Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes and Agendas 2009 City of Yelm Community Development Department 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, WA 98597 CANCELLATION NOTICE The January 12, 2009, Planning Commission retreat has been CANCELLED. The next meeting of the Yelm Planning Commission at the Yelm Public Safety Building, 206 McKenzie Avenue SE will be the Planning Commission annual retreat MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2009 at 10:00 am – 2:00 pm. If there are any questions concerning this change, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. ATTEST: Janine Schnepf City Clerk/Human Resources Manager DO NOT PUBLISH BELOW THIS LINE Posted: Monday, January 12, 2009 Sent to the Planning Commission mailing list: January 12, 2009 City of Yelm Planning Commission AGENDA Yelm Planning Commission Work Session/Retreat January 26, 2008 10:00 A.M - 2:00 P.M. Yelm Public Safety Building 10:00 12:00 Welcome o Introduction of new members o Commission review of past year (Commission) o Recent Plan Adoptions, goals and policies, and how they are implemented. (Tami and Grant) o Current City Project Update 12:00 – 1:00 Lunch Provided 1:00 – 2:00 2009 Work Plan Transportation Plan/Street Standards Unified Development Code City of Yelm Planning Commission AGENDA Yelm Planning Commission Monday, February 23, 2009 – 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes Minutes of the October 20, 2008 meeting attached. 3. Public Communications None 4. Election of Vice Chair 5. Public Hearings: None 6. Comprehensive Plan Update Population projection update 7. Committee Reports 8. City Tour 9. Adjourn Next Planning Commission meeting Monday, March 16, 2009 – 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. It is the City of Yelm’s policy to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability in need of accommodations to conduct business, or to participate in government processes or activities, please contact Janine Schnepf, at 360-458-8402 at least four (4) working days prior to the scheduled event. All Planning Commission meetings are audio taped. For information on obtaining a copy, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 2008 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Carlos Perez called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM Members present: Carlos Perez, Terry Kaminski, Glen Cunningham, John Graver. Staff: Tami Merriman, Grant Beck, and Karen Bennett Members absent: JW Foster and John Thomson Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY TERRY KAMINSKI TO APPROVE THE JULY 21, 2008 MINUTES WITH THE ADDITION OF THE WORDS “WITH NO OVERSIGHT” TO THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF AGENDA ITEM #5. ALL WERE IN FAVOR*. *Terry Kaminski arrived after the opening of the meeting, the approval of the minutes occurred after the first staff presentation. Public Communications: None. Public Hearings: None Staff Update: Tami Merriman gave a powerpoint presentation to the Commission highlighting projects that are currently in review by the City. Ms. Merriman also discussed with the commission the 2009 work schedule which includes an update to the transportation plan, the creation of a unified development code, and an update to the public facilities and utilities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan based on updated Water and Sewer System Plans. Mr. Beck gave an update on the Thurston Highlands Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The City is responding to comments received on the DEIS. There were substantive comments from state agencies, and 5 individuals, however the majority of the letters, emails, and comments forms were on a small number of issues in near verbatim format. These were that the document was too long, and not easy to read, that the proposed commercial did not meet the Comprehensive Plan goals, and that they requested more time to review the DEIS. Mr. Beck responded that the DEIS was written in a way to explain a huge amount of information in laymens terms. The DEIS could have been reduced to 150, and just reference thick technical reports, it could have been written in smaller fonts, with less white space, and not tables. All of these options would have made the DEIS much harder to read or understand. Mr. Beck also explained that the commercial land proposed within the DEIS had a range of square feet of commercial, not only the 1.5 million square feet mentioned in the comments. The preferred alternative of 825,000 square feet includes 410,000 square feet of commercial as part of a sports complex. This would include accessory uses to the sports complex like a hotel, sports stores, batting cages, etc. Another 210,000 square feet is being proposed as a farmers market, there is 150,000 square feet of professional office space, 60,000 proposed for strip retail, and a 100,000 square feet of retail commercial. This 160,000 square feet is about the size of the existing Safeway complex in Yelm, and the appropriate neighborhood commercial size for a neighborhood of 5,000 dwelling units. Yelm Planning Commission July 2008 Page 1 The City offered the maximum comment period on the date of issue of the draft EIS in accordance with the Washington Administrative Code, providing the required 30 day comment period as well as including the optional extension of 15 days. Mr. Beck discussed with the Commission the current Growth Management Hearings Board decisions regarding Thurston County and the Urban Growth Areas, and that the County is now in compliance. Mr. Beck also discussed with the Commission the letter of opinion of the Superior Court Judge on the LUPA Appeal by JZ Knight. The judges opinion stated the words “/or” be removed from the hearing examiners decision, and that JZ Knight must be notified when these applications come before the Yelm City Council for final plat approval. Committee Reports: None Adjourn MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY TERRY KAMINSKI TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Carlos Perez, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission July 2008 Page 2 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2009 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Terry Kaminski called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM Members present: Terry Kaminski, Glen Cunningham, John Graver, JW Foster, John Thompson, Glen Nutter and Anne Wahrmund. Staff: Tami Merriman, Kathy McCormick, Karen Bennett, John Rowland, Steve Harrington, Gary Carlson, and Nisha Box. Members absent: Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN THOMSON, SECONDED BY GLEN CUNNINGHAM TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 20, 2008 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Election of Officers: As approved by the Commission in 2007, Vice Chair Terry Kaminski automatically moves to Chair for two years. MOTION BY GLEN CUNNINGHAM, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO NOMINATE JW FOSTER AS VICE CHAIR. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: None. Public Hearings: None Staff Update: Tami Merriman passed out a staff report for the update to the Comprehensive Plan. This update brings the population projection consistent with the figures approved by Thurston County. A public hearing will be held on the March 16, 2009 meeting for recommendation to the City Council. Committee Reports: None Tour The Commission announced that they were going on a tour of the City for project updates and to view sites to show how the City of Yelm development regulations are implemented. The meeting will adjourn at the end of the tour. Adjourn MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY JW FOSTER TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission February 2009 Page 1 City of Yelm Planning Commission AGENDA Yelm Planning Commission Monday, March 16, 2009 – 6:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. Minutes from February 23, 2009 attached 3. Public Communications 4.Public Hearings: 2009 Comprehensive Plan Update, Population projections 5. Committee Reports 6. Adjourn Next Planning Commission meeting Monday, April 20, 2009 – 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. It is the City of Yelm’s policy to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability in need of accommodations to conduct business, or to participate in government processes or activities, please contact Janine Schnepf, at 360-458-8402 at least four (4) working days prior to the scheduled event. All Planning Commission meetings are audio taped. For information on obtaining a copy, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 2009 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Terry Kaminski called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM Members present: Terry Kaminski, Glen Cunningham, John Graver, JW Foster, John Thompson, Glen Nutter and Anne Wahrmund. Staff: Tami Merriman, Kathy McCormick, Karen Bennett, John Rowland, Steve Harrington, Gary Carlson, and Nisha Box. Members absent: Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN THOMSON, SECONDED BY GLEN CUNNINGHAM TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 20, 2008 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Election of Officers: As approved by the Commission in 2007, Vice Chair Terry Kaminski automatically moves to Chair for two years. MOTION BY GLEN CUNNINGHAM, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO NOMINATE JW FOSTER AS VICE CHAIR. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: None. Public Hearings: None Staff Update: Tami Merriman passed out a staff report for the update to the Comprehensive Plan. This update brings the population projection consistent with the figures approved by Thurston County. A public hearing will be held on the March 16, 2009 meeting for recommendation to the City Council. Committee Reports: None Tour The Commission announced that they were going on a tour of the City for project updates and to view sites to show how the City of Yelm development regulations are implemented. The meeting will adjourn at the end of the tour. Adjourn MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY JW FOSTER TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission February 2009 Page 1 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 2009 - 6:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Terry Kaminski called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM Members present: Terry Kaminski, John Graver, JW Foster, John Thomson, Glen Nutter and Anne Wahrmund. Staff: Tami Merriman, Kathy McCormick, Karen Bennett. Members absent: Glen Cunningham - Unexcused Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 23, 2009 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: Tami Merriman received a comment letter from CTED regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update. CTED reminded us that we still need to update our Capital Facilities Plan. Tami will forward a copy to the commission. Public Hearing on the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Update, Population Projections: Terry Kaminski opened the public hearing at 6:05 P.M. Tami Merriman presented a Staff Report explaining that this update brings the population projections consistent with the figures approved in the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan. Terry Kaminski called for public testimony, there was none. Terry Kaminski closed the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. MOTION BY ANNE WAHRMUND, SECONDED BY JOHN GRAVER TO FORWARD THE 2009 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, POPULATION PROJECTIONS TO CITY COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Committee Reports: J.W. Foster reported he will be attending a Transportation meeting on March 17, 2009 and will give a report at the next Planning Commission meeting. Tami Merriman reported that the Transportation System Plan, update will be coming up for future review. Adjourn MOTION BY JOHN THOMSON, SECONDED BY JOHN GRAVER TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission March 2009 Page 1 City of Yelm Planning Commission AGENDA Yelm Planning Commission Monday, April 20, 2009 –4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes Minutes from March 16, 2009 attached 3. Public Communications 4. Public Hearings: 5. 2009 Transportation Plan Update 6. Committee Reports 7. Adjourn Next Planning Commission meeting Monday, May 18, 2009 – 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. It is the City of Yelm’s policy to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability in need of accommodations to conduct business, or to participate in government processes or activities, please contact Janine Schnepf, at 360-458-8402 at least four (4) working days prior to the scheduled event. All Planning Commission meetings are audio taped. For information on obtaining a copy, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 2009 - 6:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Terry Kaminski called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM Members present: Terry Kaminski, John Graver, JW Foster, John Thomson, Glen Nutter and Anne Wahrmund. Staff: Tami Merriman, Kathy McCormick, Karen Bennett. Members absent: Glen Cunningham - Unexcused Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 23, 2009 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: Tami Merriman received a comment letter from CTED regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update. CTED reminded us that we still need to update our Capital Facilities Plan. Tami will forward a copy to the commission. Public Hearing on the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Update, Population Projections: Terry Kaminski opened the public hearing at 6:05 P.M. Tami Merriman presented a Staff Report explaining that this update brings the population projections consistent with the figures approved in the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan. Terry Kaminski called for public testimony, there was none. Terry Kaminski closed the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. MOTION BY ANNE WAHRMUND, SECONDED BY JOHN GRAVER TO FORWARD THE 2009 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, POPULATION PROJECTIONS TO CITY COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Committee Reports: J.W. Foster reported he will be attending a Transportation meeting on March 17, 2009 and will give a report at the next Planning Commission meeting. Tami Merriman reported that the Transportation System Plan, update will be coming up for future review. Adjourn MOTION BY JOHN THOMSON, SECONDED BY JOHN GRAVER TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:17 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission March 2009 Page 1 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 20, 2009 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Terry Kaminski called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM Members present: Terry Kaminski, John Graver, JW Foster, John Thomson, Glen Nutter, Glen Cunningham and Anne Wahrmund. Staff: Grant Beck, Tami Merriman, Kathy McCormick, Karen Bennett. Members absent: Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO APPROVE THE MARCH 16, 2009 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: None Public Hearing: None 2009 Transportation Plan Update: Tami Merriman gave a PowerPoint presentation to the commission reviewing the Transportation Plan Update. The draft update of the City of Yelm Transportation Plan details the projects proposed over the next 20+ years to meet new population growth projections. The updated plan includes project descriptions, need, constraints and cost projections. Kathy McCormick spoke about Smart Growth Tools and the importance of street connections in communities. Tami Merriman informed the Commission that she attended the Thurston County Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Population Projection update. They recommended approval to the Thurston County Commissioners. Committee Reports: None Adjourn MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission April 2009 Page 1 City of Yelm Planning Commission AGENDA Yelm Planning Commission Monday, May 18, 2009 –4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes Minutes from April 20, 2009 attached 3. Public Communications 4. Public Hearings: None 5. 2009 Transportation Plan Update 6. Water System Plan Update 7. Committee Reports 8. Adjourn Next Planning Commission meeting Monday, June 15, 2009 – 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. It is the City of Yelm’s policy to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability in need of accommodations to conduct business, or to participate in government processes or activities, please contact Janine Schnepf, at 360-458-8402 at least four (4) working days prior to the scheduled event. All Planning Commission meetings are audio taped. For information on obtaining a copy, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 20, 2009 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Terry Kaminski called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM Members present: Terry Kaminski, John Graver, JW Foster, John Thomson, Glen Nutter, Glen Cunningham and Anne Wahrmund. Staff: Grant Beck, Tami Merriman, Kathy McCormick, Karen Bennett. Members absent: Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO APPROVE THE MARCH 16, 2009 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: None Public Hearing: None 2009 Transportation Plan Update: Tami Merriman gave a PowerPoint presentation to the commission reviewing the Transportation Plan Update. The draft update of the City of Yelm Transportation Plan details the projects proposed over the next 20+ years to meet new population growth projections. The updated plan includes project descriptions, need, constraints and cost projections. Kathy McCormick spoke about Smart Growth Tools and the importance of street connections in communities. Tami Merriman informed the Commission that she attended the Thurston County Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Population Projection update. They recommended approval to the Thurston County Commissioners. Committee Reports: None Adjourn MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission April 2009 Page 1 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 18, 2009 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Terry Kaminski called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM Members present: Terry Kaminski, JW Foster, Glen Nutter, and Anne Wahrmund. Staff: Grant Beck, Tami Merriman, Kathy McCormick, Karen Bennett. Members absent: John Graver, John Thomson, Glen Cunningham. All unexcused. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY ANNE WAHRMUND, SECONDED BY JW FOSTER TO APPROVE THE APRIL 20, 2009 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: None Public Hearing: None 2009 Transportation Plan Update: Anne Wahrmund moved to approve the two map amendments as well as the Updated Transportation Plan to send to City Council to recommend for approval. Seconded by JW Foster. All were in favor. Tami Merriman explained that the Transportation System Plan is a plan all of it’s own but the Transportation System Map and the Trail Bike Map are joint plan amendments and after City Council approval, must be approved by Thurston County as it is a joint plan amendment. The amendment will make the plans consistent with one another. Tami Merriman informed the Commission that she attended the Thurston County Commission briefing on Population Projection update. They have not made their final decision. They will hold a hearing in June. Six Year Water System Plan Update: Stephanie Ray gave a presentation to the Commission reviewing the Water System Plan Update. The presentation reviewed characteristics of water usage in Yelm, proposed Capital Improvement Plan for expanded water system and the new proposed monthly rates and System Development Charges to generate required capital and revenue. Committee Reports: None Adjourn MOTION BY GLEN NUTTER, SECONDED BY ANNE WAHRMUND TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:08 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission May 2009 Page 1 City of Yelm Planning Commission AGENDA Yelm Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING Monday, June 15, 2009 –6:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes Minutes from May 18, 2009 attached 3. Public Communications 4. Public Hearings: Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Map 5. Committee Reports 6. Adjourn Next Planning Commission meeting Monday, July 20, 2009 – 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. It is the City of Yelm’s policy to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability in need of accommodations to conduct business, or to participate in government processes or activities, please contact Janine Schnepf, at 360-458-8402 at least four (4) working days prior to the scheduled event. All Planning Commission meetings are audio taped. For information on obtaining a copy, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 18, 2009 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Terry Kaminski called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM Members present: Terry Kaminski, JW Foster, Glen Nutter, and Anne Wahrmund. Staff: Grant Beck, Tami Merriman, Kathy McCormick, Karen Bennett. Members absent: John Graver, John Thomson, Glen Cunningham. All unexcused. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY ANNE WAHRMUND, SECONDED BY JW FOSTER TO APPROVE THE APRIL 20, 2009 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: None Public Hearing: None 2009 Transportation Plan Update: Anne Wahrmund moved to approve the two map amendments as well as the Updated Transportation Plan to send to City Council to recommend for approval. Seconded by JW Foster. All were in favor. Tami Merriman explained that the Transportation System Plan is a plan all of it’s own but the Transportation System Map and the Trail Bike Map are joint plan amendments and after City Council approval, must be approved by Thurston County as it is a joint plan amendment. The amendment will make the plans consistent with one another. Tami Merriman informed the Commission that she attended the Thurston County Commission briefing on Population Projection update. They have not made their final decision. They will hold a hearing in June. Six Year Water System Plan Update: Stephanie Ray gave a presentation to the Commission reviewing the Water System Plan Update. The presentation reviewed characteristics of water usage in Yelm, proposed Capital Improvement Plan for expanded water system and the new proposed monthly rates and System Development Charges to generate required capital and revenue. Committee Reports: None Adjourn MOTION BY GLEN NUTTER, SECONDED BY ANNE WAHRMUND TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:08 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission May 2009 Page 1 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 15, 2009 - 6:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Terry Kaminski called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM Members present: Terry Kaminski, JW Foster, Glen Nutter, Anne Wahrmund, John Graver, John Thomson and Glen Cunningham. Staff: Grant Beck, Tami Merriman, Karen Bennett. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN THOMSON, SECONDED BY JW FOSTER TO APPROVE THE MAY 18, 2009 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: Tami Merriman distributed a letter from the Washington Department of Transportation stating they have no comment on the transportation Map update. Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Map: Terry Kaminski opened the public hearing at 6:02 pm and asked for a staff report. Tami Merriman presented the Staff Report explaining the Comprehensive Plan Update includes replacing the 20 year transportation improvement map, Map 14 and the Yelm Trail and Bicycle Map, Map 11. Terry Kaminski then asked for public comment. Bill Hashim A couple of weeks ago Bob Isom made a statement that he doesn’t have to listen to people outside of the city about decisions about the city. But we all know that the city decisions have no borders. This is all about moving beyond the borders of the city. So please, I hope you really pay attention and listen to what a Public Hearing is. I have been doing environmental planning for about 25 years. I won’t way which agency because that seems to counter any kind of credibility I may have. One thing I do when I plan is I make sure everything is in order before I make a decision. Given the City’s appeal of JZ Knight’s case against the water rights issue for the City of Yelm we know, or you should know, the build out scenario is far from uncertain. So given that, it seems to me to not make very good sense to adopt some transportation planning until we know the results of that, which I think is some time this fall or late summer. So please consider before you adopt or even pass on any type of commitment from this Commission to the City Council to maybe wait until the appeal of the water rights issue. If there is no build out scenario that the transportation plan is based on, why even rd adopt it. Please consider that. People that live on 93 don’t want Y1. If you look at this map it seems to be just a cockeyed piece of transportation corridor that doesn’t make any sense. One of the things I do when I plan is I list criteria for why I would make a decision. I am going to make this statement here and I really want you to pay attention. Y1 seems to be based on criteria to kick RSE in the ass. People here on the City Council don’t like RSE. Get over it. Get over it. It doesn’t make any sense. Y1 doesn’t fit that model at all. If anything, you might want to go from Tahoma Terra, even though nothing exists, down to Y2. If you want to rd egress, egress out of Tahoma Terra. That makes much more sense. People on 93 Avenue don’t want Y1 at all. We would fight you for a long time and we will fight the City of Yelm. I’m not sure that they want anymore fights. I have been in a number of environmental battles and we have lost lots of battles but won the war. We would keep you under appeal for a very, very long time. That’s all. Thank you very much. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 1 Steve Klein I have three issues with this map. Number one, this map as staff reported to you becomes one of the guidelines for the six year plan that is going to be presented to the City of Yelm this summer. Just a couple of issues I have, as Mr. Hashim said, I would like to specifically ask that Y1 be removed from this map. Y1 is specifically there to connect Tahoma Terra, rdrd and indeed Thurston Highlands when that project gets approved, to 93 Avenue. 93 is not an arterial, it is not designed or built to be able to handle the traffic load that would come through there and what you would be doing is taking a developments traffic and punching it rd through private property to go through to 93 on to an arterial to get back to Yelm Avenue. rd 93 is not designed for that and you are going to find out very soon roads that are not designed to handle traffic what that is going to mean. That brings me to point number two. I think what needs to be designated on here… the City of Yelm has specifically requested the Washington Department of Transportation to divide the by-pass into two phases. They specifically requested that right-of-way monies and construction funding and engineering funding for Phase 2, which would be from Cullen to Wal-Mart be converted over to Phase 1, the one mile section from, roughly, Mud Run Road down to Cullen. In doing so we are going to have a split where by-pass would only terminate at Cullen. Cullen Road is a two lane, unimproved road that goes through a residential area and not designed, you can talk to designers, to handle truck traffic or any of the volume of traffic that Yelm Avenue carries. Part of the traffic would also come down through Killion, which has been improved by a LID, thanks to the request of Thurston Highlands and Tahoma Terra to do so to mitigate their traffic and in doing so it is now going through residential development neighborhood and passing by Rosemont which is a senior center. You are talking about moving all that traffic over there. That should be noted on these plans that the by-pass is split. And about Phase 2, Wal-Mart is down at the other end and they where suppose to have a by-pass that was going to be built within seven years of their opening, which is July 2007, it looks like there may be no funding what-so-ever that would even be discussed for Phase 2 of the by-pass to the 2020, 2021, 2023 biennium. If the funding comes through by 2023 you would not see construction til 2024, 2026 range. Which is almost at the end of this 20 year plan. That means that Wal-Mart would be operating without mitigated traffic that was supposed to be mitigated with the by-pass since 2007. Remember I said “they were only allowed to be able to do that for seven years”. On the Cullen Road issue that I mentioned before. There is no traffic light at Cullen Road. So I would assume if we do get a Phase 1 and Phase 2 split we are going to have to put a traffic light there as well. That ought to be discussed and be on a plan. I am going to be informing the county as well about this. I think it ought to go to them. Which of course it will because the City’s Comprehensive Plan has to be approved in conjunction with the county. Those are the areas that I have concern and ought to be looked at. By the way, I just wrote to Dennis Engel, Project Manager for WSDOT today for the by- pass, specifically asking if he has received funding for Phase 1 and the answer is that while the City people here might be telling you that they are going ahead toward opening this up for construction application in October the funding is not yet there. The State Legislature put the 11.2 million into right-of-way and engineering and that money has not been transferred over to a Phase 1 yet and the money is not there yet. That has to be approved by WSDOT. It is possible that we could get an October date to start construction, but it is very unlikely that will happen until WSDOT officially changes on their website from unfunded to funded we know the money isn’t there yet. The legislature has authorized it but WSDOT has not officially divided the by-pass into two phases and transferred the money appropriately. You all should be aware of that. Thank you. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 2 Jean Handley I have heard the City of Yelm state over and over again they have moved forward with their plans for growth. That infrastructure with water and sewer had been met. The transportation aspects where covered as well in Yelm’s thinking because concurrency was in the bag. As long as there was a traffic plan, whether it was built or not, Yelm was allowed to move forward utilizing that in it’s decision making process. After all the by-pass would eventually be built making every decision for growth redeemable. I knew about concurrency 21 years ago. That same map, which looks very much the same today was here when I came here 21 years ago. In my logical head, that’s six and a half concurrencies, that’s three and a half concurrency plans and still we are batting around this, its bogus. Mayor Harding said to the Nisqually Valley News not long ago, that Yelm can no longer operate with growth be gating growth. We just had a water rate hike, we got this appeal that Bill Hashim addressed and the Mayor too is looking back. I found his statement to be a big fat confession to say that you have put way to many horses before the cart. I would say stop and take a breath because I was a part of a group of citizens that tried to prevent Wal-Mart from coming here and when I stand here so many years later, so many years after a valiant fight, that Yelm has not taken care of what it was suppose to take care of. Why are you looking forward, which is a valiant position to be in, when you haven’t taken care of the past and everyday everyone here in this room has a story about a traffic situation. I can call you Tuesday I was bumper to bumper from Reservation Road to get to Yelm City Council Meeting on time. Bumper to bumper, it took me to get to the original stop light in town a half an hour. I have to say why rd are we so concerned about 93 when the debris of ideas that account for these traffic messes all week long are still hanging in the balance? Tie up the knots, get it done. You can keep this plan but to operate with concurrency under a falsehood with the confession of the Mayor growth, growth, growth and you don’t have the infrastructure and you don’t the money to fulfill that. Pie in the sky. Diane D”Acuti rd I am asking simply, as an owner on 93. I would like to reiterate some things that I know you rd probably know but I will feel better saying it. A: 93 is a dead end street. All the homes on rd 93 are acres plus home. They are not building communities. Therefore, that sort of means that everybody is there because they love the land, they love the fact that it’s a dead end, there is not through traffic on there. There is enough traffic for the people that live there frankly. When I saw this at one of the last public hearings I asked that this be removed from there. Also, because I was told, it’s just a proposition. It’s just a proposal. O.K. I am asking that you remove that proposal because it’s so far out. If all the building is taking place at Tahoma Terra and Thurston Highlands and other buildings all along 507 as you go in on each sides by Ridgeline. You have already improved roads, etc. Make your connections where the building are going to be. Please, I ask you, that particular . . . whatever. Having rd that road come out on 93 is not in a development, it’s not where there is traffic, it’s not where people go anyway. Now you’re going to say, oh hey folks I know a really nice place out in the country where you won’t have a lot of things around you to drive through. I am asking you now to please make that consideration. It’s a dead end street and at least two to five acres per home out there. It’s not within the building times. You can see you have already improved the roads running around Thurston Highlands/Tahoma Terra right back on 507 is where they want and you have all those wonderful lights and the roads are already four lane highways. I am asking you sincerely. Thank you for your time. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 3 Gorden Merklin I agree with the rest of the people here. I have another problem, I have called the Thurston County Sherriff, the Yelm Police Department and no one seems to care about the control of the traffic on that street. I see cars going up and down that street 80, 90 and 100 miles an hour up that street. Somebody is going to get killed out there. There is going to be a death. You need to look into that. I tell my wife everyday be careful pulling out of the driveway. That is an issue that I have. Thank you. Rosalie Saecker rd I am the current owner of property 14131 on 93 Avenue which borders the road which you are looking at putting an access road through. I would like to ask you to consider not to do that. The same reasons as Diane said. There is good access coming out of Tahoma Terra on Tahoma Blvd. that used to be Berry Valley and we have a small quiet neighborhood with very few cars going in and out. And putting an access road would dramatically change the nature of our little neighborhood. Not to mention probably taking out a few really nice old trees. To be quite honest I bought this property in November and was completely unaware that there was an access road proposed to be built there. I also feel it’s inappropriate at this time to put it in when we don’t know if the rest of Tahoma Terra is going to be built. Thank you very much. Nina Merklin rd My concern is where 93 joins Yelm Avenue. It’s really difficult to get out there now. If we added the traffic flow from Tahoma Terra that is going to increase that traffic flow. There is no light there and it’s going to make it much more difficult to get out. It is also going to slow traffic that goes up Yelm Avenue now. Which between 3:00 and 5:30 is impossible. So I think if you do the Y1 by-pass you are going to make the traffic on Yelm Avenue worse and not better. The only benefit I can see would be to Tahoma Terra and I don’t know if that would be a benefit. Thank you. JW Foster I have a question regarding Mr. Klein’s comment about when Phase 1 of the 510 Loop gets created. How do we propose to have Cullen’s handle that traffic as it comes back onto 510. Tami Merriman In response to Mr. Klein’s comment regarding the need for a light at Cullens, there is not a light proposed there due to the distance between the light at Killion, it would be to close to Cullen’s. It will be an improved intersection. Grant Beck Cullens has half street improvements and it has a full lane on the other side that has been reconstructed as part of development all the way down. The traffic modeling that we have done shows that most of the traffic that is going down Yelm Avenue is going to go down Killion because of the light. So it will just be the mini loop by-pass traffic that uses Cullen. Dale Vaughn We live right on that road. That’s the access road into our house. My question is that when you look at everything why they don’t consider going from Southworth School by Fort Lewis and by-passing all that stuff because to create more of congestion into the city is already a mess the high school and all that. Why don’t they take it around the back if you want to improve the traffic situation? I don’t see why you have to go through everyone’s houses. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 4 Tami Merriman It is impossible to go behind Southworth, and along the back of those properties due to the location of Fort Lewis, and the topography in the area. It was looked at many years ago during the corridor study I believe. Diane D”Acuti In listening to some of the conversations I would just like to implore you again with everything rd going on we are looking at this little access onto 93 to take care of a few extra cars and I’m asking you, as a resident, who’s property will be effected not only by the traffic but if the road is improved I will loose some of my property. For the few extra, you have already made improvements and you access to major places I’m asking you to please eliminate that access rd to 93. Steve Klein I own land here in the city that has a mobile home on it as the NVN reported last Friday. I would like to state in response to what staff just reported to you Thurston Highland and Tahoma Terra in all of the Phases had an EIS and every particular instance relating to their traffic. Their traffic was going to be mitigated by Tahoma Blvd., by Longmire, by coming out Mosman and coming out to 507. At no time in any of the hearings, anywhere, was Y1 included on that. So I want to be very clear that regardless of what they are stating concerning the planning it has nothing to do with Thurston Highlands and Tahoma Terra rd because know where was their traffic going to be mitigated by Y1 to 93 and that needs to be made clear. Thank you. Mary Jane Friend th I’m looking at your map and where 510 goes down and connects to this Y3. 89 Lane SE, thrdrd 89 Avenue SE, 93 and there is a little line off of 93. Are those all suppose to be county improved roads? Tami Merriman All of those streets are located in the county, however they are in the cities urban growth area and proposed to be annexed at some point in the future. That is our 20 year growth horizon. If and when they are annexed in the city, and if and when they are approved they would be improved to city standards. JW Foster After all of this testimony from public I am interested in knowing what the implications would be to our plan if we were to forward this with the change of removing Y1 from consideration for the near future. In that future transportation committees could look at that and add it back in at a future date. Is there anything wrong with doing that, does it screw things up? Grant Beck We have to rerun models. Because that was an integral part of all the traffic modeling that took place. That traffic would go some place and that means that other improvements elsewhere in the system, if it’s possible, to mitigate for that traffic improvements. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 5 JW Foster By all appearances we have lots of time before Y1 gets any dirt turned on it. What I don’t want to do is throw the baby out with the bath water and not continue on with this transportation plan which has been on the committee for many months and understanding the hard work that staff has put into it. Seeing the models run, seeing all the work that Thurston County and state people that have given us input on it. I understand this map to be representative of changes that need to made down the road. I wonder if by removing that one road for consideration, right now, so that we could have some more time to look at that and bring it back next year to re-add to the 20 year plan. If that would mess us up for the mean time. Grant Beck Procedurally, no. Terry Kaminski The comments about routing traffic through Tahoma Terra and all the new roads. That’s already part of this is an alternate, additional route by-pass. Tami Merriman The Y1 has always been looked at since 1994 when that property was annexed in and zoned master planned community knowing full well at in time that would be developed out. The Y1 has always been there and it is not intended to be a main arterial and carry the load of traffic. But it is an integral part of keeping people moving without having everyone go to one main arterial. John Graver Wasn’t it planned for Y1 to eventually go down to 507? Tami Merriman Y1 would connect to Tahoma Blvd. and Tahoma Blvd. would extend down to 507. Pam Paizo Why do we have so many traffic lights and they didn’t consider any round-abouts which would keep traffic moving? A round about would make a difference in two places, down in the five corners area named Creek Street and coming out of Tahoma Blvd. Tami Merriman The 510 Yelm Loop will have a round about at Mud Run Road where it begins at the north. There is also a round about planned at Wilkinson, which is our main industrial area, and another way back into downtown. Bill Hashim Grant Beck made a statement that the models fixed the transportation map. I want you guys to understand that models are based on a given set of data at a given set of time. But if data changes, it seems to me that the model was based on a full build out at Tahoma Terra. If data changes in a given time and given space if those data points change then you re-run the model. It’s really simple to do. Maybe a little bit of money but simple to do. So the model doesn’t fix these roads at today’s data points. So just consider that before you give the o.k. for staff to forward this to City Council. Terry Kaminski closed the Public Hearing at 6:47 pm Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 6 Terry Kaminski re-opened the Public Hearing at 6:48 pm Debbie Moss A long time ago we were approached by Thurston Highlands to come across our property rd and they don’t have a shot in hell unless the have another road that goes down 93. Is this a rd cover up. Are you guys listening to us? We don’t want that road going down 93. It’s a dead end on purpose. Right now I think the high school kids are jogging down the road, I ride horses down there. I can’t take my dog down there anymore. We moved to a dead end road. We like it, it’s beautiful. There are wetlands there and it’s beautiful out there, are they going to take that into account. Dale Vaughn My house borders where the county and the city come together. I can look out of my house and see the fields out behind me with tons of wildlife and it’s beautiful out there. I know at one time there was a speedway coming and now there is a house development coming and that is what that road is going to link to. I take an interest in it and I have heard the machines over there and I take a look. What I see coming is has nothing to do with planning. It’s a mess because the houses that were started down below are pretty nice. But what is coming up behind that, there is nobody in this room that would want to live in one of those. If you have gone up there and driven up there and taken a look at that they are not much bigger than garages. So you have a lot of volume that is going to come out of there. When they surveyed that thing up there it was nine miles around and I was out there with a surveying crew and I gained 15’ of property because of the fact that they went all the way around, nine miles. Everybody is putting a lot of money into something. But what I see happening is just sprawl, it’s like greed or something. People are putting houses in so fast and so close that there is nobody that is going to want to live in those. So we are creating a mess and we are trying to get an outlet for that to go down to a street that takes us, sometimes, 15 to 20 minutes to get out on the highway because of the traffic that is already there. I think that if you’re really considering planning you should really take a look at and do some studies on what and how it’s impacting everybody here because we all have to live together and I know you probably think it’s military or whatever. It’s not what’s happening, it’s out of control up there. You just have to drive through the neighborhood and take a look. Terry Kaminski closed the Public Hearing at 6:51 pm JW Foster My understanding is that we have several options with this. That we could delay forwarding it to the Council for their approval. We could forward it to the Council for approval with some changes. What I would like the Planning Commission to consider, based on the testimony that we have had tonight, my understanding on how this process works I think it would be fair and responsible to the citizens for the time being to strike the Y1 from our map. Forward the rest of the map on to the Council to approve and we as the Transportation Committee along with the County and others can revisit this issue of handling the traffic that is going to be rd coming off of 93 and through that development, whatever form it may take. And there may never be development out there to the extent we are looking at. Understand, we do have to plan for all of the other people who made the decision to move to a community that we love so much we have to do something about the traffic. I think for the time being that our map is good with that one exception. I am very pleased to see that, at tonight’s public hearing, there aren’t folks here with problems with the rest of the map. Just this one little streak. I think we can knock that little line off the map tonight and proudly forward the rest of the map on for consideration by City Council. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 7 John Thomson I listened to what everybody here and I understand what you’re saying. I didn’t create the Growth Management Act. I didn’t create the law that says you will have boundaries for cities and future boundaries for cities. With that act and the way it exists if you live within an area that is a growth boundary, even if it is beautiful rolling hills with horses and everything else, that area if it becomes annexed into the city could end up with six homes per acres and there is not a lot you can do about that if you are within those boundaries. I tend to agree that in this point in time I don’t see the growth moving as fast as projected. I envision looking at postponing that particular area and maybe re-looking at it at a future date. For those of you sitting out there on that property if growth continues to come into Yelm, and it continues to come into the growth area and your within that boundary, one day, that is all going to be gone. That is a fact of life for people that live within an urban growth area. MOTION BY JOHN THOMSON, SECOND BY JW FOSTER, TO ADOPT THE PLAN WITH Y1 REMOVED TO REVIEW AT A FUTURE TIME. Commission Discussion: Glen Nutter Y1 only makes sense if Thurston Highlands is developed. If and when Thurston Highlands gets planned and comes to the City they will need more than one exit. People have to have an alternative. I think that is partially why we have the north by-pass rather than the south by-pass because we have a lot more homes up in that area that people need to get out of st there by coming down 1 Avenue. So that doesn’t make any sense with out Thurston Highlands. But with Thurston Highlands it needs another exit. I suppose you could take that off the plan but as long as Thurston Highlands is planned you are going to have to have an exit there. Terry Kaminski Tami, did you not say that this is part of the plan and we can re-visit or re-look at this but we can’t just take it out because something else has to go in. Is that correct? Grant Beck The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is a 20 year document. The council, every year, adopts a 6 year transportation improvement program which is the immediate needs. The one that you where handed out tonight, that is proposed for this year and goes to council in July, does not include the Y1 for just the reasons that Glen alluded to. They have to be on there to be built when they are needed. But every year we look ahead and do mini models to see what is needed in the immediate future to build. The map that you have that is proposed for council adoption doesn’t include the Y1 because we know that it is not needed in the next six years. But without it being on the transportation plan, should it become needed then we can’t add it on at that time. Anne Wahrmund In doing long term strategic planning, when you look at the population numbers that we found coming into Yelm that we agreed to with the County and are going to be situated in Yelm because we are no longer going to be sprawled across the entire county because of the Growth Management Act. That means that in the 20 years we are going to need a plan that covers transportation needs for a population whether it is called Tahoma Terra, or whether it is smaller bits broken up and built, there is going to be population that occurs in the rest of the Yelm city limits as well as the urban growth area. I am concerned by us having in our 20 year plan removing a Y1 even if there is concern about build out now. They are not going to build it out now. But if we don’t keep it in the 20 year plan we are not addressing the Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 8 population growth that is going to come to Yelm that is already in our plan. This would be doing a disservice even though we recognize it does have issues for the people living in that particular side of town and that street. Whenever you have traffic going through areas that did not have major traffic issues before it’s a problem. But when you have more population you are going to have more traffic. That is why I get a little confused in what I have heard rd because it sounds like in some cases there is a lot of traffic on 93 and it is going very fast and in other cases there’s no traffic at all and it’s a dead end. I have a feeling it is in transition already. I’m concerned with us removing it from the long term plan because there is going to be population that is going to need access. John Graver rd I have known about 93 and the Y Loop that was referred to before for numerous years. Removing that might give people an idea or hope that this might not happen. And right now in this 20 year plan the possibility it will happen, it might not, but it might. The idea that we take this off and they we say now all of a sudden there is a build out ten, twenty years down the road we are going to put this back in the people that are buying in that area then have no concept that this road is going to come in. They have nothing to look at, like this women stated. If someone had told you to go down and talk to the city and take a look at their maps you would have seen where the proposed road would have been. And these people would have an opportunity to say hey there maybe a road coming so let me buy my property with some education. I to agree we should keep it in even though it may not be looked at right now. But it should give people fair warning. Not us, but new people. JW Foster I agree with you John. The more knowledge the better. When I purchased our property in Yelm we did exactly that. We went to the city and said what is going to happen to our property and we discovered then the Y2 which is going to directly impact my property some day if it ever gets built. I don’t feel threatened by it right now and my trees are growing. At least I know that there is a threat there and potentially I may have a big road that is going to come past my property. And I appreciate that planning that far in advance that told me that. However, after having said that, I still think this has become a very contentious line on this map and we have time to make some changes on this map in the next year or so. I can’t disagree that we are going to have something happen to that area and it’s going to need a rd road to handle it. The folks that live on 93 I guaranty you that you will use that road if it st were put in to get out here instead of going over to 510 and going down 1 Avenue. It’s just like nobody shops at Wal-Mart, right. I think we can delay it for a while to get our plan passed with everybody on board with the rest of the changes. TERRY KAMINSKI STATED THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE AND CALLED FOR A VOTE. THE MOTION FAILED 5 TO 2. MOTION BY ANNE WAHRMUND, SECONDED BY JOHN GRAVER TO SUBMIT THE PLAN AS IS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, WITH A NOTE THAT SAYS FURTHER STUDIES NEED TO BE DONE ON Y1 BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION OF PLACING Y1 ON THE 6 YEAR PLAN. MOTION PASSED 6 TO 1. Tami Merriman From this point forward this 20 year transportation improvement map and bicycle map will go to City Council in July at a hearing for the map for the comp plan approval and for the 6 year transportation improvement program. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 9 Committee Reports: None Adjourn MOTION BY JW FOSTER, SECONDED BY JOHN GRAVER TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 10 City of Yelm Planning Commission AGENDA Yelm Planning Commission Monday, July 20, 2009 –4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes Minutes from June 15, 2009 attached 3. Public Communications 4. Public Hearings: None 5. 2009 Work Program Unified Development Code 6. Committee Reports 7. Adjourn Next Planning Commission meeting Monday, August 17, 2009 – 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. It is the City of Yelm’s policy to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability in need of accommodations to conduct business, or to participate in government processes or activities, please contact Janine Schnepf, at 360-458-8402 at least four (4) working days prior to the scheduled event. All Planning Commission meetings are audio taped. For information on obtaining a copy, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 15, 2009 - 6:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Terry Kaminski called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM Members present: Terry Kaminski, JW Foster, Glen Nutter, Anne Wahrmund, John Graver, John Thomson and Glen Cunningham. Staff: Grant Beck, Tami Merriman, Karen Bennett. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN THOMSON, SECONDED BY JW FOSTER TO APPROVE THE MAY 18, 2009 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: Tami Merriman distributed a letter from the Washington Department of Transportation stating they have no comment on the transportation Map update. Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Transportation Map: Terry Kaminski opened the public hearing at 6:02 pm and asked for a staff report. Tami Merriman presented the Staff Report explaining the Comprehensive Plan Update includes replacing the 20 year transportation improvement map, Map 14 and the Yelm Trail and Bicycle Map, Map 11. Terry Kaminski then asked for public comment. Bill Hashim A couple of weeks ago Bob Isom made a statement that he doesn’t have to listen to people outside of the city about decisions about the city. But we all know that the city decisions have no borders. This is all about moving beyond the borders of the city. So please, I hope you really pay attention and listen to what a Public Hearing is. I have been doing environmental planning for about 25 years. I won’t way which agency because that seems to counter any kind of credibility I may have. One thing I do when I plan is I make sure everything is in order before I make a decision. Given the City’s appeal of JZ Knight’s case against the water rights issue for the City of Yelm we know, or you should know, the build out scenario is far from uncertain. So given that, it seems to me to not make very good sense to adopt some transportation planning until we know the results of that, which I think is some time this fall or late summer. So please consider before you adopt or even pass on any type of commitment from this Commission to the City Council to maybe wait until the appeal of the water rights issue. If there is no build out scenario that the transportation plan is based on, why even rd adopt it. Please consider that. People that live on 93 don’t want Y1. If you look at this map it seems to be just a cockeyed piece of transportation corridor that doesn’t make any sense. One of the things I do when I plan is I list criteria for why I would make a decision. I am going to make this statement here and I really want you to pay attention. Y1 seems to be based on criteria to kick RSE in the ass. People here on the City Council don’t like RSE. Get over it. Get over it. It doesn’t make any sense. Y1 doesn’t fit that model at all. If anything, you might want to go from Tahoma Terra, even though nothing exists, down to Y2. If you want to rd egress, egress out of Tahoma Terra. That makes much more sense. People on 93 Avenue don’t want Y1 at all. We would fight you for a long time and we will fight the City of Yelm. I’m not sure that they want anymore fights. I have been in a number of environmental battles and we have lost lots of battles but won the war. We would keep you under appeal for a very, very long time. That’s all. Thank you very much. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 1 Steve Klein I have three issues with this map. Number one, this map as staff reported to you becomes one of the guidelines for the six year plan that is going to be presented to the City of Yelm this summer. Just a couple of issues I have, as Mr. Hashim said, I would like to specifically ask that Y1 be removed from this map. Y1 is specifically there to connect Tahoma Terra, rdrd and indeed Thurston Highlands when that project gets approved, to 93 Avenue. 93 is not an arterial, it is not designed or built to be able to handle the traffic load that would come through there and what you would be doing is taking a developments traffic and punching it rd through private property to go through to 93 on to an arterial to get back to Yelm Avenue. rd 93 is not designed for that and you are going to find out very soon roads that are not designed to handle traffic what that is going to mean. That brings me to point number two. I think what needs to be designated on here… the City of Yelm has specifically requested the Washington Department of Transportation to divide the by-pass into two phases. They specifically requested that right-of-way monies and construction funding and engineering funding for Phase 2, which would be from Cullen to Wal-Mart be converted over to Phase 1, the one mile section from, roughly, Mud Run Road down to Cullen. In doing so we are going to have a split where by-pass would only terminate at Cullen. Cullen Road is a two lane, unimproved road that goes through a residential area and not designed, you can talk to designers, to handle truck traffic or any of the volume of traffic that Yelm Avenue carries. Part of the traffic would also come down through Killion, which has been improved by a LID, thanks to the request of Thurston Highlands and Tahoma Terra to do so to mitigate their traffic and in doing so it is now going through residential development neighborhood and passing by Rosemont which is a senior center. You are talking about moving all that traffic over there. That should be noted on these plans that the by-pass is split. And about Phase 2, Wal-Mart is down at the other end and they where suppose to have a by-pass that was going to be built within seven years of their opening, which is July 2007, it looks like there may be no funding what-so-ever that would even be discussed for Phase 2 of the by-pass to the 2020, 2021, 2023 biennium. If the funding comes through by 2023 you would not see construction til 2024, 2026 range. Which is almost at the end of this 20 year plan. That means that Wal-Mart would be operating without mitigated traffic that was supposed to be mitigated with the by-pass since 2007. Remember I said “they were only allowed to be able to do that for seven years”. On the Cullen Road issue that I mentioned before. There is no traffic light at Cullen Road. So I would assume if we do get a Phase 1 and Phase 2 split we are going to have to put a traffic light there as well. That ought to be discussed and be on a plan. I am going to be informing the county as well about this. I think it ought to go to them. Which of course it will because the City’s Comprehensive Plan has to be approved in conjunction with the county. Those are the areas that I have concern and ought to be looked at. By the way, I just wrote to Dennis Engel, Project Manager for WSDOT today for the by- pass, specifically asking if he has received funding for Phase 1 and the answer is that while the City people here might be telling you that they are going ahead toward opening this up for construction application in October the funding is not yet there. The State Legislature put the 11.2 million into right-of-way and engineering and that money has not been transferred over to a Phase 1 yet and the money is not there yet. That has to be approved by WSDOT. It is possible that we could get an October date to start construction, but it is very unlikely that will happen until WSDOT officially changes on their website from unfunded to funded we know the money isn’t there yet. The legislature has authorized it but WSDOT has not officially divided the by-pass into two phases and transferred the money appropriately. You all should be aware of that. Thank you. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 2 Jean Handley I have heard the City of Yelm state over and over again they have moved forward with their plans for growth. That infrastructure with water and sewer had been met. The transportation aspects where covered as well in Yelm’s thinking because concurrency was in the bag. As long as there was a traffic plan, whether it was built or not, Yelm was allowed to move forward utilizing that in it’s decision making process. After all the by-pass would eventually be built making every decision for growth redeemable. I knew about concurrency 21 years ago. That same map, which looks very much the same today was here when I came here 21 years ago. In my logical head, that’s six and a half concurrencies, that’s three and a half concurrency plans and still we are batting around this, its bogus. Mayor Harding said to the Nisqually Valley News not long ago, that Yelm can no longer operate with growth be gating growth. We just had a water rate hike, we got this appeal that Bill Hashim addressed and the Mayor too is looking back. I found his statement to be a big fat confession to say that you have put way to many horses before the cart. I would say stop and take a breath because I was a part of a group of citizens that tried to prevent Wal-Mart from coming here and when I stand here so many years later, so many years after a valiant fight, that Yelm has not taken care of what it was suppose to take care of. Why are you looking forward, which is a valiant position to be in, when you haven’t taken care of the past and everyday everyone here in this room has a story about a traffic situation. I can call you Tuesday I was bumper to bumper from Reservation Road to get to Yelm City Council Meeting on time. Bumper to bumper, it took me to get to the original stop light in town a half an hour. I have to say why rd are we so concerned about 93 when the debris of ideas that account for these traffic messes all week long are still hanging in the balance? Tie up the knots, get it done. You can keep this plan but to operate with concurrency under a falsehood with the confession of the Mayor growth, growth, growth and you don’t have the infrastructure and you don’t the money to fulfill that. Pie in the sky. Diane D”Acuti rd I am asking simply, as an owner on 93. I would like to reiterate some things that I know you rd probably know but I will feel better saying it. A: 93 is a dead end street. All the homes on rd 93 are acres plus home. They are not building communities. Therefore, that sort of means that everybody is there because they love the land, they love the fact that it’s a dead end, there is not through traffic on there. There is enough traffic for the people that live there frankly. When I saw this at one of the last public hearings I asked that this be removed from there. Also, because I was told, it’s just a proposition. It’s just a proposal. O.K. I am asking that you remove that proposal because it’s so far out. If all the building is taking place at Tahoma Terra and Thurston Highlands and other buildings all along 507 as you go in on each sides by Ridgeline. You have already improved roads, etc. Make your connections where the building are going to be. Please, I ask you, that particular . . . whatever. Having rd that road come out on 93 is not in a development, it’s not where there is traffic, it’s not where people go anyway. Now you’re going to say, oh hey folks I know a really nice place out in the country where you won’t have a lot of things around you to drive through. I am asking you now to please make that consideration. It’s a dead end street and at least two to five acres per home out there. It’s not within the building times. You can see you have already improved the roads running around Thurston Highlands/Tahoma Terra right back on 507 is where they want and you have all those wonderful lights and the roads are already four lane highways. I am asking you sincerely. Thank you for your time. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 3 Gorden Merklin I agree with the rest of the people here. I have another problem, I have called the Thurston County Sherriff, the Yelm Police Department and no one seems to care about the control of the traffic on that street. I see cars going up and down that street 80, 90 and 100 miles an hour up that street. Somebody is going to get killed out there. There is going to be a death. You need to look into that. I tell my wife everyday be careful pulling out of the driveway. That is an issue that I have. Thank you. Rosalie Saecker rd I am the current owner of property 14131 on 93 Avenue which borders the road which you are looking at putting an access road through. I would like to ask you to consider not to do that. The same reasons as Diane said. There is good access coming out of Tahoma Terra on Tahoma Blvd. that used to be Berry Valley and we have a small quiet neighborhood with very few cars going in and out. And putting an access road would dramatically change the nature of our little neighborhood. Not to mention probably taking out a few really nice old trees. To be quite honest I bought this property in November and was completely unaware that there was an access road proposed to be built there. I also feel it’s inappropriate at this time to put it in when we don’t know if the rest of Tahoma Terra is going to be built. Thank you very much. Nina Merklin rd My concern is where 93 joins Yelm Avenue. It’s really difficult to get out there now. If we added the traffic flow from Tahoma Terra that is going to increase that traffic flow. There is no light there and it’s going to make it much more difficult to get out. It is also going to slow traffic that goes up Yelm Avenue now. Which between 3:00 and 5:30 is impossible. So I think if you do the Y1 by-pass you are going to make the traffic on Yelm Avenue worse and not better. The only benefit I can see would be to Tahoma Terra and I don’t know if that would be a benefit. Thank you. JW Foster I have a question regarding Mr. Klein’s comment about when Phase 1 of the 510 Loop gets created. How do we propose to have Cullen’s handle that traffic as it comes back onto 510. Tami Merriman In response to Mr. Klein’s comment regarding the need for a light at Cullens, there is not a light proposed there due to the distance between the light at Killion, it would be to close to Cullen’s. It will be an improved intersection. Grant Beck Cullens has half street improvements and it has a full lane on the other side that has been reconstructed as part of development all the way down. The traffic modeling that we have done shows that most of the traffic that is going down Yelm Avenue is going to go down Killion because of the light. So it will just be the mini loop by-pass traffic that uses Cullen. Dale Vaughn We live right on that road. That’s the access road into our house. My question is that when you look at everything why they don’t consider going from Southworth School by Fort Lewis and by-passing all that stuff because to create more of congestion into the city is already a mess the high school and all that. Why don’t they take it around the back if you want to improve the traffic situation? I don’t see why you have to go through everyone’s houses. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 4 Tami Merriman It is impossible to go behind Southworth, and along the back of those properties due to the location of Fort Lewis, and the topography in the area. It was looked at many years ago during the corridor study I believe. Diane D”Acuti In listening to some of the conversations I would just like to implore you again with everything rd going on we are looking at this little access onto 93 to take care of a few extra cars and I’m asking you, as a resident, who’s property will be effected not only by the traffic but if the road is improved I will loose some of my property. For the few extra, you have already made improvements and you access to major places I’m asking you to please eliminate that access rd to 93. Steve Klein I own land here in the city that has a mobile home on it as the NVN reported last Friday. I would like to state in response to what staff just reported to you Thurston Highland and Tahoma Terra in all of the Phases had an EIS and every particular instance relating to their traffic. Their traffic was going to be mitigated by Tahoma Blvd., by Longmire, by coming out Mosman and coming out to 507. At no time in any of the hearings, anywhere, was Y1 included on that. So I want to be very clear that regardless of what they are stating concerning the planning it has nothing to do with Thurston Highlands and Tahoma Terra rd because know where was their traffic going to be mitigated by Y1 to 93 and that needs to be made clear. Thank you. Mary Jane Friend th I’m looking at your map and where 510 goes down and connects to this Y3. 89 Lane SE, thrdrd 89 Avenue SE, 93 and there is a little line off of 93. Are those all suppose to be county improved roads? Tami Merriman All of those streets are located in the county, however they are in the cities urban growth area and proposed to be annexed at some point in the future. That is our 20 year growth horizon. If and when they are annexed in the city, and if and when they are approved they would be improved to city standards. JW Foster After all of this testimony from public I am interested in knowing what the implications would be to our plan if we were to forward this with the change of removing Y1 from consideration for the near future. In that future transportation committees could look at that and add it back in at a future date. Is there anything wrong with doing that, does it screw things up? Grant Beck We have to rerun models. Because that was an integral part of all the traffic modeling that took place. That traffic would go some place and that means that other improvements elsewhere in the system, if it’s possible, to mitigate for that traffic improvements. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 5 JW Foster By all appearances we have lots of time before Y1 gets any dirt turned on it. What I don’t want to do is throw the baby out with the bath water and not continue on with this transportation plan which has been on the committee for many months and understanding the hard work that staff has put into it. Seeing the models run, seeing all the work that Thurston County and state people that have given us input on it. I understand this map to be representative of changes that need to made down the road. I wonder if by removing that one road for consideration, right now, so that we could have some more time to look at that and bring it back next year to re-add to the 20 year plan. If that would mess us up for the mean time. Grant Beck Procedurally, no. Terry Kaminski The comments about routing traffic through Tahoma Terra and all the new roads. That’s already part of this is an alternate, additional route by-pass. Tami Merriman The Y1 has always been looked at since 1994 when that property was annexed in and zoned master planned community knowing full well at in time that would be developed out. The Y1 has always been there and it is not intended to be a main arterial and carry the load of traffic. But it is an integral part of keeping people moving without having everyone go to one main arterial. John Graver Wasn’t it planned for Y1 to eventually go down to 507? Tami Merriman Y1 would connect to Tahoma Blvd. and Tahoma Blvd. would extend down to 507. Pam Paizo Why do we have so many traffic lights and they didn’t consider any round-abouts which would keep traffic moving? A round about would make a difference in two places, down in the five corners area named Creek Street and coming out of Tahoma Blvd. Tami Merriman The 510 Yelm Loop will have a round about at Mud Run Road where it begins at the north. There is also a round about planned at Wilkinson, which is our main industrial area, and another way back into downtown. Bill Hashim Grant Beck made a statement that the models fixed the transportation map. I want you guys to understand that models are based on a given set of data at a given set of time. But if data changes, it seems to me that the model was based on a full build out at Tahoma Terra. If data changes in a given time and given space if those data points change then you re-run the model. It’s really simple to do. Maybe a little bit of money but simple to do. So the model doesn’t fix these roads at today’s data points. So just consider that before you give the o.k. for staff to forward this to City Council. Terry Kaminski closed the Public Hearing at 6:47 pm Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 6 Terry Kaminski re-opened the Public Hearing at 6:48 pm Debbie Moss A long time ago we were approached by Thurston Highlands to come across our property rd and they don’t have a shot in hell unless the have another road that goes down 93. Is this a rd cover up. Are you guys listening to us? We don’t want that road going down 93. It’s a dead end on purpose. Right now I think the high school kids are jogging down the road, I ride horses down there. I can’t take my dog down there anymore. We moved to a dead end road. We like it, it’s beautiful. There are wetlands there and it’s beautiful out there, are they going to take that into account. Dale Vaughn My house borders where the county and the city come together. I can look out of my house and see the fields out behind me with tons of wildlife and it’s beautiful out there. I know at one time there was a speedway coming and now there is a house development coming and that is what that road is going to link to. I take an interest in it and I have heard the machines over there and I take a look. What I see coming is has nothing to do with planning. It’s a mess because the houses that were started down below are pretty nice. But what is coming up behind that, there is nobody in this room that would want to live in one of those. If you have gone up there and driven up there and taken a look at that they are not much bigger than garages. So you have a lot of volume that is going to come out of there. When they surveyed that thing up there it was nine miles around and I was out there with a surveying crew and I gained 15’ of property because of the fact that they went all the way around, nine miles. Everybody is putting a lot of money into something. But what I see happening is just sprawl, it’s like greed or something. People are putting houses in so fast and so close that there is nobody that is going to want to live in those. So we are creating a mess and we are trying to get an outlet for that to go down to a street that takes us, sometimes, 15 to 20 minutes to get out on the highway because of the traffic that is already there. I think that if you’re really considering planning you should really take a look at and do some studies on what and how it’s impacting everybody here because we all have to live together and I know you probably think it’s military or whatever. It’s not what’s happening, it’s out of control up there. You just have to drive through the neighborhood and take a look. Terry Kaminski closed the Public Hearing at 6:51 pm JW Foster My understanding is that we have several options with this. That we could delay forwarding it to the Council for their approval. We could forward it to the Council for approval with some changes. What I would like the Planning Commission to consider, based on the testimony that we have had tonight, my understanding on how this process works I think it would be fair and responsible to the citizens for the time being to strike the Y1 from our map. Forward the rest of the map on to the Council to approve and we as the Transportation Committee along with the County and others can revisit this issue of handling the traffic that is going to be rd coming off of 93 and through that development, whatever form it may take. And there may never be development out there to the extent we are looking at. Understand, we do have to plan for all of the other people who made the decision to move to a community that we love so much we have to do something about the traffic. I think for the time being that our map is good with that one exception. I am very pleased to see that, at tonight’s public hearing, there aren’t folks here with problems with the rest of the map. Just this one little streak. I think we can knock that little line off the map tonight and proudly forward the rest of the map on for consideration by City Council. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 7 John Thomson I listened to what everybody here and I understand what you’re saying. I didn’t create the Growth Management Act. I didn’t create the law that says you will have boundaries for cities and future boundaries for cities. With that act and the way it exists if you live within an area that is a growth boundary, even if it is beautiful rolling hills with horses and everything else, that area if it becomes annexed into the city could end up with six homes per acres and there is not a lot you can do about that if you are within those boundaries. I tend to agree that in this point in time I don’t see the growth moving as fast as projected. I envision looking at postponing that particular area and maybe re-looking at it at a future date. For those of you sitting out there on that property if growth continues to come into Yelm, and it continues to come into the growth area and your within that boundary, one day, that is all going to be gone. That is a fact of life for people that live within an urban growth area. MOTION BY JOHN THOMSON, SECOND BY JW FOSTER, TO ADOPT THE PLAN WITH Y1 REMOVED TO REVIEW AT A FUTURE TIME. Commission Discussion: Glen Nutter Y1 only makes sense if Thurston Highlands is developed. If and when Thurston Highlands gets planned and comes to the City they will need more than one exit. People have to have an alternative. I think that is partially why we have the north by-pass rather than the south by-pass because we have a lot more homes up in that area that people need to get out of st there by coming down 1 Avenue. So that doesn’t make any sense with out Thurston Highlands. But with Thurston Highlands it needs another exit. I suppose you could take that off the plan but as long as Thurston Highlands is planned you are going to have to have an exit there. Terry Kaminski Tami, did you not say that this is part of the plan and we can re-visit or re-look at this but we can’t just take it out because something else has to go in. Is that correct? Grant Beck The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is a 20 year document. The council, every year, adopts a 6 year transportation improvement program which is the immediate needs. The one that you where handed out tonight, that is proposed for this year and goes to council in July, does not include the Y1 for just the reasons that Glen alluded to. They have to be on there to be built when they are needed. But every year we look ahead and do mini models to see what is needed in the immediate future to build. The map that you have that is proposed for council adoption doesn’t include the Y1 because we know that it is not needed in the next six years. But without it being on the transportation plan, should it become needed then we can’t add it on at that time. Anne Wahrmund In doing long term strategic planning, when you look at the population numbers that we found coming into Yelm that we agreed to with the County and are going to be situated in Yelm because we are no longer going to be sprawled across the entire county because of the Growth Management Act. That means that in the 20 years we are going to need a plan that covers transportation needs for a population whether it is called Tahoma Terra, or whether it is smaller bits broken up and built, there is going to be population that occurs in the rest of the Yelm city limits as well as the urban growth area. I am concerned by us having in our 20 year plan removing a Y1 even if there is concern about build out now. They are not going to build it out now. But if we don’t keep it in the 20 year plan we are not addressing the Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 8 population growth that is going to come to Yelm that is already in our plan. This would be doing a disservice even though we recognize it does have issues for the people living in that particular side of town and that street. Whenever you have traffic going through areas that did not have major traffic issues before it’s a problem. But when you have more population you are going to have more traffic. That is why I get a little confused in what I have heard rd because it sounds like in some cases there is a lot of traffic on 93 and it is going very fast and in other cases there’s no traffic at all and it’s a dead end. I have a feeling it is in transition already. I’m concerned with us removing it from the long term plan because there is going to be population that is going to need access. John Graver rd I have known about 93 and the Y Loop that was referred to before for numerous years. Removing that might give people an idea or hope that this might not happen. And right now in this 20 year plan the possibility it will happen, it might not, but it might. The idea that we take this off and they we say now all of a sudden there is a build out ten, twenty years down the road we are going to put this back in the people that are buying in that area then have no concept that this road is going to come in. They have nothing to look at, like this women stated. If someone had told you to go down and talk to the city and take a look at their maps you would have seen where the proposed road would have been. And these people would have an opportunity to say hey there maybe a road coming so let me buy my property with some education. I to agree we should keep it in even though it may not be looked at right now. But it should give people fair warning. Not us, but new people. JW Foster I agree with you John. The more knowledge the better. When I purchased our property in Yelm we did exactly that. We went to the city and said what is going to happen to our property and we discovered then the Y2 which is going to directly impact my property some day if it ever gets built. I don’t feel threatened by it right now and my trees are growing. At least I know that there is a threat there and potentially I may have a big road that is going to come past my property. And I appreciate that planning that far in advance that told me that. However, after having said that, I still think this has become a very contentious line on this map and we have time to make some changes on this map in the next year or so. I can’t disagree that we are going to have something happen to that area and it’s going to need a rd road to handle it. The folks that live on 93 I guaranty you that you will use that road if it st were put in to get out here instead of going over to 510 and going down 1 Avenue. It’s just like nobody shops at Wal-Mart, right. I think we can delay it for a while to get our plan passed with everybody on board with the rest of the changes. TERRY KAMINSKI STATED THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE AND CALLED FOR A VOTE. THE MOTION FAILED 5 TO 2. MOTION BY ANNE WAHRMUND, SECONDED BY JOHN GRAVER TO SUBMIT THE PLAN AS IS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, WITH A NOTE THAT SAYS FURTHER STUDIES NEED TO BE DONE ON Y1 BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION OF PLACING Y1 ON THE 6 YEAR PLAN. MOTION PASSED 6 TO 1. Tami Merriman From this point forward this 20 year transportation improvement map and bicycle map will go to City Council in July at a hearing for the map for the comp plan approval and for the 6 year transportation improvement program. Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 9 Committee Reports: None Adjourn MOTION BY JW FOSTER, SECONDED BY JOHN GRAVER TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission June 2009 Page 10 City of Yelm Planning Commission AGENDA Yelm Planning Commission Monday, July 20, 2009 –4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes Minutes from June 15, 2009 attached 3. Public Communications 4. Public Hearings: None 5. 2009 Work Program Unified Development Code 6. Committee Reports 7. Adjourn Next Planning Commission meeting Monday, August 17, 2009 – 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. It is the City of Yelm’s policy to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability in need of accommodations to conduct business, or to participate in government processes or activities, please contact Janine Schnepf, at 360-458-8402 at least four (4) working days prior to the scheduled event. All Planning Commission meetings are audio taped. For information on obtaining a copy, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 20, 2009 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Terry Kaminski called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM Members present: Terry Kaminski, John Graver, JW Foster, Glen Nutter, Glen Cunningham and Anne Wahrmund. Members Absent: John Thomson, unexcused. Staff: Grant Beck, Tami Merriman and Karen Bennett. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY GLEN CUNNINGHAM, SECONDED BY ANNE WAHRMUND TO APPROVE THE JUNE 15, 2009 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: None Public Hearing: None 2009 Work Program, Unified Development Code: Tami Merriman gave a presentation to the commission reviewing the Unified Development Code. This is the first draft of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The beginning of this process is to compile six chapters of the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC) into one new chapter. The six chapters include the section of Chapter 2 regarding the Hearing Examiner, Chapter 5 regarding Business Licensing, chapter 14 Environment, Chapter 15 Building, Chapter 16 Subdivisions, and Chapter 17 Zoning. At the August 17 Planning Commission meeting we will be forming 3 subcommittees to review different sections. SC #1: Divisions 1 & 2. General Provisions & Administration and Enforcement. SC #2: Divisions 3 & 6. Environment and Zoning SC #3: Divisions 4 & 5. Building and Subdivisions Committee Reports: None Adjourn MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY JW FOSTER TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission April 2009 Page 1 City of Yelm Planning Commission AGENDA Yelm Planning Commission Monday, August 17, 2009 –4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes Minutes from July 20, 2009 attached 3. Public Communications 4. Public Hearings: None 5. 2009 Work Program Unified Development Code 6. Committee Reports 7. Adjourn Next Planning Commission meeting Monday, September 21, 2009 – 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. It is the City of Yelm’s policy to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability in need of accommodations to conduct business, or to participate in government processes or activities, please contact Janine Schnepf, at 360-458-8402 at least four (4) working days prior to the scheduled event. All Planning Commission meetings are audio taped. For information on obtaining a copy, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2009 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING JW Foster called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM Members present: JW Foster, Glen Nutter, John Thomson, Glen Cunningham and Anne Wahrmund. Members Absent: Terry Kaminski, excused. John Graver, unexcused Staff: Grant Beck, Tami Merriman and Karen Bennett. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN THOMSON, SECONDED BY ANNE WAHRMUND TO APPROVE THE JULY 20, 2009 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: None Public Hearing: None 2009 Work Program, Unified Development Code: Tami Merriman reviewed each section in each division of the Unified Development Code with the commission. Committee members assigned for division review are as follows: Divisions 1 & 2 Anne Wahrmund and JW Foster Divisions 3 & 6 John Thomson and Glen Nutter Divisions 4 & 5 Glen Cunningham and John Graver Terry Kaminski will be a floater and attend meetings as needed. Committee Reports: None Adjourn MOTION BY ANNE WAHRMUND, SECONDED BY GLEN NUTTER TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:54 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission Page 1 City of Yelm Planning Commission AGENDA Yelm Planning Commission Monday, September 21, 2009 –4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes Minutes from August 17, 2009 attached 3. Public Communications 4. Public Hearings: None 5. Unified Development Code Subcommittee reports, questions for Staff, confirm next meetings 6. Committee Reports 7. Adjourn Next Planning Commission meeting Monday, October 19, 2009 – 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. It is the City of Yelm’s policy to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability in need of accommodations to conduct business, or to participate in government processes or activities, please contact Janine Schnepf, at 360-458-8402 at least four (4) working days prior to the scheduled event. All Planning Commission meetings are audio taped. For information on obtaining a copy, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2009 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING JW Foster called the meeting to order at 4:03 PM Members present: JW Foster, Glen Nutter, John Thomson, Glen Cunningham and Anne Wahrmund. Members Absent: Terry Kaminski, excused. John Graver, unexcused Staff: Grant Beck, Tami Merriman and Karen Bennett. Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN THOMSON, SECONDED BY ANNE WAHRMUND TO APPROVE THE JULY 20, 2009 MINUTES. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: None Public Hearing: None 2009 Work Program, Unified Development Code: Tami Merriman reviewed each section in each division of the Unified Development Code with the commission. Committee members assigned for division review are as follows: Divisions 1 & 2 Ann Wahrmund and JW Foster Divisions 3 & 6 John Thomson and Glen Nutter Divisions 4 & 5 Glen Cunningham and John Graver Terry Kaminski will be a floater and attend meetings as needed. Committee Reports: None Adjourn MOTION BY ANNE WAHRMUND, SECONDED BY GLEN NUTTER TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:54 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission Page 1 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING JW Foster called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM Members present: JW Foster, John Thomson, Glen Cunningham, John Graver and Anne Wahrmund. Glen Nutter arrived at 4:05 pm. Members Absent: Terry Kaminski, excused. Staff: Karen Bennett. Guest: Pete Swensson, Thurston Regional Planning Council Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY GLEN CUNNINGHAM, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 17, 2009 MINUTES WITH CORRECTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: None Public Hearing: None 2009 Work Program, Unified Development Code: Subcommittee members reported on the progress of their review of assigned Divisions: Divisions 1 & 2 Anne Wahrmund and JW Foster Divisions 3 & 6 John Thomson and Glen Nutter Divisions 4 & 5 Glen Cunningham and John Graver Pete Swensson handed out the updated Chapter 18.05 (General Provisions) and answered commissioner’s questions. Committee Reports: JW Foster reported that the Transportation Committee meeting was cancelled. Adjourn MOTION BY GLEN CUNNINGHAM, SECONDED BY ANNE WAHRMUND TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:24 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Karen Bennett, Administrative Assistant Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission Page 1 City of Yelm Planning Commission AGENDA Yelm Planning Commission Monday, October 19, 2009 –4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes Minutes from September 21, 2009 attached 3. Public Communications 4. Public Hearings: None 5. Unified Development Code Subcommittee reports, questions for Staff, confirm next meetings 6. Committee Reports 7. Adjourn Next Planning Commission meeting Monday, November 16, 2009 – 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 206 MCKENZIE AVE SE Enclosures are available to non-Commission members upon request. It is the City of Yelm’s policy to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability in need of accommodations to conduct business, or to participate in government processes or activities, please contact Janine Schnepf, at 360-458-8402 at least four (4) working days prior to the scheduled event. All Planning Commission meetings are audio taped. For information on obtaining a copy, please call the Community Development Department at (360) 458-3835. YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING JW Foster called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM Members present: JW Foster, John Thomson, Glen Cunningham, John Graver and Anne Wahrmund. Glen Nutter arrived at 4:05 pm. Members Absent: Terry Kaminski, excused. Staff: Karen Bennett. Guest: Pete Swensson, Thurston Regional Planning Council Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY GLEN CUNNINGHAM, SECONDED BY JOHN THOMSON TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 17, 2009 MINUTES WITH CORRECTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Public Communications: None Public Hearing: None 2009 Work Program, Unified Development Code: Subcommittee members reported on the progress of their review of assigned Divisions: Divisions 1 & 2 Anne Wahrmund and JW Foster Divisions 3 & 6 John Thomson and Glen Nutter Divisions 4 & 5 Glen Cunningham and John Graver Pete Swensson handed out the updated Chapter 18.05 (General Provisions) and answered commissioner’s questions. Committee Reports: JW Foster reported that the Transportation Committee meeting was cancelled. Adjourn MOTION BY GLEN CUNNINGHAM, SECONDED BY ANNE WAHRMUND TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:24 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Karen Bennett, Administrative Assistant Terry Kaminski, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission Page 1 YELM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 2008 - 4:00 P.M. YELM PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Carlos Perez called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM Members present: Carlos Perez, Terry Kaminski, Glen Cunningham, John Graver. Staff: Tami Merriman, Grant Beck, and Karen Bennett Members absent: JW Foster and John Thomson Approval of Minutes: MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY TERRY KAMINSKI TO APPROVE THE JULY 21, 2008 MINUTES WITH THE ADDITION OF THE WORDS “WITH NO OVERSIGHT” TO THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF AGENDA ITEM #5. ALL WERE IN FAVOR*. *Terry Kaminski arrived after the opening of the meeting, the approval of the minutes occurred after the first staff presentation. Public Communications: None. Public Hearings: None Staff Update: Tami Merriman gave a powerpoint presentation to the Commission highlighting projects that are currently in review by the City. Ms. Merriman also discussed with the commission the 2009 work schedule which includes an update to the transportation plan, the creation of a unified development code, and an update to the public facilities and utilities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan based on updated Water and Sewer System Plans. Mr. Beck gave an update on the Thurston Highlands Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The City is responding to comments received on the DEIS. There were substantive comments from state agencies, and 5 individuals, however the majority of the letters, emails, and comments forms were on a small number of issues in near verbatim format. These were that the document was too long, and not easy to read, that the proposed commercial did not meet the Comprehensive Plan goals, and that they requested more time to review the DEIS. Mr. Beck responded that the DEIS was written in a way to explain a huge amount of information in laymens terms. The DEIS could have been reduced to 150, and just reference thick technical reports, it could have been written in smaller fonts, with less white space, and not tables. All of these options would have made the DEIS much harder to read or understand. Mr. Beck also explained that the commercial land proposed within the DEIS had a range of square feet of commercial, not only the 1.5 million square feet mentioned in the comments. The preferred alternative of 825,000 square feet includes 410,000 square feet of commercial as part of a sports complex. This would include accessory uses to the sports complex like a hotel, sports stores, batting cages, etc. Another 210,000 square feet is being proposed as a farmers market, there is 150,000 square feet of professional office space, 60,000 proposed for strip retail, and a 100,000 square feet of retail commercial. This 160,000 square feet is about the size of the existing Safeway complex in Yelm, and the appropriate neighborhood commercial size for a neighborhood of 5,000 dwelling units. Yelm Planning Commission July 2008 Page 1 The City offered the maximum comment period on the date of issue of the draft EIS in accordance with the Washington Administrative Code, providing the required 30 day comment period as well as including the optional extension of 15 days. Mr. Beck discussed with the Commission the current Growth Management Hearings Board decisions regarding Thurston County and the Urban Growth Areas, and that the County is now in compliance. Mr. Beck also discussed with the Commission the letter of opinion of the Superior Court Judge on the LUPA Appeal by JZ Knight. The judges opinion stated the words “/or” be removed from the hearing examiners decision, and that JZ Knight must be notified when these applications come before the Yelm City Council for final plat approval. Committee Reports: None Adjourn MOTION BY JOHN GRAVER, SECONDED BY TERRY KAMINSKI TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Tami Merriman, Associate Planner Carlos Perez, Chair Date Yelm Planning Commission July 2008 Page 2