Waiver Request
if
I
City of Yelm
YELM
WASHINGTON
105 Yelm Avenue West
POBox 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
(360) 458-3244
March 13, 1996
Mr Wes Barclift, Chair
Thurston County Boundary Review Board
2404 B Heritage Court SW
Olympia WA 98502
Re Waiver request for proposed annexation
Dear Mr Barclift:
Pursuant to RCW 36 93 110 the City of Yelm requests the full Boundary Review Board
process be waived on the enclosed application for annexation
The proposed annexation is less than 10 acres in size and is less than $2 million In
assessed value, Including improvements Following IS information requested, by the
Chair of the Boundary Review Board, for a waiver to be considered
1 The proposed annexation area includes tax parcel217134301 09 and 21713430102
for a total of 4 69 acres with a com bined assessed valuation of $137,300
2 The City of Yelm was petitioned to annex the above mentioned property on
January 25, 1996 by the property owner
3 The current County zoning is 1 unit per 5 acres Upon annexation the parcel
would be zoned Moderate Density Residential District (R-6) in accordance with the
site's future land use designation found in Yelm's Comprehensive Plan and Joint
Plan with Thurston County Please see enclosed future land use map
4 The applicant does not have any immediate plans for development of the site
5 The proposed annexation site is rectangular in shape and contiguous to the City
on two of the four property lines The proposed annexation area is within Yelm's
short term urban growth boundary Please see enclosed future land use map
@
ReC'l'cled paper
Mr Wes Barclift
March 13, 1996
Page 2
6 The Yelm Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 20, 1996 to
receive comments on the proposed annexation Written comments were excepted
prior to the hearing The Yelm City Council held a public hearing on February 28,
1996, to receive comments on the proposed annexation Written comments were
excepted prior to the hearing Notification for both hearings was published in the
Nisqually Valley News, February 8 1996 The adjacent property owners were
notified, via mali, on February 6, 1996 Please see attached documentation
7 The application IS enclosed
Thank you for your consideration If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact me at (360) 458-8408
Sincerely,
I '
~c!1u~ ~ ~ /~
i I
, <- v Ly',______
~ . "
Catherine Carlson
City Planner
cc Shelly Badger, City Administrator
Jay and Janet Tribett
.'
THURSTON COUNTY
BOUNOARY REVIEW SOARD
-
-
Application for Annexation
Juri sdiction Requesting Annexation
City of Yelm
Responsible Official.
Kathryn M. Wolf, Mayor
2. I f number of parcels is less than three, please I ist the owners
Jay and Janet Tribett
Parcel #'s 21713430109
9244 Mt. Vlew Road SE
21713430102
Yelm, WA 98597
Phone:
458-2567
Phone:
..,
..) .
Location (address, if assigned)'
9244 Mt. View Road SE
4. Legal Description (on separate page, if necessary).
Parcell of short subdiv~sion No. ss-2262 and recorded May 17, 1988, Under
Auditor's Flle No. 8805170043
~
-' .
Size In Acres
4.69
o.
Assessed Valuation.
$137,300
I . Please state the nature of thIS action and the reJevant statutory citation
(i.e., annexation for munIcipal purposes pursuant to RCW 35.13.180)
Dlrect petitlon method - Notice to legislatlve body meeting,
Assumption of indebtedness - proposed zoning regulation
Contents of petition. RCW 35A.14.120
8 Current County Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation'
1 unit per 5 acres. Joint Comprehenslve Plan Designation -
moderate density resldential (R-6)
9. Proposed City Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation'
Moderate density residentlal (R-6)
- 1 -
1 o.
Is this
adopted
County?
site within the
and approved
x Yes
present Urban Growth Management
by Lacey I Olympia I Tumwater and
No Yelm and TC UGMA
Area as
Thurston
11 . I s the site currently served by sewer or water'
Sewer
Water
x
Neither
I f no I specify services desired: No services are reques ted at present t
I f sewer or water desired, mclude map showing location of nearest lines.
Is thIS site within any existing service areas or coordinated water or
sewer planning areas (water, sewer I Lott Phase I Service Area)'
No. The Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plans designate the site
&s Phase I - to be included in the service area in 1997.
12. Does thiS proposal affect any other interjurisdictional agreements'
Yes
x
No
If yes, please list these agrei:!ments:
13. How does this proposal conform to adopted city policies on annexation'
This proposal meets all requirements with respect to the City's
Annexation Ord.. # 399 (5/8/91) and the Yelm-TC Joint Comprehensiv
Plan.
14. Other specific Reason(s) for Annexation: The site is located within
the City's designated short-term urban growth boundary.
15. Explain how this proposal furthers the objectives of the Boundary
Review Board (RCW 36.93.180) [attached additional pages if necessary J.
a. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and commun ities: Exis t ing
use in the area is predominately single family residential.
....
'"
b. Use of physical boundaries, includ ing but not I imited to bodies of
water, highways, and land contours:
Physical boundary includes Mt. View Road SE
c. Creation and preservation of logical service areas: l.lIrrp.ntly not
lor.Atp.o in thp. l.ity's sp.wp.r Ano wAtp.r sp.rvice area.
d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries. The site is
contiguous to the City on two of the four property lines.
e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and
encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand
population in heavily populated urban areas
The proposed annexation would prevent future incorporations =-_:
of small cities.
f. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts. There are no
inactive special purpose districts effected by the proposea
annexation.
g.
Adjustment of impractical boundaries:
No adjustments are
necessary.
h. I ncorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of
unincorporated areas which are urban in character
The annexation area is not urban in nature, but is in the
UGMB and js Dlanned to accomate urban densities.
I. Protection of agricultural lands: There are no aqricul tural uses
Soils are not conducive to
in the immediate vacinity. agricultural use.
For your information, the Boundary Review Board can consider the following
factors (RCW 36.93. 170) in deciding whether a particular decision furthers
the objectives stated above:
1. Population and territory
2. Population density ~
3. Land area and land use
4. Comprehnnsive use plans and zoning
S. Per capita assessed valuation
6. Topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other
populated areas
.: 7. The existence of prime agricultural soils and agricultural uses
.
8. The likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent
incorporation and unincorporated areas during the next ten years
9. Location and most desirable future location of community facilities
10. Municipal services
11 . Need for municipal services
12. Effect of ordinances I governmental codes I regulations and resolutions on
existing uses
13. Present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area
14. Prospects of governmental services from other sources
15. Probable future needs for such services and controls
16. Probable effect of proposal or alternative on cost and adequacy of
services and controls in area and adjacent area
17. The effect of the finances, debt structure I and contractual obi igations
and rights of all affected governmental units
18. The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas I on mutual
economic and social interests, and on the local governmental structure of
the county.
(6/20/86 -- 386.10)
-.