Report (2)
Staff Report
City of Yelm
Community Development Department
To: Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner
From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Development
Date: May 18, 2005
Subject: Appeal of Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance SUB-04-0175-YL APP-05-0112-YL
Appellant: Freestone DFF Yelm II, LLC
Location: Middle Road, Yelm, WA.
Proposal: Appeal Mitigation Measure 2(d) of the MDNS issued for the proposed Griffin Place subdivision.
I. INTRODUCTION
Freestone DFF Yelm II, LLC through William Lynn appeals mitigation measure 2(d) of a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance for a proposed 50 lot subdivision. Specifically the
requirement of removing one of the two existing driveway accesses for an existing home, and an agreement to move the other driveway access within 6 years.
II. BACKGROUND
In 2004, the City held a presubmission conference for a subdivision of this site. The engineering firm for the applicant was Parametrix. Discussions were held regarding the existing
home, and the removal of the driveways for the existing home based on the subdivision of the property.
After the original presubmission meeting, the applicant changed to Freestone, and they retained parametrix as the project engineer. In discussions with the engineer, the City agreed
that based on a hardship by the property owner, one driveway could retain access on Middle Road with a recorded agreement that the driveway be removed within 6 years.
In July 2004, Freestone DFF Yelm II, LLC applied for a boundary line adjustment between two parcels located on Middle Road. The two parcels were approximately 8.5 and 10 acres in area,
the larger of which was occupied by a single family dwelling. The approved boundary line adjustment changed the parcel configurations, to keep the single family dwelling on a smaller
lot, and leaving approximately 17 acres surrounding the single family dwelling.
IV. ANALYSIS
The appellant states:
1. The condition is imposed on an existing single-family lot that is not part of the proposed subdivision. Therefore, the City has no authority to impose any conditions.
The State Environmental Policy Act states that if the proposal consists of a series of actions that are individually exempt, but together may have a significant impact, the proposal
is not exempt. The boundary line adjustment does not exempt the new parcel from review for impacts.
2. The current use of the existing single-family home that is the subject of Mitigation measure 2(d) will not be altered by the approval of the subdivision, … thus there is no impact
to mitigate.
Based on SEPA, the existing home should be reviewed as part of the subdivision, and the addition of 50 single family homes surrounding this parcel creates an impact to the City’s street
system. The existing driveway is located on a collector street, and near a sharp corner, where driveway access creates a hazard with the increase of vehicles based on residential development
in the area. These impacts are mitigated by street improvements, and removing residential accesses from arterial and collector streets.
3. RCW 43.21C.060 permits mitigation measures for “specific adverse environmental impacts identified in the environmental documents.”
The City, in its MDNS identified that the location of the existing driveways on Middle Road, with the addition of the new trips onto Middle Road does create an impact. This impact is
mitigated by removing the driveway.
4. RCW 43.21C.060 requires conditions be based upon polices identified by local government as a basis, and that the policy be identified in writing.
The City of Yelm 2001 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update Policy #15 Transportation System Management (TSM) Policy states: To efficiently operate the transportation system through
TSM Strategies. These will include:
Signal interconnection systems…
Turn lanes and pockets to move turning vehicles out of through traffic lanes
Access control for arterials and major collectors to minimize disruptions in traffic flow
Section 16.16.050 YMC identifies measures to implement this policy by stating that lots within a residential subdivision shall be designed so that lots adjacent to arterial and collector
streets are not allowed direct access.
5. RCW & WAC requires that mitigation measures be reasonable and capable of being accomplished. The existing home and parcel are not in appellant’s ownership.
The appellant and current homeowner were aware of the City’s requirement prior to the boundary line adjustment and subsequent sale of the property. The existing home can be accessed
by the new local access street that will be created.
6. Mitigation measure 2(d) is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.
The mitigation measure 2(d) is based on State and Local laws and regulations. The existing home should be reviewed under SEPA as stated above. The mitigation measure is supported by
the City of Yelm’s written polices and regulations.
VI. CONCLUSION
The mitigating conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance are appropriate and are based on identified potential significant adverse impacts attributable to the development,
and conditions based on City regulations.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Appeal Notice and Letter
Traffic Impact Analysis
MDNS
Map