Loading...
Reserve at Palisades Legal AppealCover Letter Dear Yelm City Council, Attached is my formal legal appeal regarding the Reserve at Palisades subdivision (LD 2024.0072). This appeal is submitted pursuant to YMC 18.10.100(B) to challenge the Hearing Examiner’s final decision. I am a directly affected resident of Palisades Street SE and meet the standing requirements under YMC 18.10.100(E). The enclosed document outlines violations of Yelm Municipal Code, including a misapplied variance approval, unresolved public safety risks, and speculative mitigation measures that do not satisfy local development standards. I respectfully request that the Council reverse the variance and deny or conditionally delay the preliminary plat approval until all legal and infrastructure standards are verifiably met. Enclosed as Exhibit M is a petition signed by Palisades Street SE residents who support this appeal and object to the approval due to legal and safety violations. Sincerely, Justin Linson 10619 Palisades St SE Yelm, WA 98597 Phone: 760-486-4976 Legal Appeal: Reserve at Palisades Subdivision (LD 2024.0072) Addressed to: Yelm City Council Appellant: Justin Linson Address: 10619 Palisades St SE Yelm, WA 98597 Phone: 760-486-4976 I certify that I have read this appeal and believe the contents to be true and correct. Signature: ___________________________ Date: _________04/23/2025_______ I. INTRODUCTION This appeal is submitted to formally challenge the preliminary approval and variance granted for the Reserve at Palisades development (LD 2024.0072), a 39-lot subdivision located at 15036 SR 507 SE (Parcel #21725130200). The appeal is based on the following grounds: critical public safety deficiencies, non-compliance with Yelm Municipal Code (YMC), misapplication of required variance criteria, speculative infrastructure assumptions, and cumulative infrastructure burdens not supported by adequate mitigation. This appeal is submitted pursuant to YMC 18.10.100(B) to appeal the Hearing Examiner's final decision to the City Council and meets all YMC 18.10.100(F) requirements. As a directly impacted resident living on Palisades St SE, I meet the standing requirements under YMC 18.10.100(E) as a person aggrieved by this decision. II. LEGAL BASIS FOR APPEAL A. Immediate Public Safety Risk Due to Single Access • YMC 18.52.080 requires subdivisions with 25 or more homes to provide vehicular access from an arterial or collector street. The Reserve at Palisades fails this requirement. • The proposed development will result in 63 total homes (24 existing + 39 new), all relying on one local residential road (Palisades St SE). • This configuration compromises emergency response, evacuation during fire or natural disasters, and routine access. • The variance approval is based on future second access (Road B) that depends on the annexation and development of an adjacent parcel. This outcome is currently speculative and legally unenforceable. (See Exhibit D – Site Plan and Exhibit L – Project Comparison.) • The city’s own records confirm that Road B has no timeline, funding, construction permit, or annexation schedule. • The International Fire Code (IFC) permits sprinkler systems as an alternative, but Yelm’s municipal code (adopted after IFC) is stricter, indicating an intent to exceed baseline fire code protections. • The applicant references IFC Section D107.1, which allows a single access road for developments with more than 30 homes if sprinkler systems are installed. However, Yelm adopted YMC 18.52.080 in 2015, multiple years after IFC adoption, to set a stricter local standard that requires two points of access for subdivisions of 25 or more homes. • This variance approval directly undermines the City's higher safety standards and places future residents, first responders, and neighbors at significant risk. Critically, the City Fire Marshal testified during the variance hearing that Yelm’s geography, being more remote than dense urban areas, was why YMC 18.52.080 was created. He affirmed that stricter access standards were necessary for public safety in outlying areas like Yelm. Despite this testimony, the same office later recommended approval of the variance, which directly contradicts the underlying logic for the code’s creation. Letting IFC D107.1 override YMC 18.52.080 undermines local legislative authority and sets a precedent that state minimums may bypass local safety policy. The Fire Marshal’s testimony confirms that the stricter local rule is intentional and necessary; approving this project violates that standard. (See Exhibit G – IFC 2024 Section D107.1 and Exhibit B – YMC §18.52.080.) B. Misapplication of YMC 18.14.100(C) – Variance Criteria Not Met YMC 18.14.100(C) requires that all four criteria (A–D) must be met to approve a variance. In this case: • Criterion A: The applicant is not deprived of zoning rights. R-4 development is still feasible if scaled to match access limitations. Other parcels face similar zoning-to-infrastructure conflicts. • Criterion B: The claimed hardship is based on WSDOT policy, not property-specific characteristics. The lot’s shape and location do not present any unique hardship. • Criterion C: The hardship is self-created by choosing a development scale that exceeds the infrastructure's support. The inability to provide legal access is a known condition. • Criterion D: Public welfare is directly compromised: (See Exhibit F – TIA Summary, Exhibit E – YMC §18.16.030, and Exhibit I – YMC §18.56.020.) o Traffic Impact Analysis confirms Level of Service (LOS) D at SR 507 & Palisades by 2027. o LOS D reflects near-failure traffic conditions, worsened by adding 39 homes with no alternate access. o Road B is speculative and unbuilt. No second access exists. o Palisades St SE lacks the design capacity to safely serve 63 homes. The city cannot legally grant a variance when any of the four criteria is unmet. Here, three criteria (B, C, and D) are clearly unsatisfied. Therefore, the variance should be revoked. C. Inadequate Infrastructure, Concurrency, and Traffic Performance • TIA data confirms degradation to LOS D at the SR 507/Palisades intersection with project traffic. • LOS D is the lowest threshold allowed before a failing classification. • This intersection is not currently listed in the City’s 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and is therefore ineligible for traffic impact fee credits. • Palisades Street SE will carry all inbound/outbound traffic, deliveries, garbage, school pickups, and emergency services, despite not being a collector or an arterial. • The only planned mitigation is a southbound left-turn lane, which is inadequate and insufficient to maintain service levels. D. Speculative Nature of Road B and Offsite Improvements • Road B is presented in the plat map and staff report as a conditionally required second access route, but: o It requires annexation and future development of private land that the applicant does not control. o It has no engineering plans, timeline, or funding. o Fire Marshal testimony in the staff report states that IFC conditions are technically met, but the City of Yelm adopted stricter access standards through YMC 18.52.080 in 2015. • Offsite open space mitigation is being used to satisfy code-required onsite amenities: o The project fails to meet the 5% onsite open space requirement. (See Exhibit I – YMC §18.56.020 and Exhibit K – Country Meadows Hearing Examiner Decision.) o Tracts A and D are insufficient; improvements are planned on city-owned land that the HOA does not control III. CODE COMPLIANCE TABLE Requirement YMC Reference Compliance Status Notes Two access points for 25+ homes YMC 18.52.080 Not Compliant Only one access; variance granted, but unjustified Variance Criteria A–D YMC 18.14.100(C) Not Compliant Criteria B, C, and D are not satisfied; variance is misapplied LOS Threshold Compliance TIA, YMC 18.16.030 Not Compliant LOS D; no mitigation beyond minimal improvements Open Space (5% onsite) YMC 18.56.020 Not Compliant Tracts A/D are insufficient; mitigation relies on city land Fire Protection Access IFC D107/YMC 18.52.080 Partially Compliant Sprinklers, yes; second access speculative/not built IV. CONCLUSION This project was approved under a variance that fails to meet legal criteria under YMC 18.14.100(C) and violates the access safety requirements in YMC 18.52.080. Traffic will degrade to LOS D, and the open space and infrastructure plans rely on speculative mitigation. (See Exhibit J – Staff Report and Exhibit K – Country Meadows Decision.) Under YMC 18.52.080, this subdivision requires two vehicular access points to an arterial or collector. The project was approved with only one, and the second (Road B) is speculative, unconstructed, and legally unenforceable. The city cannot consider it valid mitigation under the law. Approval under these conditions constitutes a direct violation of YMC 18.52.080. The Hearing Examiner’s approval of the variance constitutes an ultra vires action taken outside the bounds of lawful authority. Under YMC 18.14.100(C), all four variance criteria (A–D) must be satisfied for a variance to be valid. The Examiner’s decision relied heavily on compliance with IFC D-107 while failing to demonstrate that all local variance standards were met. YMC 18.52.080, adopted after the IFC, imposes stricter and more comprehensive requirements that were neither fully addressed nor satisfied in the variance approval. By subordinating the binding local code to a baseline fire access standard and neglecting a complete analysis of each variance criterion, the Examiner exceeded the scope of delegated authority. This renders the variance decision void as ultra vires. The City Council, as the reviewing authority, is equally bound by the Municipal Code and cannot lawfully ratify or uphold a decision that violates it. Doing so would be improper and expose the City to legal risk for endorsing a procedurally defective and statutorily invalid approval. The applicant’s reliance on IFC D107.1 is misplaced. Yelm’s adoption of YMC 18.52.080 in 2015 reflects a deliberate policy choice to strengthen fire access standards beyond IFC’s minimums. The Fire Marshal’s (Chris Vaccaro) testimony confirms this intent, stating that stricter access rules are necessary due to Yelm’s geographic vulnerability and limited response infrastructure. Approving this project directly contradicts that principle. Under RCW 19.27.040, cities may adopt state building and fire code amendments to address local conditions. Yelm exercised that authority by adopting YMC 18.52.080. It is therefore not legally permissible to allow IFC D107.1 to override the City’s more protective rule. Doing so renders the municipal code meaningless and subverts both legislative intent and statutory delegation. The City Council must act to enforce the Yelm Municipal Code and uphold the city’s safety and infrastructure planning principles. The council has no legal authority to uphold an approval that violates YMC 18.52.080 and misapplies YMC 18.14.100(C). Reversing this action is not optional, but it is required by law. Failing to do so would expose the City to greater legal liability than reversing it, because it establishes a precedent for overriding precise code requirements with speculative mitigation. Many in the community share this concern. Exhibit M contains a signed petition from impacted neighbors who object to the same violations and support this appeal. Their voices reinforce that the safety and legal concerns raised here are not isolated. We respectfully request that the City Council reverse the variance approval and deny or conditionally delay the preliminary plat approval until all code requirements, especially regarding access and safety, are verifiably met. Summary Checklist of Violations �� YMC 18.52.080 – Only one vehicular access provided for 63 homes (minimum two required). �� YMC 18.14.100(C) – Variance improperly granted; fails to meet Criteria B, C, and D. �� IFC D107.1 – Misapplied; cannot override stricter local code (YMC 18.52.080). �� LOS D – Project degrades SR 507 intersection traffic performance without effective mitigation. �� Speculative Road B – No annexation, timeline, or funding; cannot be considered mitigation. �� Open Space – Project fails 5% onsite requirement; relies on offsite city-owned land. �� Fire Safety – Emergency response compromised; no reliable second access in place. �� Ultra Vires – Examiner acted outside legal authority; Council cannot lawfully uphold decision. EXHIBITS *** Each exhibit below is cited in the body of this appeal at the relevant point of argument and supports the legal, factual, or comparative basis for reversal. *** Exhibit A - Hearing Examiner’s Variance Decision (April 14, 2025) - Online Link • Official decision document approving variance for The Reserve at Palisades • Includes findings and conclusions relied upon by the Examiner Exhibit B - Yelm Municipal Code §18.52.080 (Arterial and Collector Access) - Online Link • Full text of the municipal code section requiring two points of vehicular access • Highlights legal standards not met by the project approval Exhibit C - Yelm Municipal Code §18.14.100 (Variance Criteria A–D) - Online Link • Full text of local variance approval criteria • Used to demonstrate that variance approval failed to satisfy all required conditions Exhibit D - Site Plan for The Reserve at Palisades - Online Link • Most recent approved site plan submitted by the applicant • Shows single point of access and speculative Road B Exhibit E - Yelm Municipal Code §18.16.030 (Level of Service Standards) - Online Link • Confirms that while IFC D107.1 may be satisfied, the local YMC access code remains more stringent and was not met Exhibit F - Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Summary - Online Link • Excerpt or summary from the applicant’s submitted traffic study • Indicates degraded Level of Service (LOS D) at primary access point. (page 20 in PDF, labeled Page 18) Exhibit G - IFC 2024 Section D107.1 (Adopted Fire Code) - Online Link • Full text of International Fire Code Section D107.1 as adopted before 2012 • Shows standard met by developer but distinct from and subordinate to YMC §18.52.080 • Included to clarify the misapplication of IFC as a substitute for local code requirements Exhibit H - Comment Letter Submitted for April 9, 2025, Hearing - Online Link • Written public comment submitted by appellant • Cites legal code violations and concerns with speculative mitigation Exhibit I - Yelm Municipal Code §18.56.020 (Open Space Requirements) - Online Link • Defines open space standards and dedication requirements for residential subdivisions • Demonstrates that the project failed to meet minimum open space provisions under Variance Criterion D • Supports the argument that environmental and design impacts were not adequately mitigated Exhibit J – Country Meadows Estates Phase 2: Staff Report Supplement (2024) - Online Link • Official staff report of open space calculations and road access layout for Country Meadows Estates Phase 2 • Provides direct comparison to the Reserve at Palisades concerning compliance with YMC §18.56.020 and vehicular access planning under YMC §18.52.080 Exhibit K – Amended Hearing Examiner Decision: Country Meadows Estates Phase 2 (2024) - Online Link •Decision document where the Hearing Examiner denied development approval due to noncompliance with YMC §18.52.080, despite having only 29 homes (just four over the threshold) •Demonstrates precedent of strict enforcement of two-access-point rule under local code •Highlights inconsistency in approving the Reserve at Palisades with 63 homes and only one access point Exhibit L – Project Comparison: Reserve at Palisades vs. Country Meadows Estates Phase 2 - Online Link •Side-by-side analysis of lot count, access compliance, open space, and outcome •Demonstrates inconsistent application of YMC §18.52.080 and §18.56.020 •Highlights that a smaller project (29 lots) was denied for access issues while the larger project (39 lots + 24existing lots) was approved with the same deficiency Exhibit M – Neighborhood Petition Against Approval - Online Link •Signed petition of residents supporting this appeal; objecting to single-access approval, code violations, andfire/emergency safety risks.