HE Staff Report re Appeal of MDNS 001~.°F*~P Staff R port
d ~`~
City of Yelm
YELM Community Development Department
To: Stephen K. Causseaux, Jr., Hearing Examiner /,//
From: Grant Beck, Director of Community Developmer~`
Date: May 18, 2005 (j
Subject: Appeal of Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance SUB-04-0175-YL
APP-OS-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.
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.
~ ~
The City denied the boundary line adjustment, stating that the new parcel did not meet
Thurston County lot size regulations for well and septic requirements, and did not meet
density requirements.
At the appeal hearing, the appellant offered to connect the existing home to City water
and sewer services. The Hearing Examiner granted the appeal based on conditions
that the home be connected to City water and sewer services, and did not prohibit the
City's request for frontage improvements as part of a future subdivision.
Freestone then applied for a preliminary subdivision on the larger piece.
The City of Yelm reviewed the SEPA checklist and issued an MDNS on March 21,
2005. The MDNS included mitigating measures to include 2(d) which states: "The
existing single family home may retain one driveway entrance on Middle Road, with a
recorded aareement between the nronedv owner develnner and City ihaf_ the drive_wav
entrance be relocated to the new plat internal street no later than 6 years from the date
of recording. The agreement shall provide for driveway removal from Middle Road and
restoration to City standards."
III. ISSUES
Section 16.16.050 Yelm Municipal Code (YMC) states that lots within a residential
subdivision shall be designed so that lots adjacent to arterial and collector streets are
not allowed direct access. The director may approve may approve direct access as an
exception to the above requirement upon written finding that:
A. Sight distances comply with Yelm development standards for the posted speed
plus 10 miles per hour;
B. The safety of the traveling public is not likely to be jeopardized;
C. The applicant is able to show to the satisfaction of the director that a significant
hardship would exist if access is not approved;
D. No other practical and feasible access is available. (Ord. 436, 1992).
In most circumstances the City requires existing homes that remain as part of a
subdivision to meet the above requirement.
May 23. 2005 Page 2 of 4
~ ~
IV. ANALYSIS
The appellant states:
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 /or 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
fie nn imnarf }n mi}ina}c
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...
• Tum 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
May 23, 2005 Page 3 of 4
~ ~
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 miYinnlinn m o 7/rll is hom(I nn Chhc nnrl I nrel laieic ~nrl ronulnflnnc
..._ ...... ...eaSUr_ ... .......... ......., _.......
y~...... _~,.~ .,.. ...... ..... .. ...... ...y........,..,,.
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
May 23, 2005 Page 4 of 4