Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Appeal Staff Report
STAFF REPOR T City of Yelm Community Development Department To= Stephen K_ Causseaux, Jr_, Hearing Examiner From= Grant Beck, Director of Community development Date. October 5, 2004 Subject= Appeal of Boundary Line Adjustment menial BLA-04-0099-YL APP-04-01 28-YL Appellant= Kathryn Dotson Freestone OFF Yelm II LLC '16440 Middle Road SE J_ Scott Griffin, Jr_ Yelm, WA 98597 Puyallup, WA 98373 Location= '16440 Middle Road SE Tax Parcel Numbers 64303600700 and 64303600600 Proposal= Appeal the denial of a Boundary Line Adjustment 1_ INTRODUCTION Kathryn Dotson and Freestone OFF Yelm II LLC appeal the denial of a boundary line adjustment between two parcels of land currently under the ownership of Ms_ Dotson. 11_ BACKGROUND Katheryn Dotson owns two parcels of land between Middle Road and Yelm Creek approximately 8.4 and 1 O acres in area- The larger of the parcels contains Ms_ Dotson s residence, garage, on-site sewage disposal system, well, and several outbuildings- Access to the home is provided by a circular driveway with two access points on Middle Road_ On January 14, 2004, apre-submission meeting was held with Darren Buck and bill Ostoruske regarding a potential subdivision of the Dotson parcels- The original site plan submitted with the pre-submission request did not include the area occupied by Ms_ Dotson s home as part of the subdivision, did not show frontage improvements in front of the home site on Middle Road, and showed the two driveway access points from the home site to Middle Road_ The City s position has consistently been, both during and after the pre-submission meeting, that the home site could not be separated from a subdivision of the underlying property and the home site lot would be required to connect to City water and sewer and that access to the lot must be consistent with the provisions of Yelm s adopted development regulations- The existing 1 O acre parcel of land which contains the home site has always been part of the potential subdivision of the property and has been shown as being divided into residential lots- Middle Road is classified as a Neighborhood Collector- This type of street is designed to provide access from neighborhoods to an arterial- The design of a collector street includes no provisions for on-street parking or direct access from residential lots- Section '16_'16.050 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- Subsequent to the pre-submission meeting, staff from the Community development Department reviewed several proposals by Parametrix, Inc-, a land use planning and engineering firm, to approve direct access to the home site from Middle Road as part of the subdivision of the property- The Community development Department indicated that it would support the retention of a single access point to Middle Road from the home site ,providing it was the furthest driveway from the Fort Stevens Elementary School due to concerns with site distance and that the access would be removed within six years of the date of the final subdivision- When the application was submitted for the boundary line adjustment, the Department notified the applicant that it was the City s position that, if the boundary line adjustment were approved, the home site lot would still have to comply with Yelm s development standards as part of the upcoming subdivision- 111_ ANALYSIS 1 . The proposed division creates a lot which contains insufficient area to meet minimum area requirements for a building site pursuant to State and County health regulations- The appeal confuses this simple issue by arguing that Thurston County can modify the standards found in the State and local health regulations or that through the further manipulation of the lot lines and granting themselves easements may bring the proposed adjustment into conformance with these area requirements- Section 21 .2.5 of the Thurston County Health Code and Section 246-272-2050'1 WAC are perfectly clear regarding the minimum area requirements for an on-site sewage disposal system and require no further analysis by the Thurston County Health Department. At least one acre of property is required in order to meet minimum area requirements, which is not achieved by the proposed boundary line adjustment- October 6, 2004 Page 2 of 4 At this time, no information indicating that the boundary line adjustment meets the minimum land area requirements of the Health Codes has been provided to the city- 2. The proposed boundary line adjustment creates a lot which does not comply with the minimum land area requirements of the Zoning Code_ The Yelm Zoning Code does not establish minimum lot sizes in the residential zoning districts, including the medium density zoning district (R-6), which is the designation of the Dotson parcels- Instead, the minimum land area requirements of the zoning code are regulated through the minimum and maximum density requirements, which is 3 units per acre to 6 units per acre in the R-6 district- The existing 10 acre parcel is legally non-conforming, but could be subdivided and achieve these densities, which is the intent of the appellant- It is not inconsistent to review both the minimum and maximum densities as minimum land area requirements under Section 58_'17.040 (6) YMC as the size of a parcel created through a boundary line adjustment could, and does in this case, be of a size which is neither small enough to meet the minimum density nor large enough to be redeveloped to meet the minimum density- In effect, the proposed boundary line adjustment makes the parcel more non-conforming by decreasing the likelihood that it will ever meet density requirements- This issue would not arise if the home site is included in the proposed subdivision- 3. The boundary line adjustment is one of a series of actions designed to avoid subdivision requirements and the requirements of Yelm s development regulations- The existing Dotson parcels were not created under the provisions of the State Subdivision Act, Chapter 58_'17 RCW as each lot is greater than five acres or 1 /'128th of a section- The use of a subsequent boundary line adjustment to create a lot that would be subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Act_ In effect, a lot could be created that has no access, can not be served by on-site sewage disposal systems or a well and does not meet the findings for approval of a subdivision or short subdivision as found in Sections 58_'17.060 and 1 1 O RCW_ Further, the boundary line adjustment is clearly a step in a series of actions designed to avoid the requirements for development of property in Yelm_ Although the City has exercised the discretion available in Section '16_'16.050 YMC by allowing a single driveway access to be maintained on Middle Road for a period of six years after the final subdivision is approved, the City Engineer could not in his professional judgment allow the access closest to the sharp curve with limited sight distance near an elementary school to remain as part of the development of the Dotson parcels- October 6, 2004 Page 3 of 4 IV_ CONCLUSION The boundary line adjustment application is an attempt to piecemeal development in order to avoid development requirements and does not meet the provisions of Section 58_'17.040 (6) and the denial should be upheld- October 6, 2004 Page 4 of 4 // -, F LZU~ WlsS Flt Y! GTOt+i Pd Bc~x 479 Y@~~ ~/\/A JE"3597 ©FFICIAL USE OIV LY® Fee. .L7 •-4 ° f By Y Fee: Staff Decision - $50.00 Hearing Exart~inc.r CStrcision - $~S00.DO (tn addition, any professional serlrice charcges per Resolution #358) A Closed record appeal may follow either an open record hearing ®r an span record administrative decision an a project permit application when the appeal is on the record, and no or limited new evidence or information is allowed to be submitted. Appeals on Category i 8~ ![ project decisions are heard by the City Ccauncil. Appeals an Category Ill & l0! project decisions as wall as Category 13~ It decisions whicl, have been appealed to the Gity Council go to Superior Court and follow the judicial review process set forth in RCW 366.700. A Notice of Appeal must be filed witl~lin 14 days of Notice of Final QE:cision. PROJECT CASE NUMBER BEING APPEALED SLA- O 4 - O 07'3 9 -YL GATE OF 11tC7T/CE OF FfNQiL UEC/SIC3N Au-=~ u ~ "b ~ r APPELLANT(S) Kathryn L3®t~on Frecstc~nc. DFF Y~1m =I LLC ~'~` tV1a31ing Address ~- ~ - co ri an, r City, State, and Zip ~ m ~ ® ox 9 Telephone 1-7 Ya u-Lc r ( 253) 896-1 3030 SPECfF/C !TENS OF CJECfS/ON BEING APPEALEDa (attach additicsnal sheet if necessary). See attac~.~d S affirm that all answers, statements and information contained in and submitte=d with this applicatic5n era complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. i also affirm that 1 am the owner of the subject site or am fluky authorized by the owner to act with respect to this application. Further, I grant permission from the owner to any and all employees and representatives of the City of Yelm and other governmental agencies to tenter upon and inspect said property as reasonatrly necessary to process this application. 1 agree to pay all fees of the city which apply to this application. Signori ~ ~ Qate ~. S 1 g n c3 E~ ~ -~ ~~ - L7 c°1 t ~ .~ ~ -- '~>~'? ~y"" r Successor to a.cidi s Construction. CITY OF YELM C®rrrmunity bevel®ptrtent lL3epartrnent GROUNDS FOR APPEAL Re. Scritt Griffin Bcyundary Line Adiustrr~ent The following are the grounds for appeal for the Applicant's appeal of the City's August 9 '! , 2Ct04 decision in the Cariffin Boundary Line Adjustment. 9. The City asserts that the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment violates the Thurston County Health Code and corresponding provisions of the Washington Administrative Code. This conclusion is erroneous for the following reasons. A_ Those provisions are administered by the Thurston County Health ~spartment which has not concluded, as the City has, that the. proposed adjustment would violate the cited provisions; B. There are readily available alternatives to the cited minimum lot size requirerr°~ents including rr~inor increases in the size of the relevant parcel, the provision of an off-site easement far drainfield proposes, etc_ The Applicant is ready, willing and able to modify its proposal to meet these requirements, and shor..tld have an opportunity to do so as opposed to having its application summarily denied; C. WAC 246-272-250'1 states that a person proposing a development shall obtain approval from the local health officer prior to any development where the use of an on-sits septic system is proposed_ The City did not give the local health officer an opportunity to review, comment, andlor approveldeny the application; d. Additional soils work may confirm that the site has adequate area and soils along the western portion of the lot for a reserve drainfield and, if so, the lot size may be satisfactory to the Health Department. Again, the Applicant should have had an opportunity to exhaust these alternatives prior to the City even considering denial of the Boundary Line Adjustment; E_ As another al#crnativc~, the Applicant could connect the sits to the City`s water system which would likely affect the application of the Health Department's regulations; and F_ Ths 900-foot well radius can be located within the boundaries of the proposed tot, andlor on adjacent property restricted by covenant_ The Applicant can obtain or provide such a covenant and should be given the option to do so. 2_ The next basis for denial of the Boundary Line Adjustment was that the proposal did not meet minimum density requirements for the medium density residential {R-6) zoning district and that the density requirement could not be achieved through any re- [1278874 v2] - 9 - division of the property due to the size caf the parcel and the requirements of the subdivision code. This conclusion is erroneous for the following reasons: A_ RCW 58.17.O4C7{6} exempts from the requirements of the Subdivision Act. "A division made for the purpose of alteration by adjusting property lines, between a platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additianal lot, tract, parcel, site, or division nor create any lot, tract, parcel, site, or division which contains insufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirerrtents f®r width and area fora building sito" An adjustment meeting these requir®ments is exempt from local regulatory authority as well_ The subject proposal is consistent with and falls within the express language of this exemption; B. More specifically, the proposed lets do contain sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for width and area. The exemption does not specify that created lots must meet minimum density requirements, and the City may not read such a requirement inter the exemption language; C. fn fact, the proposed L-3oundary Line Adjustment brings the subject property closer in conformance to any minimum density requirements by reducing the size of the parcel; C7. Given the existing improvements that have been constructed on the property, the proposed lot is the smallest that could practically be designed to encompass the home and its accessory improvements, To require that the let be smaller denies the Applicant its rights under the common law and statutory provisions regarding non-conforrr~ing uses and vested rights; E. The conclusion that the let is tc3o large to meet density requirements is directly contrary to the first cited basis for the City's denial that the lot is too small; F. The applicable rules appear to conflict with respect to the size of the lot, with the Health Qepartm~ent regulations setting faith a minimum size and the Zaning Regulations setting forth a maximum size. The Health Department regulations address a matter of public health and have priority over and supersede the later-adopted zoning requirements; and G. TI-fe subject property can be re-developed in the future to bring it in#a greater conformity with minimum density requirements. 3. As the third basis for its decision, the City asserts tha# Ms_ ®atson's parcels were not created through the subdivision process and thus the Boundary Line Adjustment process is net available. That is expressly contrary to RGW 58.17.®40(6} which allcaws the adjustment between "platted car unplatted lots err both". I~ 279874 u2] - 2 4. The City's decision is otherwise contrary to taw, incleading but not limited to RCVtC Chapter 58.1 7 and RCW 55.1 7.04Q(6) and the City of Seattle mss. Crispin, 14~ Wn.2d 8~6, 7'l P.3rd 2Q8 t2Q03)- 5. The City`s decision is arbitrary and capricious. DATED this 2~`d day of Aur~ust, 2®04. Respectfutiy Submitted, CORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWEi_L, MALANCA, PETEiPSON & fDAHE[M iBy: 1~~ William T. Lynn WSBA No_ 07887 12011 Pacific Ave., Suite 21 OC3 PO Box 1 157 Tacoma, WA 984Q1-1157 {~53) 62fl-6415 i72~gs~.¢ V?] - 3 City of ~-~~n. Comr».urt%ty Zyevelvpment .D¢partment 205 Yelm Avenue Vest P.Q~ mix 479 Yelrra„ `4YA 98597 Augt,~st 1 1 , 2004 Scott Griffin Caddis Construction P_a_ Box 73669 Puyallup, WA 98373 Re: Griffin Boundary Line Adjustment Dear Mr_ Griffin- The City ofi Yelrrt has computed its review of your application for a Boundary Linn Adjustment between two parcels of Land awned by Kathryn ®otson located on Middle Road. The City has determined that the proposal would create a lot which does not meet zoning and health code standards, and hE.reby denies the application_ Section 58.17.04Q (6) RCV1f exempts a division made for the purpose of alteration by adjusting boundary lines, which does not create any additional lot nor create any lot which contains insufficient area and dimens-ion to meet minimum requirements far width and area far a building site from subdivision requirements. Section '16.28_Q'l O YMC indicates a boundary line adjustment should be approved upon finding compliance with minimum zoning, health, building and other land use regulations and with the Yelm comprehensive plan and that the adjustment will not adversely affect access, easements or drainfieids. Specifically, the proposal is inconsistent with the following health cede and zoning code standards: Section 2'1 _2.5 of the Thurston County Health Code and Section 248-272-201501 WAC indicate that the minimum lot size of a parcel that is served by an on-site sewage disposal system and a individual well is one acre undo-~r the most favorable soil conditions- Additionally, these sections of the health codes require the wail radius be contained within the property lines of lot. {360) 458-3835 (860j 458-3744 FA 1C u+usu+_c i..ye I ~.. roao rte The proposed lot which contains Ms. C~otson's home is served by an individual well and can-site sewage disposal system and is proposed to be lass than one acre in size. The 1 Oa foot well radius would not be contained within the boundaries of this proposed lot. The Yelm Zoning Code establishes both maximum and minimum density requirements in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zoning district. The minimum density is 3 units per acre, which is not achieved through the creation of a lot less than one acre in area. Further, this requirement coe.~ld nat be achieved through any redivision of the praperty due to the size of the parcel and requirements of the subdivision code. Ms. Dotson's parcels were not created through the subdivision process found in Chapter 58_'f 7 RCW, as the creation of parcels 5 acres or larger is exempt from the requiremcjnts of the State Subdivision Act. Allowing the creation of a parcel which would normally be subject to the standards of a subdivision or short subdivision from an exempt division circumvents the pr©tections built into the land division process, such as the requirements of the health codes noted above, but also those related to access, connection to public services, and other policies of the Comprehensive Plan expressed through the City's development regulations. The decision to deny your application for boundary line adjustment the City of Yelm Hearing Examiner by filing a written appeal which basis for the appeal and an appeal fee of $5C1.DO to the Communit Department no Eater than 14 days firom the date of this letter. C C~ ~t Beck,, Director mmunity Development Department may be appealed to clearly identifies the y Development August s. 2c>aa Page z of 2 LAW C3FFEC:ES CiC7RC3C~N. THC~iv1AS. t-IOt~E'r'V{/ELL. la~r'sLf\'I'~1C:':. ['~T1=E~S01~ f~ 1~AHLIM LLl' TAC-: (7 F4 .4 ~ F3- EC=F _ _ tCE e ~ CJ E f3 Fr. G I F t G A V E N iJ E S lJ f T E ~ CJ O - -_ - - or~E ur.€ Eo n~ ~ _~ s r o F -..; >= e=-rox E moo ~E r~ ,i r=R - _ - _ ~~cFZ E ~, e. T .~..c e, ..,~P.. wP. ...~<. r. <_=r E>r~ ~~. ~.n.-~r ~ ~e=.o.~Ti_E- Nf-. .. sir. ~>ro r~ ~~.re=~-a<s3 .~ F?E!°'LY T O '/~.C G5 M A. O ~ Fi CE WILLIFaM T_ LYNN G P R E G T ( 2~ 3> i U E-*~t.A€E_ IvnPZw~t~fh-lry w.cam J Lily 14, 2004 Tami Merriman ~ss_stU,-~t ,~larli~er City of ~cln~ P_ ®. Bax 479 ~r'elrrr, WA 98597 RF: Boundary Line Adjustment Application for Kathryn L~otsc~n, Trustee L7ear Ms. Merriman: We reprzsent Caddis Construction, and your letter of July 1 9, 2U04 conceri~ing the above referetzcc,d boundary line adju.stnient has been referred to Lis for action. «e are confident the+ City does not }~atrc the authority you assert in your letter. In the first place, the boundary line ad_justrzaent is exenYpt from the C'.ity's authority over subdivisions tinder the provisions of RCW 58.17.U4f)(,6}. Such adjustments a.re simply not within tl-~e City's regulatory authority. mince the City concludes that the boundary line adjustment meets the description set forth ire this statutory provision, the: City may not do-ray, or impose conditions can arty "approval". That is clear Pram the statute and has bee~rt made even more clear from the Suprezr;e Court's decision in .~'~cxtZlE' v. Czri.s~aisz, 149 Wn_2d F59~ (2U03). There, the property owners simply adjusted their property lines by a series of deeds. The court held that was an exempt action, not subject to later City revie~~. As you know, Caddis Construction iixtends to purchase the larger parcel and submit a subdivision application. The City i~-iay riot use its authority udder the: State Environmental Policy Ac.t (SEPA} to assert control o~rer property riot owr~ed by the applicant and not part of the application. The impacts of the proposed subdivision will be those relating to the residential developmeiYt that will occupy the subdivided property. Impacts of the existing home, which will be in a separate ownership and which has access that will be unchanbed by the- subdivision, t~~ill not be within the City's SEPA authority. Case law frcri-c our State Si~prerne C°cc~urt n~alties it clear the t the f-'ity cannot exercise the authority you ha~re asserted.. In I3zrrtclrz v. C`lur~h- e'csurzt}-, 91 Wn. App. 505 { 1998) the Court 12'75887 ~.~ I .doe] GL~RC3C>T~l. -I^HC.~MAS. I-1~7~-IEYWELL. tvtf'.1.AT~ICA. T'ETF_RSC`7N ~~ I~AF-lEtty! LL[' 3uly 14, 2C30~ Pale Z reviewed a subdivision approval on which the County had in-xposed several road ix~Yprovement requirements. The court identified four principles that relate to the imposition of conditions on land use actions. Two are particularly relevant here: that conditions may only be imposed to address a "public prol~len-x", and that the ~overrunent must show that the development ux~der consideration gill create or make worse the identified problenZ. Here, the existing home and. driveway will rex~~ain exactly as they are without the subdivision. The subdivision will xiot create any problems associated with the driveway, x~or will the subdivision n~altie any such problems wc~rse_ As a result, the City may not, withii~ the bounds of t1-xe Co~~stitution, in~p©se restriction on access froxi~ tl°xat i~ome. We are very confidei~t of the position set forth in this letter and su~~est that you review the City's auth©ri.ty with the City Attorney. Please fivel free to have the City Attorney contact the ux~dersigned to discuss this matter. Very truty yours, f, William T. Lyx~ ~VTL:gam cc: Sc®tt Griffin [1275f~87 vl.docl ~'it cif ~€~ Zm C'omun.zty r7eueZopm.~n.t I3~pcxr-tm,~rtt 2a~ YQam. ~tve~u.~ wit ~`. ~]_ ]3ax 4 rs yei~~ w~ s~ess ~ .luly J, 2®D4 Scott Griffin Caddis Construction P _ ®_ Box 73669 Puyalle.ap, WA 98373 Re. Boundary Lino Adjesstment Application for Kathryn Dotson,. Trustee Qear Mr. Caddis: The City has rc~ceivc~d your Boundary Line Adjustment for the Kathryn Qotson parcels, and is ready to proceed with the review_ f would like to bring to your atten#ion, that although the Boundary Linn Adjustment may bc3 approved, it does not prevent the new parcels firom review of the future residential subdivision that has been discussad_ Section 1 97-1 'l -0607(5) states that the Lead agency shall determine tl-re appropriate scope and level of detail of environmental review to coincide with decision-making processes_ Section 1 97-1 1 -0607(5}(d}(ii) states that a phased review is not appropriate wl~°ten it would divide a larger system into exempted fragments. Irt other words; if tl-ta proposal ccsnsists of a series of actions that are individually exempt, but together may have a significant impact, the proposal is not exempt. in this projE;ct review, the boundary line adjustment is an €~xempt action, however, the resulting devE:lopment of all tYte parcels must be reviewed for cumulative impacts. In regards to that review, the new smaller parcel would stilt bE. included in the environmental review of the subdivision process and the traffic impact anaiysis_ Frontage improvements and drivevtiray accesses will bc. considered fior all paresis, whether the boundary line adjustment is completed or not_ ~.~~aa -r,8-:zi.r-r r,nx ae+u•rr+.c i. v<'L ra a. rr ~c_u_v 'F you haves any questions, pl~as~ calf me at (860) 458-8490 Sinco.rcly, Tami Merrirt~an Assistant Pfarsnar cc: SPR Co~-nmittee Kathryn f~®tsrr_,n Parar~-~etrix ~~.~iy ~. 2aoa Page 2 or z ''t' '-~-.. ~ t _ __ *vG TON CITY OF YELM PO Box 479 Yelp WA 98597 36©-458-3244 OFFICIAL USE ONLY l=ee `a7 ._~z-~!:_~ cjr Date Received B 1 No. .~~ ~ f~ -- ~~'-~ - ~-y~"~ cf _ ~ ~ _ APPLICATION FOR BOUNDARY LINE - AQJUSTNIENT Fee: $~oo_oo OR LARGE LOT SUBQIVISION Fee: $250.00. + $~O.00/tot (In addition, any professional service charges per Resolution #358) X Boundary Line Adjustment Large Lot Subdivision NAME OF PROJECT Griffin BLA Owner of Parcel(s) X Purchaser of Parcel<s) Representative APPLICANT Scott Griffin Caddis Construction Mailing Address P O Bax 73669 City, State and Zip Puvalluo WA 98373 Telephone (253) 896-'1300 OWNER Kathryn Dotson. Trustee Mailing Address `f 6440 Middle Road SE City, State and Zip Yelm WA 98597 Telephone SURVEYOR Parametrix Mailing Address 8830 Tallon Lane NE City, State and Zip Laces WA 985'16 Telephone f360) 459-3609 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION General Location southeast of Middle Road between Green Acres Ln and Railway Road Address of Sits (if assigned) '16440 Middle Road SE Area of Project (in acres, if possible) '18.36 acres Area of entire contiguous ownership (if other tl-ian above) Section 1 9 Township 9 7N Range 2E Assessor's Tax Parcel Number(s) of property included in this application: 64303600700 and 64303600600 Zoning District R6 Moderate density Residential Shoreline Designation (if applicable) n!a Comprehensive Plan/Sub-Area Plan Designation R6 Moderate Density Residential Type of on-site structures (give lot numbers) House and oufbuildings on Lots A and B (SHOW LOCATION AND LABEL EACH STRUCTURE ON MAP} WHAT USES ARE PROPOSED FOR THE VACANT LOTS? The uses must be consistent with zoning. Single Family, on Lots Quplc.x, on Lots Multifamily, on Lots Commercial, on Lots Industrial, on Lots No uses are proposed. IF UNOECIOEC, LOTS WILL BE REVIEWEa FOR ONE SINGLE-FAIMILY RESi1CENCE PER LOT_ Existing sewage disposal_ None X Septic tanK (date installed ) Sewer (SHOW ON MAP} Propased sewage disposal: None X Septic tank Sewer Other Existing water supply: None X Individual well on lot(s) # A (SHOW ON MAP) Community Well -- Name of System or Owner Munici al Water S stem -- Name of Munici skit - 20 Proposed water supply: None X Individual We[Is Cammunity WelE -- Name of System or E?wner Municipal Water System -- Name of Municipatity- Special areas on your project site- (Show checked areas on map) None X CreeK or Stream Yelm Creek River (Name) (Name) Lakes/Pond Cliffs (Name) !]raw/Gully Swam p/Bog Has a portion of your project site ever flooded? No Oo not Know Yes, when? The souti-oern portion of the side is mapped as a High Groundwater Hazard Area and Flaod Zone (If yes, show area on map) BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS ONLY Lot # A Lot Area in Square Feet 39 7 98 sf Lot # B Lot Area in Square Feet 76© 324 sf Lot # Lot Area in Square Feet Lot # Lot Area in Square Feet []oes the property being subdivided have city/countylstate road frontage? No X Yes City of Yelm County State _ If yes, name of road Middle Road Right-of-Way width of read frontage varies If no, width and length of private road, easement or righ#-of-way: feet wide by feet Tong If property to be divided is accessed by a private road, how many other parcels have access by this road? (Include vacant parcels) (FOR YEL11/1 TOWNHOUSE SHORT PLATS ONLY) For existing townhouse un"sts being short platted: C7o the common walls meet building and fire codes? Yes No 2_ For proposed townhouse units: Has the applicant submitted the following to the Site Plan Review Committee? Yes No (If no, your short plat will be held pending the submittal of those items listed below.) A) Building Plans- Typical front and side elevations and exterior architectural treatments of the proposed units_ B) Site Plans- Location of buildings in relation to property and Eot lines, off-street parKing areas, patio and service areas, including garbage disposal areas, landscaping, walls, fences, public and private streets, driveways, all common facilities, open space and walKways_ In addition, lot size, percentage of ground coverage and open space shall be included as data on such plan. A topographic map shall also be submitted showing existing and proposed cantours at two-foot intervals and which locates existing streams. lakes, marsh as and other natural features- The requirement of the topographic map may be waived by the Site Plan Review Commit#ee if it deems it not necessary. PLEASE PROVIDE A REDUCED SIZE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN ANC/OR BLA, NOT LARGER THAN 1 1 " X '1 7". f~ -- 2 Y Boundary Line Adjustment # Boundary Line Adjustment Map LINE TABLE SEC_ 19, T'_'17N, R_2E, W_M_ LINE LENGTH BEA RING L7 705.68 N47'02 25 W L2 56_99 N45'OS 49 W L3 247.57 542'24 58 W L4 762_65 N46"20 30 W L6 247.93 N42'24 58 E L7 58.28 S47"32 25 E LS 87.62 545'42 20 E ° /v110~LE_ R0.40 545'42 20'"E ~ `771.16"~ 67.Sg' L2 L7 L7 L8 R/W PER DRA/NF/ELO ~ AFN 3535669 =" CLEANOLIT o ~- ^~ ~ m `4 of WFLL A r-IOUSE- ? m NEW L/NES j 545'42'20' E / 218. 72' - /'4 t{ OG~S o _ 1 v o~O ~o m o ~O~ a~o~ ~~~ ~oJ~°~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~° a~ ~~ f! J oJ~`~-FO c~ ° U QC ~ w o ~~ ~ ~ p ~~ ~~- ~ \V ~ W ~ ~~~ LJ~._ `!.`7 fU ADO 'V ~ O ~ ~ ~"~"`~ ~~._ ~ h~ z `Q` ~`~P -~~ ~c l F~~`=~ (\/~~~J\/~ ~ ~~1 ~ SAO D. W r~ ~r~°~ "S N57 'aS'S7"W Ng6"59~33~ --- N57"08'57°W 238-44' -- 382-61 ~ -_ 224.03' O --- ~ C7 O r? 0 0 NOR€ZON TAL- CJATUM_ ~\ NA083/91 WASHINGTON STATE SOUTH ZONE CER T/F/CA TfON OF CONFORMANCE / HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TH/S BOUN£7ARY LINE ADJUSTMENT CONFORMS W/ TH THE REQU/REMEN TS OF THE PLATT/NG ANO SUBOl V1 S/ON ORDINANCE AS THE AOJUSTM ENT GOES NOT CREATE ANY NEW LOTS CON TA lNlNG lNSUFFlClENT LOT AREA ANO O/MEN SIGNS TO MEET THE M/NlMUM REQUlREM EN TS FOR WlO TH ANO AREA FOR BUILDING Sl TES. PLANN/NG OEPAR TMEN T OA TE sv-o2-a~n.ewy o~ni-e-' ~%3~0 d~arametrix i - - ,r'. ~'t --' 1 ;. ,. ... _. i r,--., i ~ s , ~ .: ~ .. Parametrix CA'E 12/31/03 Fi~E: fin2r SCALE fN FEET Figure 1 ~~ PRE PLAT 0 200 400 Thurston County Board of Health Rules and Regulations Governing disposal of Sewage Article IV 17.5.3 Comply with all local and state requirements stipulated in the OSSP and the operational certificate issued for the system. SECTION 18 EXPANSIONS. The health officer shall require an on-site sewage system and a reserve area in full compliance with the new system construction standards specified in this article for an expansion of a residence or other facility. SECTION 19 ABANDONMENT. Persons permanently removing a septic tank, seepage pit, cesspool, or other sewage container from service shall: 19.1 Have the septage removed by a certified pumping firm; 19.2 Remove or destroy the lid; and 19.3 Fill the void with soil. SECTION 20 SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT. 20.1 Only pumping firms certified by the health officer as per subsection 23.3 of this article shall remove septage from an OSS. 20.2 A pumping firm removing septage from an OSS shall: 20.2.1 Transport septage or sewage only in vehicles clearly identified with the name of the business and approved by the health officer; 20.2.2 Record and report septage removal to the health officer; 20.2.3 Dispose of septage, or apply septage biosolids to land only in a manner consistent with applicable laws. SECTION 21 DEVELOPMENTS, SUBDIVISIONS, AND MINIMUM LAND AREA REQUIREMENTS. 21 .1 A person proposing any development shall obtain approval from the health officer prior to any development where the use of OSS is proposed. Any new development proposing to use OSS shall be required to have an OSS which meets new construction standards. 21 .2 The health officer shall require the following prior to approving any development: AMENDED June 1, '1999 4-53 Thurston County Board of Health Rules and Regulations Governing disposal of Sewage Article IV 21 .2.1 Site evaluations as required under section 1 1 of this article. This may include information gained in a project review as noted in subsection 1 0.5 of this article; 21 .2.2 Where a subdivision with individual wells is proposed: 21 .2.2.1 Configuration of each lot to allow a 1 00-foot radius water supply protection zone to fit within the lot lines; or 21 .2.2.2 Establishment, through protective or restrictive covenants, as appropriate, of a 100-foot protection zone around each existing and proposed well site. Such zones shall be shown on the final plat map. 21 .2.3 Where a subdivision to be served by a community well or wells is proposed, all requirements of WAC 246-290 and WAC 246-291 shall be met. This will include wellhead protection when applicable. 21 .2.4 Where preliminary approval of a subdivision is requested, provision of at least one soil log per proposed lot, unless the health officer determines existing soils information allows fewer soi I logs; 21 .2.5 Determination of the minimum lot size or minimum land area required for the development using Method I and/or Method II: 21 .2.5.1 METHOD I. Table VII, Single Family Residence Minimum Lot Size or Minimum Land Area Required Per Unit Volume of Sewage, shows the minimum lot size required per single family residence. For developments other than single family residences, the minimum land areas shown are required for each unit volume of sewage. TABLE VII MINIMUM LAND AREA REQUIREMENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR UNIT VOLUME OF SEWAGE Type of Soil Type (defined by section 1 1 of this article)' Water Supply 1A, 1 B 2A, 2B 3 4 5 6 Public 0.5 12,500 sq. 15,000 sq. 18,000 sq. 20,000 sq. 22,000 sq. acre2 ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Individual, on or to each lot 1 acre2 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 2 acres 2 acres AMENDED June 1, '1999 4-54 Thurston County Board of Health Rules and Regulations Governing disposal of Sewage Article IV When an OSS is proposed to be installed in soil types 1 B or 2 through 4 that are included in the list of Category I soil series in Chapter 17.15 of the Thurston County Code (Critical Areas Ordinance), pressure distribution is required, at a minimum. In addition, for those Category I soil series the minimum lot size restrictions found in Table 3 of Chapter 17.15 shall apply, and any lots less than 1 acre in size must be served by a public water system and an OSS meeting Treatment Standard 2. 2 Due to the highly permeable nature of type 1A soil, only alternative systems which meet or exceed Treatment Standard 2 can be installed. 21 .2.5.2 METHOD II. A minimum land area proposal using Method II is acceptable only when the applicant: 21 .2.5.2.1 Justifies the proposal through a written analysis of the: 21 .2.5.2.1 .1 Soil type and depth; 21 .2.5.2.1 .2 Area drainage, and/or lot drainage; 21 .2.5.2.1 .3 Public health impact on ground and surface water quality; 21 .2.5.2.1 .4 Setbacks from property lines, water supplies, etc; 21 .2.5.2.1 .5 Source of domestic water; 21 .2.5.2.1 .6 Topography, geology, and ground cover; 21 .2.5.2.1 .7 limatic conditions; 21 .2.5.2.1 .8 Availability of public sewers; 21 .2.5.2.1 .9 Activity or land use, present, and anticipated; 21 .2.5.2.1 .10 Growth patterns; 21 .2.5.2.1.1 1 Reserve areas for additional subsurface treatment and disposal; 21 .2.5.2.1 .12 Anticipated sewage volume; 21 .2.5.2.1 .13 Compliance with current planning and zoning requirements; AMENDED June 1, '1999 4-55 WAC 246-272-20501 developments, subdivisions, and minimum land area requirements_ (1) A person proposing the development shall obtain approval from the local health officer prior to any development where the use of OSS is proposed. (2) The local health officer shall require the following prior to approving any development= (a) Site evaluations as required under WAC 246-272-1 1 00'I , excluding subsections (3)(a)(i) and (4)(d); (b) Where a subdivision with individual wells is proposed= (i) Configuration of each lot to allow a one hundred-foot radius water supply protection zone to fit within the lot lines; or (ii) Establishment of a one hundred-foot protection zone around each existing and proposed well site; (c) Where preliminary approval of a subdivision is requested, provision of at least one soil log per proposed lot, unless the local health officer determines existing soils information allows fewer soil logs; (d) Determination of the minimum lot size or minimum land area required for the development using Method I and/or Method II. (i) METI-low I. Table VII, Single family residence minimum lot size or minimum land area required per unit volume of sewage, shows the minimum lot size required per single family residence. For developments other than single family residences, the minimum land areas shown are required for each unit volume of sewage. TABLE VII MINIMUM LAND AREA REQUIREMENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR UNIT VOLUME OF SEWAGE Type of Soil Type defined by section 1 1001 of this chapter Watcr Supply lA, 1B 2A, 2B 3 4 5 6 Public O.5 acrd 12,500 2.5 acrd sq $ 15,000 18,000 20,000 sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. 1 acre 1 acre 2 acres 22,000 Individual, 1 acrd 1 acre on each lot 2.5 acres sq. ft. 2 acres 1 Ihia to the highly permeable nature of type 1 soil, only alternative systems which meat or exceed Treatment Standard 2 can ba installed. 2 A conventional gravity system in typo 1 soil is only allowed if it is in compliance with all conditions listed under WAC 246-272-1 1 5 0 1 ~2~(h~. Ones of thaw limiting conditions is a 2.5 acres minimum lot sizes. (ii) nneTHO~ ii. A minimum land area proposal using Method II is acceptable only when the applicant= (A) Justifies the proposal through a written analysis of the= (I) Soil type and depth; (II) Area drainage, and/or lot drainage; (III) Public health impact on ground and surface water quality; (IV) Setbacks from property lines, water supplies, etc.; (V) Source of domestic water; (VI) Topography, geology, and ground cover; (VII) Climatic conditions; (VIII) Availability of public sewers; (IX) Activity or land use, present, and anticipated; (X) Growth patterns; (XI) Reserve areas for additional subsurface treatment and disposal; (XII) Anticipated sewage volume; (X111) Compliance with current planning and zoning requirements; (XIV) Possible use of alternative systems or designs; (XV) Existing encumbrances, such as listed in WAC 246-272- 0900'1 ('I )(c)(v) and 246-272-'I 'I 00'1 (2)(a)(vii); and (XVI) Any other information required by the local health officer. (B) Shows development with public water supplies having= (I) At least twelve thousand five hundred square feet lot sizes per single family residence; (II) No more than 3.5 unit volumes of sewage per day per acre for developments other than single family residences; and (C) Shows development with individual water supplies having at least one acre per unit volume of sewage; and (~) Shows land area under surface water is not included in the minimum land area calculation; and (e) Regardless of which method is used for determining required minimum lot sizes or minimum land area, submittal to the health officer of information consisting of field data, plans, and reports supporting a conclusion the land area provided is sufficient to= (i) Install conforming OSS; (ii) Assure preservation of reserve areas for proposed and existing OSS; (iii) Properly treat and dispose of the sewage; and (iv) Minimize public health effects from the accumulation of contaminants in surface and ground water- (3) The local health officer shall require lot areas of twelve thousand five hundred square feet or larger except when a person proposes= (a) OSS within the boundaries of a recognized sewer utility having a finalized assessment roll; or (b) A planned unit development with= (i) A signed, notarized, and recorded deed covenant restricting any development of lots or parcels above the approved density with the density meeting the minimum land area requirements of subsection (2)(d) of this section; (ii) A public entity responsible for operation and maintenance of the OSS, or a single individual owning the OSS; (iii) Management requirements under WAC 246-272-0800'1 when installing a LOSS; and (iv) Extinguishment of the deed covenant and higher density development allowed only when the development connects to public sewers- (4) The local health officer may= (a) Allow inclusion of the area to the centerline of a road or street right of way in a Method II determination under subsection (2)(d)(ii) of this section to be included in the minimum land area calculation if= (i) The dedicated road or street right of ways are along the perimeter of the development; (ii) The road or street right of ways are dedicated as part of the proposed development; and (iii) Lots are at least twelve thousand five hundred square feet in size- (b) Require detailed plot plans and OSS designs prior to final approval of subdivision proposals; (c) Require larger land areas or lot sizes to achieve public health protection; (d) Prohibit development on individual lots within the boundaries of an approved subdivision if the proposed OSS design does not protect public health by meeting requirements of these regulations; and (e) Permit the installation of an OSS, where the minimum land area requirements or lot sizes cannot be met, only when all of the following criteria are met: (i) The lot is registered as a legal lot of record created prior to the effective date of this chapter; (ii) The lot is outside an area of special concern where minimum land area has been listed as a design parameter necessary for public health protection; and (iii) The proposed system meets all requirements of these regulations other than minimum land area- [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.20.050. 94-09-025, § 246-272-20501 , filed 4/1 5/94, effective 1 /1 /95. ]