary Draft Street Merchant Ordmance IntroductIOn ThIS staff report has been prepared to aid the Planmng CommisSion m the reVieW of the enclosed draft Street Merchant Ordmance The report can help to understand why a street merchant ordmance IS bemg proposed and Important Issues to consider II Why Prepare a Street Merchant Ordmance? The current code regulatmg farmers markets and temporary retail stands has a very narrow defimtIOn wIth a tIme consummg and costly approval process Developmg a ordmance speCIfically for Street Merchant's proVIdes the opportumty to allow for a vanety of pedestnan actlVltles under the sIte plan review process while provldmg the applIcant a more user fnendly system at a reasonable cost ~ L Unregulated street merchant actIVItIes are occurnng m the CIty (vehIcle and stands set up III empty parkmg lots), espeCIally over the weekends While some of these actIvItIes would still not be allowed by the purposed Street Merchant Ordmance, It may offer some merchants to contmue there sales but wlthm the gUldelmes of the CIty A major emphaSIS of the DeSign GUldelInes was to proVide a more pedestnan fnendly city To thIS end, development of a street merchant ordmance IS a pIece of the puzzle for attractmg pedestnans and allowmg them to feel more comfortable m our commercIal zones and pedestnan onented areas LIterature suggests that street merchants add to the pedestnan expenence m downtown zones and creatmg a greater character and more pedestnan mterest If vendors are encouraged and properly regulated III LIterature Used m PreparatIOn of the Draft Zomng SectIOn The enclosed draft IS an edIted verSIOn from the CIty of Lacey The CIty of Lacey used a vanety of ordmances supplIed by Mumclpal Research Bureau. Lacey found proVISIOns from ordmances of Port Angeles, BellIngham and Bellevue to be the most helpful. IV Major Issues m Regulatmg Street Merchants C 1 What constitutes a street merchant? ~ _.~-'------- --_. ~-,--. -_._..--<~-_.- o The defimtIOn for street merchant specifically lImits the sellIng of goods from a fixed locatIOn. The reqUIrement for a fixed locatIon would elImmate movmg Ice cream trucks, etc In addition, the ordmance IS bUilt around the defimtIOns of retaIl stand and temporary/seasonal retail stand and street faIr or market Approved retaIl stand merchandise lImits stand sellIng to food or non-alcoholIc beverages, Newspapers and magazmes and ongmal art and handcrafted goods ThiS would elImmate sunglass stands, poster and pamtmg sales, or flower vendors ExceptIOn IS made for street vendors wlthm a temporary/seasonal retaIl stand, which would allow profit and non-profit activItIes to sell Chnstmas trees and fireworks The defimtIOn of street fair and market would also allow the site plan review committee some latitude m allowmg activitIeS lIke a farmer's market or retaIl stands dunng the Yelm Prame Days 2 What do we hope to accomplIsh? The mtent of the ordmance IS to encourage pedestnan-fnendly street merchant actIvities to enhance the pedestnan environment. The whole onentatlon of the ordmance IS to allow street merchant activItIes m those areas frequented by pedestnans, such as pedestnan areas and plazas, City parks and pedestnan onented streets 3 Where should street merchant activItIes be allowed? c As proposed all commercial areas, mixed use developments, pedestnan areas and plazas, open space mstltutIonal and pedestnan onented streets are designated for potential street merchant sites A key feature IS locatIOn where pedestnans are expected and encourage, With controls on the appearance and operation of the street merchant facilItIes In additIon any allowed merchant actlVlty on a pedestnan onented street would be restncted to an extenSIOn of the use of the adjacent buIldmg. There IS also emphaSIS on makmg sure the location does not conflict With pedestnan or vehicular purposes where they are located 4 CompetitIOn With eXlstmg merchants One of the mam Issues m street vendmg IS competition With permanent merchants The ordmance addresses thiS m a vanety of ways Merchants operatmg on pnvate property must have the wntten permission of the property owner If the property owner leases the bUlldmg to a different busmess the site plan review commIttee IS reqUIred to give due consideratIOn to the Impact that the retaIl stand would have on the abuttmg busmess For merchants operatmg on City Sidewalks, on the designated pedestnan onented streets, the merchant/actlVlty must be an extension of use of the adjacent buildmg. For example a restaurant would be allowed to setup a couple of tables and chaIrs for dmmg or they could operate a small cart sellIng food products from the restaurant o o c c VISITOR SIGN IN SHEET Please sign In and indicate if you wish to speak at this meeting or to be added to the mailing list to receive future agendas and minutes MEETING: YELM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1997 TIME. 400 PM LOCATION: YELM CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Hearing(s) NAMF & ADDRF~~ MAILING I I~T? I SPEAKFR? ?O () 0 ~ u'lMLlJ t~{C A-rJP~f-SoN .~i~ o o o 105 Yelm Avenue West P 0 ljox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 ,City of Yelm AGENDA CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, February 10,1997400 P M YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 105 YELM AVE. W. 1 Call to Order, Roll Call, Approval of Minutes - January 13, 1997, minutes enclosed 2 Vista View (Prairie Vista) Final ,Plat - Ken Garmann Applicant: Mark Carpenter and Enc Anderson Proposal Finalize plat approval of 63 lot manufactured Home subdivIsion ProJect 'Location Burnett Road 3 Zoning Code Amendments - Worksesslon Site Plan -Review exemptions and project thresholds,. staff report enclosed' Draft Merthant Ordinance - staff report enclosed 4 Correspondence - Thurston Regional Planning Council Recap of January 17, 1997 meeting 5 Other - 6 .Adjourn - Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. If you need special arrangements to attend or partiCipate in this meeting, please , contact Yelm City Hall, at 458-3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 1997,4 00 PM * Recycled paper o c o YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 13,1997 YELM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Agenda Iteml Motion No. 1 The meeting was called to order at 400 P m by Chair Tom Gorman Members present: Margaret Clapp, Tom Gorman, Joe Huddleston, Bob Isom, Ray Kent, Roberta Longmire, Ed Pitts Staff' Shelly Badger, Cathie Carlson, Ken Garmann and Dana Spivey Guests Steve Craig, Amos Lawton - City Council Liaison Members absent: Glenn Blando, E J Curry 97-01 Approval of Minutes MOTION BY RAY KENT, SECONDED BY ROBERTA LONGMIRE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 1996 AS PRINTED. CARRIED 2. Zoning Code Amendments - Work session Cathie Carlson gave staff report. Staff has discovered some inconsistencies between various Municipal Code(s) and text found in the following exerts from Chapters of the Zoning Code The format of the report provides a brief summary of the inconsistency and the staff's suggested changes Issuance of Building Permits. BUilding permits are not issued until a final plat has been recorded or all conditions of approval have been satisfied for proJects which do not require recording of a final document (Site Plan Approval) The one exception IS the SubdivIsion Title which allows for the construction of one model home prior to recording a final plat. Staff Recommendation. Delete the text In Chapter 1761, Townhouses, which refers to building permits prior to final plat, (as detailed below) 1761 050 Review and approval procedure 8 Platting. A subdivision plat or short plat shall be required for all townhouse developments not proposed to be filed as a condominium so that individual dwelling units are divided into lots with common walls located on lot lines Whefl a towflhouse de'v'elopmeflt is platted, cOflstructiofl of tow'f1house dwelliflgs may commeflce prior to final plat or final short subdivision appro'v'al, provided' 1 The pfOposed subdivision has received preliminary appfO'v'al or the short subdi"1ision has recei'v'ed conditional a ppro'v'a I , afld the f1ecessary legal instruments have been filed to assure construction of required public impro'v'ements; Yelm Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 1 o c o 2 rartial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdi',jider from, nor impair city enforcement of conditions of subdi-.,ision apprO'i/al; Units may not be rented or sold, nor occupancy permits issued until final plat or final short plat appro'v'al 3 There was some discussion The Planning Commission concluded the above referenced text should be stncken for consistency with the SubdivIsion Title Parking. Chapter 1772, Off-street parking has two areas which staff needs direction from the Planning Commission (1) In Section 17 72 080, Development Guidelines state 6 Surfacing All parking areas for more than four vehicles shall be surfaced With asphalt, concrete or Similar pavement so as to provide a surface that IS durable and dust free and shall be so graded and drained as to properly dispose of all surface water Staff's understanding is that the Planning CommiSSion and the City CounCil wanted to eliminate the addition of gravel parking lots and supported the conversion of existing gravel lots to paved parking lots Staff Recommendation. Amend text In Section 17 72 080(6) to read Surfacing All parking areas for more than f-our vehicles shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or similar pavement so as to provide a surface that IS durable and dust free and shall be so graded and drained as to properly dispose of all surface water (2) In Section 17 72 020, General Requirements, requires that C Whenever a bUilding or a piece of land is put to a use different from the Immediately preceding use, or when a bUilding is remodeled, reconstructed or expanded, adequate off-street parking shall be provided consistent With the new use, reconstruction or expansion of the premises However, the wording in the Development Guidelines, 4B 080 Street Frontage Improvements, indicates that no improvements are necessary unless the 60% threshold is met. It reads All improvements including commercial and residential (including multi-family) development, plats, short plats, and any change made in the character of occupancy or use of the building, or alterations and improvements which constitute 60 percent or more of the estimated value of the existing structures on the property, shall install street frontage improvements at the time of construction as required by the City Such improvements may include paving of existing and/or new parking areas, curb and gutter; sidewalk; street storm drainage, street lighting system, traffic signal modification, relocation or installation, utility relocation, landscaping and irrigation, Yelm Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 2 o o o and street widening and transit stops, pads and shelters all per these standards Plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer registered in the State of Washington The design of frontage improvements will take into consideration and shall show on the design plans, sections of the existing roadway extending a minimum of 300 feet in each direction from the section to be improved This statement also conflicts With the landscaping code and potentially the State Environmental Policy Act. Staff Recommendation. Revise Development Guidelines, 4B 080 to read All improvements including commercial and residential (including multi-family) development, plats, short plats, and any change made in the character of occupancy or use of the building, or alterations and improvements which constitute ??? se percent or more of the estimated value of the existing structures on the property, or as reauired as SEPA mitigation. shall install street frontage improvements at the time of construction as required by the City Such improvements may include paving of existing and/or ne'",,' parking areas, curb and gutter; sidewalk; street storm drainage, street lighting system, traffic signal modification, relocation or installation, utility relocation, landscaping and irrigation, and street widening and transit stops, pads and shelters all per these standards Plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer registered in the State of Washington The design of frontage improvements will take into consideration and shall show on the design plans, sections of the existing roadway extending a minimum of 300 feet in each direction from the section to be improved There was some discussion The Planning Commission asked staff to do some research and come back to next meeting With some options Landscaping - With the adoption of the Yelm Design Guidelines, two new types of landscaping were created The landscape chapter needs to be amended to Include type VI and VII landscaping 17 80 050 Types of landscaping Type VI 1 Purpose Type VI landscaping is Intended to create a decorative landscaped display with colorful flowers or foliage as focal setting for signs, special site elements and/or high visibility or pedestrian areas 2 Descnption A. All plant matenals and liVing ground cover must be selected and maintained so that the entire landscape area will be covered Within three years B Shrubs, at least 50% of which must exhibit decorative floral or foliage, shall cover at least 50% of the landscaped area C The remaining 50% of the landscaped area may be planted with trees, shrubs, ground cover, or cultivated flower beds Type VII 1 Purpose Type VII landscaping is intended to enhance natural areas and to Integrate developments Into the eXisting site conditions Yelm Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 3 o 2 Description A. Landscaping shall consist of trees, shrubs, ground covers, and/or grasses that are native to the Puget Sound basin and are appropriate to the conditions of the site Species are subject to approval by the City B Arrangements of plants shall be asymmetrical and plant matenal shall be sufficient In quantity to cover the soil in one growing season C If landscaping is used as part of a required landscape strip along Highway 507 or 510, the planting shall Include at least one evergreen tree 3' tall planted at an average of 20' 0 c but no greater than 30' 0 c. along the stnp There was little discussion, the landscape chapter will be amended to include type VI and VII landscaping 3 Other - Outdoor Flea Markets, Farmers Markets and Sales Cathie Carlson gave bnef descnptlon of present code on the selling of goods within the city (along the road, in parking lots - i e yard ornaments, fresh seafood, wood crafts etc ) Cathie stated that the process of obtaining a license to sellin this fashion can be somewhat lengthy and expensive for the selling time allowed c Steve Craig introduced himself and explained that he owns the lot at the corner of Mosman Ave and Highway 507 (at the end of Jim Slopak's buildings) Mr Craig has talked with a number of citizens who are Interested in selling their goods at a "Farmer's Market" type establishment. Mr Craig is Interested in explonng the possibilities of starting a "Farmer's Market" at this location, and would like to work with the City and the Planning Commission on this option Mr Craig is aware of the future re-allgnment of Mosman Ave across Highway 507, but would like to Incorporate some intenm use on his lot until such work begins on the re-allgnment. Mr Craig showed his Idea on the white board by drawing two "shed" type buildings with metal roofs Each covered building would house 6 booth/stalls for vendors to sell their goods, (2 bldgs = total of 12 vendor booth/stalls) Mr Craig stated that parking could possibly take place at the city park parking lot. Joe Huddleston asked the size of the Right-of-Way? Ken Garmann stated that the Right-of-Way is 40 feet. Mr. Craig then went on to say that he has also thought about the future "Rails to Trails" land owned by Thurston County which runs behind City Hall, the Slopak buildings, and his property Mr Craig stated that the future "Trails " property could possibly tie into the "Farmer's Market" theme, with a trail head behind City Hall and then Incorporate the "trail" into the Farmer's Market. Mr Craig reminded the Planning CommisSion members that these are Just Ideas c Yelm Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 4 c o o which he has been thinking about. Ken Garmann stated that there have also been discussions with Thurston County and Intercity Transit about incorporating a bus station In this area, which would also benefit citizens at the "Farmers Market" area Joe Huddleston stated that he is In favor of the idea, but parking would definetly be an issue to consider There was more discussion about parking Tom Gorman asked the Planning Commission members if they would be willing to consider this "Farmers Market" Idea, if Steve Craig wrote a letter of intent and created a schematic of his Idea? Planning Commission members present said yes they would be Shelly Badger asked the Planning Commission members if they would like to see a sample ordinance regarding "Farmers Markets"? Planning Commission members said they would Cathie Carlson Will also do some research, Steve Craig Will create the schematiC sketch and letter of Intent for the Planning Commission Meeting adJourned at 5 25 pm Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Dana Spiv y~ Tom Gorman, Chairperson Date Yelm Planning Commission January 13, 1997 Page 5 (j ~ c o City .of Yelm , 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 Date Janl:lary 8, 1997 To Planning Commlssl9n From Cathie carlscU!Clty Planner Re Zoning Code Amendments Staff has discovered some Inconsistencies between vanous Municipal Code(s) and text lound In the following exerts from Chapters of the Zoning Code The format of the report provides a bnef summary of the Inconsistency and the staff's suggested changes Issuance of BuildinQ Permits. BUilding permits are not Issued until a filial plat has been recorded or all conditions of approval have been satisfied for p~oJects which do not require recording of a final document (Site Plan Approval) The one exception IS, the Subdivision Title which allows for the construction afone model home prior to recording a final plat. I Recommendation Delete the text in Chapter 17 61, Townhouses, which refers to bUilding permits pnor to final plat (as detailed below) 1761 050 Review and approval procedure B Platting A subdivision plat orl short plat shall be required for all townhouse developments not proposed to be filed as a condominium so that IndiVidual dwellln~ units are divided Into lots wlthc?mmon walls located on lot lines \Alp~hatGWM9$U$~devel~ptr\ehli$platted,COn$trtJ.4.~jQnoftdWt1h()q$~dWelling$ ~~~:::%:$~~~~!fi::6;~t:~i~i~:~~~~a~~~~t:~ri::~7~e~ti~:d~G~~g;~1 jm~f(jlVel'l'Jef1ts; .... . .. .4;........ ...... .Padi,l~reomplet@con$truGhoIlOf$tfuctute$$h~llnO:tt:elie\1ethe $t;lbdivl~~t,'.fr&ffl;...h6r...lmp?1lr..cify".enf{:)t~~ro~nf..of'.eonditi~n$...()f..$ubdivi$ioh 1 * Recvcled paper c c c ". ". ep~~t1~l; ........... .B; ................... .Mnit$..nn~y@W:t,.be...ren~ed...(I($(;)ld,.n()r..o:eeur;)$mo.y...petfflit$....i$$Q$C1t::lntHfil1~t pfa.tQr..fiQ2!I....~hort..~I~tappf9vak ParkinQ Chapter 17 72, Off-street parking has two areas which staff needs direction from the Planning Commission (1) In Section 17 72 080, Development gUidelines state 6 Surfacing All parking areas for more than four vehicles shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or similar pavement so as to provide a surface that IS durable and dust free and shall be so graded and drained as to properly dispose of all surface water Staff's understanding IS that the Planning Commission and the City Council wanted to eliminate the addition of gravel parking lots and supported the conversion of eXisting gravel lots to paved parking lots Recommendation. Amend text In Section 17 72 080(6) to read Surfacing All parking areas t9:rrmor~tm~m(f(;)UtveniGI~s shall be surfaced with .... .,. ..... .. ...... asphalt, concrete or similar pavement so as to provide a surface that IS durable and dust free and shall be so graded and drained as to properly dispose of all surface water (2) In Section 17 72 020, General Requirements, requires that. C Whenever a bUilding or a piece of land is put to a use different from the immediately preceding use, or when a bUilding IS remodeled, reconstructed or expanded, adequate off-street parking shall be provided consistent with the new use, reconstruction or expansion of the premises However, the wording In the Development GUidelines, 48 080 Street Frontage Improvements, indicates that no Improvements are necessary unless the 60% threshold IS meet. It reads All improvements Including commercial and residential (Including multi-family) development, plats, short plats, and any change made In the character of occupancy or use of the bUilding, or alterations and Improvements which constitute 60 percent or more of the estimated value of the eXisting structures on the property, shall Install street frontage Improvements at the time of construction as required by the City Such Improvements may Include paving of existing and/or new parking areas, curb and gutter; sidewalk, street storm 2 o c c drainage, street lighting system, traffic signal modification, relocation or installation, utility relocation, landscaping and Irrigation, and street widening and transit stops, pads and shelters all per these standards Plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer registered in the State of Washington The design of frontage Improvements will take Into consideration and shall show on the design plans, sections of the eXisting roadway extending a minimum of 300 feet In each direction from the section to be Improved This statement IS also conflict with the landscaping code and potentially the State Environmental Policy Act. Recommendation Revise Development GUidelines, 48 080 to read All Improvements Including commercial and residential (Including multi-family) development, plats, short plats, and any change made In the character of occupancy or use of the bUilding, or alterations and Improvements which constitute ??? ae. percent or more of the estimated value of the eXisting structures on the property or as required as SEPA mltiQatlon, shall Install street frontage Improvements at th~ tlmeof constructlonas requlredby th~ City Such Improvements may IncludepaVj~g~f~xi~tit\g.&ndf9tfl$ViP~fkingi~re~$, curb and gutter; sidewalk, street storm drainage, street lighting system, traffic signal modification, relocation or Installation, utility relocatlon,>labd$capingand irri@ati@(l, and street widening and transit stops, pads and shelters all per these standards Plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed cIvil engineer registered In the State of Washington The design of frontage Improvements will take Into consideration and shall show on the design plans, sections of the eXisting roadway extending a minimum of 300 feet in each direction from the section to be Improved LandscapinQ With the adoption of the Yelm Design guidelines two new types of landscaping were created The landscape chapter needs to be amended to Include type VI and VII landscaping 17 80 050 Types of landscaping Type VI 1 Purpose Type VI landscaping IS Intended to create a decorative landscaped display with colorful flowers or foliage as focal setting for signs, special site elements and/or high VISibility or pedestrian areas 2 Descnptlon a All plant materials and living ground cover must be selected and maintained so that the entire landscape area will be covered within 3 o o c b three years Shrubs, at least 50% of which must exhibit decorative floral or foliage, shall cover at least 50% of the landscaped area The remaining 50% of the landscaped are may be planted with trees, shrubs, ground cover, or cultivated flower beds c Type VII 1 Purpose Type VII landscaping IS Intended to enhance natural areas and to Integrate developments into the eXisting site conditions 2 Description a Landscaping shall consist of trees, shrubs groundcovers, and/or grasses that are native to the Puget Sound basin and are appropriate to the conditions of the site Species are subject to approval by the City b Arrangements of plants shall be asymmetncal and plant material shall be sufficient In quantity to cover the sOil In one growing season c If landscaping IS used as part of a required landscape strip along Highway 507 or 510, the planting shall Include at lease one evergreen tree 3' tall planted at an average of 20' 0 c but no greater than 30' 0 c along the strip 4 n . o ,0 City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West PO Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 (360) 458-3244 AGENDA CITY OF YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY; JANUARY 13, 1997,4:00 P.M. YELM CITY HALL COUNCILCHAMBERS,105 YELM AVE. W 1 Call to Order, Roll Call, Approval of Minutes - December 16,1996, minutes enclo?ed 2 Zoning Code Amendments -Worksesslon Staff report enclosed 3 Other - .OLJtdoor Flea Markets, Farmers Markets and Sales 4 AdJourn - , Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon requ~st. If you need special arrangements to attend or participate In this meeting, please contact)' elm City 'Hall, at 458-3244 NEXT REGULAR MEETING, February 10, 1997, 4 00 PM * Recl'c/ed paper