Loading...
20140270 HE Decision 02172015 �4i�,�� THEp�P� Ci�y of Yelm 9 � � Community Development Department 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Y E L M Yelm, WA 98597 WASNINGTON February 17, 2015 Yelm Prairie Christian Center P.O. Box 578 Yelm, WA 98513 RE: 20140270 Dear Applicant: Transmitted herewith is the Report and Decision of the City of Yelm Hearing Examiner relating to the above-entitled matter. Very truly yo rs, � , TEPH N K. CA � SE UX, JR. Hearing Examiner SKC/jjp cc: Parties of Record -t- OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF YELM REPORT AND DECISION CASE NO.: 20140270 APPLICANT/ Yelm Prairie Christian Center OWNER: P.O. Box 578 Yelm, WA 98513 REPRESENTATIVE: Christian Aldrich, RLA Hatton Godat Pantier 3910 Martin Way S.E., Suite B Olympia, WA 98506 PLANNER: Grant Beck, Director SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review Approval to allow expansion of the Yelm Prairie Christian Center at 501-103`d Avenue N.E., Yelm, by adding a food bank that would operate from an existing, 3,456 square foot, storage building together with 320 square feet of additional dry storage and refrigerated storage containers. SUMMARY OF DECISION: Request granted, subject to conditions. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing Community Development Department Staff Report and examining available information on file with the application, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the request as follows: The hearing was opened on January 12, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. Parties wishing to testify were sworn in by the Examiner. -2- 1 . . . . . . ' . � . � . . . . The following exhibits were submitted and made a part of the record as follows: EXHIBIT "1" - Community Development Department Staff Report with Attachments EXHIBIT "2" - Settlement Agreement Effective August 29, 2014 EXHIBIT "3" - Agreement for a Pedestrian Plan dated August 26, 2014 EXHIBIT "4" - Revised Site Plan EXHIBIT "5" - Letter from Minnie Ledington to Janine Schnepf dated January 9, 2015 EXHIBIT "6" - Email from Aaron Manley to Tami Merriman dated January 2, 2015 EXHIBIT "7" - DVD of Church Food Bank Program EXHIBIT "8" - On-site Septic System As-Built EXHIBIT "9" - Hearing Brief of Applicant EXHIBIT"10" - Chapter 17.57 Environmental Performance Standards EXHIBIT"11" - Brief of City EXHIBIT"12" - Declaration of Grant Beck EXHIBIT"13" - Reply Brief of Applicant GRANT BECK appeared, presented the Community Development Department Staff Report, and testified that the application proposes expansion of an existing church and therefore requires site plan review approval and a special use permit. The church was constructed on the site in 1989. Staff recommends approval of the application. Staff reviewed the project for concurrency and identified no issues. No parking problems will be created except possibly during construction. The Traffic Impact Analysis shows no conflict with p.m. peak hour trips and no safety issues. The environmental official issued a DNS following SEPA review. A portion of the site is within the 100 year floodplain and critical areas of Yelm Creek and such required preparation of a Wetland Assessment. The project will maintain a minimum, 150 foot wide setback from the wetlands. The studies showed no evidence of pocket gopher habitat, and the City has approved the buffer for the wetland. Concerning the zoning and design standards, the applicable C zone classification allows churches subject to a special use permit. Parking requirements are met as the hours of operation of the church and food bank do not overlap, and the existing parking on the site is sufficient to serve both. The project shows compliance with the parking area landscape plan, but if the applicant elects to irrigate, it must utilize low water plant species. Outside storage is allowed but must be screened from public view. The applicant has proposed pallet storage and refrigerated storage. He believes the storage containers constitute a storage use and therefore require screening, but if the Hearing Examiner determines otherwise, the City will not require screening. The applicant will install a planting strip in front of the building and also needs to install back flow protection. The applicant must attach the structure to the sewer system in accordance with the line and stub to the property. LOREN COMBS, attorney at law, appeared on behalf of the applicant and introduced an Agreement signed by the City and the applicant on August 29, 2014. The applicant -3- conducts a food bank and feeding operation on the site that distributes 1,000,000 pounds of food per month. The applicant started the operation onsite but it has become too large. Exhibit 2 shows that they have agreed to move the facility to an industrial zoned parcel. At the present site, they will continue to serve only walkup clients. Another portion of the Agreement calls for a pedestrian plan as is shown in Exhibit 3. They will provide a separated standing zone for people receiving food. The people receive food outside and do not enter the building. The purple and yellow coloring on the site plan are the safety zones, and the Examiner can include that as a condition of approval. They will need additional site plan approval for the dry storage and refrigerated storage in the industrial zone. The only storage on the present site will serve people who walk-up. He then reviewed conditions of approval. Concerning Condition 1, the refuse container is handled by LeMay and accommodates both on-site uses. The container is kept inside the storage building and moved outside only the morning of a pickup. It is not stored outside. The vegetative recycle container stores large quantities of produce not suitable for human consumption. The container is taken to farms and the produce used for animal food. They will keep the refuse container inside. The vegetative container will be outside, but behind the fence or structure. Concerning Condition 2, they have an agreement based upon a telephone conference with Mr. Beck. They have provided a safe pedestrian corridor to the street. Concerning Condition 3, they agree with the landscaping condition including the requirement to install the landscaping that should have been installed at the building permit stage. They agree with Condition 4, and regarding Condition 5, they propose to fence the entire rear portion of the site. They will paint the fencing to match the building. He agrees with Conditions 6-11 and part of Condition 12, but does not agree to connect to the sewer system. CHRIS ALDRICH appeared and presented Exhibit 4, an updated site plan. The pedestrian access is shown on Exhibit 4 as is the safety zone. They will stripe the pedestrian route to the road. They provided a landscape plan that meets the code addresses the planting areas. He referred to the notes on the left hand corner of the site plan that show what will remain on the site. They will provide fencing around the entire storage units away from the building. He believes the site plan meets the design standards and guidelines. He will work with staff to find an acceptable solution. The project meets Condition 9. The existing fire hydrant measures a little over 300 feet from the site and they will install a new hydrant at the northwest corner of the church. He then introduced Exhibits 5 and 6. Appearing was PASTOR BRAD CARLSON who introduced Exhibit 7, a video showing the food bank operation. When they started the food bank, they utilized the church kitchen twice a week. In 2010 they began receiving a lot more food and had to expand. They had to ensure that their actions matched their words and that they were following scripture to feed the hungry. They have been doing so for many years. They now receive one million pounds of food per month and the site is too small to accommodate the volume. They therefore have expanded to an off-site location and are turning down opportunities to receive more food. They have no paid staff members and all of the -4- food is donated. Fuel and maintenance costs are also donated. Connecting to the sewer would cost $40,000 to $50,000 and will sorely hurt the portion of the project remaining on the site. They cannot afford to incur the cost. He cannot afford to increase his salary, and others do not receive pay. They have 48 church members and 150 people attend services. They constructed the building to accommodate 300 attendees and originally proposed a daycare that was never completed. Their onsite septic system has the capacity to serve 300 people plus a daycare. The church provides a better way to get food to the people. They keep food recipients outside of the storage building and have tried to keep the project within its original boundaries. He referred to the Exhibit 2 Agreement. They are moving out and the only remaining use is food distribution. They could expand the number of days, but other food banks provide this service on different days. STEVE PATTON, professional engineer, appeared and testified that he has reviewed the Staff Report and does not know if the sewer condition is necessary. A septic system doesn't care what is coming, and only needs to know how much. The present system may or may not be at capacity. If it was designed for 300 people, then it is okay. He proposes to evaluate the onsite septic system and determine whether it is acceptable or not. If their use is within its design standards, then they do not need to connect to sewers. He has no evidence of failures and knows it was constructed in 1989 but not updated. He introduced Exhibit 8, the onsite septic system as built. PASTOR CARLSON reappeared and testified that he began serving as Pastor in 2000 and has had no issues with the septic system. DALE RICHARDSON appeared and testified that he is retired military and has worked in food service for 20 years. He retired as an E7 and still feeds people. In 2010 he had a vision to begin feeding people. He runs the logistics of the food bank, gets food to and from, and ensures proper pickups. Even though he works 50 hours per week, he receives no pay. His wife also works 40 to 50 hours per week and receives no pay. The freezer and refrigeration units are required to preserve food. They are very good and economical to run and maintain and are sized for the site. They receive heavier usage at Christmas and other holidays. The units are outside and not attached to the building. They will cut a hole in the rear of the building so that the only access is through the building. They can't place the refrigerator and freezer inside as they would have to remove a wall, and even then they would take up too much of their storage space. Their new building consists of 25,000 square feet. It would cost $30,000 to $50,000 to connect to the sewers. They couldn't continue with their on-site, meal service. The meals cost 25 cents each, so sewer connection would mean 200,000 meals lost. They do not wash vegetables and only use water to clean the facility. They use less water that way. The volunteers use the church bathrooms. MR. COMBS reappeared and introduced Exhibit 9, his brief, and Exhibit 10, excerpts from the municipal code. Storage facilities are allowed, they are not prohibited. These storage facilities are connected to the building so they are not outside. They are not -s- visible as they are within the fencing. The pallets are outside storage. The cooler, freezer, and dry storage units are not outside, but they will obtain an SPR. If YMC 17.57.060 is applicable, they can meet the requirements, but they cannot fit the units into the building. They do not need to connect to the sewer because they are creating no impact. They will create no additional discharge into the onsite system. Volunteers use the church bathrooms. The usage remains within the limits contemplated when designed. The requirement of sewer connection is not a proper condition for a special use permit. The City can order connection by an administrative order, but there is no nexus to require connection. The septic system is not failing, and the food bank is using existing bathrooms. They will agree to have the system inspected. He thanked staff for their assistance in processing this matter. MR. BECK reappeared and testified that the applicant is advocating a loophole in the code requirements by incorporating the refrigerator and freezer into the structure. The Examiner then feft the record open for the City to respond to Mr. Combs' brief on or before January 21, 2015, and for Mr. Combs to respond to the City's brief on or before January 28, 2015. Neither party had an objection to the Examiner retaining jurisdiction over this matter to resolve future disputes. MIKE POTTER appeared and testified that he is a member and elder of Rainier Church and supports the feeding of the hungry. Twenty to 30 youths sort through the food and help out. We need considerable flexibility to delay connection to the utilities. We have a functioning septic system and no need to connect to sewers. No one spoke further in this matter and so the Examiner took the request under advisement and the hearing was concluded at 11:00 a.m. NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the City of Yelm Community Development Department. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION: FINDINGS: 1. The Hearing Examiner has admitted documentary evidence into the record, heard testimony, and taken this matter under advisement. 2. The City of Yelm Responsible Official reviewed this application pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and issued a Determination of Non- significance on November 20, 2014, with an appeal deadline of December 12, 2014. This determination is final and fulfills the City's responsibility for disclosure of potential significant environmental impacts. No appeals were filed. -6- 3. Notice of this application was mailed to state and local agencies and property owners within 300 feet of the project site on November 20, 2014. In addition, Notice was published on the City's website on the same date. The Washington State Department of Ecology submitted comments on December 5, 2014, relating to toxics cleanup. The comment restates the requirements of regulations administered by Ecology and no action is required by the City or the applicant at this time. Notice of the date and time of the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner was posted on the project site, on the City website, and mailed to the owners of property within 300 feet of the project site on December 29, 2014. Notice of the date and time of the public hearing was published in the Nisqually Valley News in the legal notice section on January 2, 2014. 4. The applicant, Yelm Prairie Christian Center (YPCC), has a possessory ownership interest in an irregularly shaped, seven acre parcel of property with flat topography abutting the north side of 103�d Avenue S.E. opposite its intersection with Plaza Drive within the City of Yelm. Improvements on the site include a 9,829 square foot church building, associated parking lot, and a 3,456 square foot, accessory building used by the church for a food bank facility. The food bank facility includes an additional 320 square feet of dry storage and refrigerated storage in separate containers. The applicant requests a special use permit and site plan review approval to allow continued operation of the food bank from the site. 5. The revised site plan submitted at the public hearing (Exhibit 4) shows that the applicant will install a paint striped, pedestrian route from 103�d Avenue S.E. along the northeast side of the parking area (adjacent to the church building) to a designated, pedestrian waiting area adjacent to the food bank building. Clientele will obtain food from the food bank in this area and will not enter the building. The applicant will designate a pedestrian loading zone, safety line by means of cones that will separate the pedestrian clientele from the vehicle parking and pickup areas. The site plan also shows a new fire hydrant located between the food storage building and the church building. The applicant proposes to relocate three, free standing, food storage containers to the northwest side of the building. The applicant will attach the containers to the building such that sole access thereto will occur directly from the building itself. A 2,192 square foot, concrete slab located to the rear of the building (northwest side) will provide a pallet and bin storage area. Landscaping will extend along the northwest and southwest property lines of the parcel. In addition, the site plan shows a solid metal, screening fence enclosing the food storage containers and pallet and bin storage pad. The food bank will provide meals and food for clientele coming to the site approximately two days per week. 6. The applicant originally proposed a sink with water service that would allow volunteers to wash vegetables and other items, but has subsequently eliminated such improvement from the proposal. The food storage building contains no -�- restrooms or bedrooms, and both food bank volunteers and clientele will use restrooms within the church building. Thus, the food bank will generate no additional water usage other than occasional toilet flushes and hand washing in the church building. 7. The City recommends approval of both the special use permit and site plan review approval but also recommends imposition of Condition 8 that reads: The onsite sewage disposal system shall be abandoned consistent with State and County Health Codes. The applicant shall connect the property to the City's sewer system. One section of Condition 12 also requires connection to the City sewer system. The church building was constructed in 1989 prior to the availability of sanitary sewers. Therefore, the church installed an onsite septic disposal system in accordance with a design approval by the Thurston County Environmental Health Division of the Human Services Department. Subsequent to construction of the church the City installed a sanitary sewer line within the right-of-way of 103`d Avenue S.E. across the frontage of the YPCC parcel, and now sewer service is available to both the church and the food bank. Both parties acknowledge that the estimated cost of connecting the YPCC parcel to the sewer system is between $40,000 and $50,000. The YPCC asserts that the connection cost would dramatically adversely impact its food bank and likely result in its closure since it cannot pay the connection cost. Uncontradicted testimony also establishes that the connection cost, even if made, would prohibit the food bank from providing 200,000 meals. The City asserts that the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC), the City's Sewer Plan, and the City's Comprehensive Plan all require connection to the sewer system based upon construction of the food bank facility on the site. 8. The City issued Building Permit 5126 for the church building in 1989. At that time a church was an outright permitted use in the applicable zone classification. Pursuant to said permit the YPCC constructed the church and installed the septic system. Subsequently, the City Council changed the zone classification of the parcel and the church became a nonconforming use. The applicant has continually used the site and building for a church since construction. The recent addition of the food bank is an expansion of the nonconforming use. 9. In June, 2010, YPCC applied for and received a building permit to allow construction of a 36 foot by 96 foot pole building that it told the City it would use for a parking garage. Such use requires a "U" occupancy pursuant to the International Building Code (IBC). The City did not consider the garage an expansion of the nonconforming use and therefore did not require site plan review approval or connection to the sewer system. However, the church utilized the "garage" building as a food bank operated by Faith Harvest Helpers. -g- Following a number of disputes between the City and the applicant that involved the court system, the parties entered a Settlement Agreement with an effective date of August 29, 2014. The Agreement allowed the applicant to continue operating the food bank from the site but also required the applicant to submit the present applications to legalize said use. In addition to obtaining site plan review and special use permit approvals, the applicant must also change the structure from its present "U" to a "S-2" occupancy with an associated "M" occupancy to reflect that food bank clientele will not enter the building. 10. The applicant asserts that the original onsite septic disposal system has operated in the past and continues to operate without a problem since installation in 1989. The applicant's engineer testified at the hearing that he observed no indications of septic system failure. The City does not dispute that the septic system is in good working order. Furthermore, Pastor Brad Carlson testified that the church was sized to accommodate 300 attendees and a future daycare center. However, the church at present has 48 members, and average attendance at Sunday morning services is approximately 150. Furthermore, the church never did establish a daycare facility on the site. Therefore, the applicant asserts that the septic system is oversized for its present intensity of use to include the food bank. The applicant agrees that it must evaluate/inspect the system to ensure it is operating properly. Neither the City nor the Health Department have records or other evidence of system failures. Pastor Carlson has served as Pastor since 2000 and knows of no issues with the septic system. 11. Both parties have submitted well-reasoned, legal briefs concerning the interpretation of YMC 13.08.020(D)(G) that provides when connection to City sewers is required. The briefs also address the City's sewer connection policies. The City asserts that adopted codes and policies require the applicant to connect its parcel to the sewer system because sewers are available and the church is expanding its nonconforming use by adding a food bank. YPCC asserts that the codes and policies do not require connection of the church to the sewer system unless its septic system is failing. In its brief the City also questions whether "operating a food bank constitutes the exercise of religion". However, in paragraph 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement the parties agreed: YPCC is a not for profit religious organization that, as one of its ministries, operates a food distribution system for the purpose of providing food to the hungry.... Thus, the City has apparently previously agreed that the food bank is a ministry of the YPCC. Such agreement is consistent with the Washington Supreme Court's Decision in The City of Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of Christ, et. al, 166 Wn. 2d 633 (2009), wherein the Court found: -9- There is no issue raised here of whether hosting Tent City is important or central to the Church's exercise (though the Church has never before engaged in such practice around or in its church)... ...The City properly did not dispute in court the sincerity of the beliefs nor their importance to believers. Housing the homeless may be a part of religious belief or practice....166 Wn. 2d 633 @ 642, 644 If housing the homeless is considered a church ministry, then feeding the hungry is also a church ministry. 12. The question of connection to the sewer system can be resolved without interpreting the YMC codes and policies. For the purposes of this decision, the Examiner has assumed that a strict interpretation of the YMC requires the YPCC to connect its parcel to the sewer system. The Examiner has further assumed that the code requires connection even though the food bank proposes no new restrooms or water fixtures of any kind. 13. The above assumptions in the present case violate the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act of 2000 codified at 42 USC 2000 cc. Said act requires in part: Section 2 Protection of Land Use as Religious Exercise. a. Substantial Burdens (1) General Rule-No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution- A. Is in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and B. Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. Furthermore, in Anderson's American Law of Zoning, 4th Edition, Section 12.21, the author interprets the favored status granted religious uses in general as follows: Churches, synagogues, and other institutions dedicated to religious objectives are in some degree protected from the full impact of zoning restrictions. These uses are favored for reasons ranging from their unique -io- contribution to the public welfare to constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship.... In Section 12.23, Anderson's, supra, the author discusses the burden of proof for special use permits for churches: While the right of a municipality to require a special permit seems to be firmly established, the grounds on which a permit may be denied are few. If a religious institution must get a special permit the burden of proving compliance with the standards is on the institution. The burden usually is not severe. 14. Our Washington Supreme Court agrees with Anderson's, supra, and also encourages municipalities to examine less restrictive alternatives than those required in a zoning code. The Supreme Court's Decision in The City of Sumner v. First Baptist Church of Sumner, et. al. 97 Wn. 2d 1 (1982), addresses the establishment of a religious school on a church site. The Court instructed the City of Sumner as follows: When the City, in the exercise of its police power, is confronted with rights protected by the First Amendment, it should not be uncompromising and rigid. Rather it should approach the problem with flexibility. There should be some play in the joints of both the zoning ordinance and the building code. An effort to accommodate the religious freedom of appellants while at the same time giving effect to the legitimate concerns of the City as expressed in its building code and zoning ordinance would seem to be in order. The record does not disclose that such an effort was made by either the City or the trial court. The trial court should consider the practical effect uncompromising enforcement of the City's building code and zoning ordinance will have on appellants' First Amendment rights. It should "searchingly examine" the asserted interest of the City (Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra), and should consider the effect of allowing specific exemptions or deviations in this case. It should determine whether there are less restrictive alternatives than strict enforcement of all the technical provisions of the code while still fulfilling the legitimate governmental interest of adequately protecting the children...ln the final analysis accommodation between the competing interests must be the goal. Only if such accommodation is not possible should one legitimate interest override another. 97 Wn. 2d 1 at 9, 10 Based on First Baptist, our Supreme Court would instruct the City in the present case to: -�i- A. Consider the "practical effect" of strictly requiring connection of the church parcel to the City sewer system at the cost of$40,000 to $50,000; B. Conduct a "searching examination" of the effects of allowing an exemption to the sewer connection requirement; and C. Conduct a "searching examination" to determine whether less restrictive alternatives than strict enforcement can fulfill the legitimate governmental interest of protecting groundwater and the public health. Applying the above to the present case, it is first necessary to evaluate the "practical effect" of a $40,000-$50,000 cost on a church with 49 members, 150 attendees, and an all volunteer food bank facility. The "practical effect" would likely require the church to terminate its food bank facility at the YPCC. Second, it is necessary to "searchingly examine" how granting an exception to sewer connection would impact groundwater quality. If the food bank closes, the onsite septic system would continue to serve church members. If the food bank remains open, the church septic system would accommodate its members and occasional bathroom use by food bank workers and clientele. Such minimal, additional use would have no measurable benefit to groundwater quality. Third, it is necessary to conduct a "searching examination" for a less restrictive alternative to sewer connection. One such alternative would allow the applicant to continue utilizing the onsite septic disposal system, but require the applicant to ensure its proper operation and maintenance. Such is possible by requiring YPCC to contract with a septic service company acceptable to the City to perform scheduled maintenance, inspection, and testing of the system. Such would fulfill the City's legitimate governmental interests and allow the food bank to remain open. Such therefore provides an accommodation between the competing interests of the church and the City in accordance with First Baptist, supra. 15. In his concurring opinion in First Baptist, supra, Justice Utter writes: As the impact upon religious exercise approaches what constitutes a practical prohibition, the burden of justification requires proof that the state interest is not only compelling, but cannot be sufficiently served in any other way. Moreover, it becomes incumbent upon the State to justify its requirements with some "particularity". 97 Wn. 2d 1@ 15 The City's requirement of sewer connection approaches a "practical prohibition" of YPCC's religious ministry. The City has not shown that its interests in protecting groundwater cannot be served in another way, considering the small amount of additional usage of the on-site septic system. -12- 16. In addition to Conditions 8 and 12 that require connection to the City's sewer system, the City and YPCC disagree as to whether the storage containers that the applicant proposes to attach to the building violates Condition 5 that reads: Storage containers are not allowed. The applicant proposes to attach the existing, refrigerated, food storage containers presently located northeast of the food storage building to the rear of the building. These two containers measure eight feet in width and 40 feet in length. A dry storage container 16 feet in width and 20 feet in length is also shown attached to the north wall of the food storage building. The applicant will provide sole access into all three storage containers through holes in the building's rear wall. The applicant asserts that the storage containers will essentially become part of the food storage building and will no longer fall under YMC 17.57.060. Staff disagrees. Once again, for the reasons set forth above, the City should "searchingly examine" "the practical effect uncompromising enforcement of the City's building code and zoning ordinance will have on appellants' first amendment rights". Considering the storage containers part of the building fulfills the legitimate government interest of eliminating storage containers. The applicant also will provide screening and buffering from off-site parcels by installing a solid metal fence and landscaping. 17. The applicant and the City are in agreement on all other proposed conditions of approval. 18. The property is located within the Commercial (C-1) zone classification of the YMC and within the Mixed Use District Design Guidelines. Abutting parcels to the west are likewise within the C-1 classification, and improvements include a daycare facility. The parcel to the south across 103`d Avenue is within the Heavy Commercial (C-2) classification and improved with a church and retail commercial uses. Improvements to the east across Yelm Creek include the Yelm Adult Community Center located in the Moderate Density Residential (R-6) classification. The Fort Stevens Elementary School and a residential subdivision are to the northeast. The applicant's proposal is compatible with existing uses and uses contemplated by surrounding zone classifications. 19. Section 17.66.020 YMC sets forth the special uses permitted in all zone classifications, and Subsection B(1) specifies "Churches (or other places of worship)". Staff has determined that the food bank associated with the YPCC is an accessory use if operated as part of the mission of the YPCC. Testimony at the hearing conclusively establishes that the food bank is the YPCC's principal ministry. The food bank therefore meets the definition of accessory use set forth in YMC 17.06.070 of "a use customarily incidental and/or subordinate to the principal use of the land". -13- 20. The bulk regulations of the C-1 zone classification are set forth in YMC 17.26.060 and .070 and require a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and structural setbacks of 15 feet from the front (street) property line, 15 feet from the side property lines, and 20 feet from the rear property line. The parcel measures seven acres in size and all buildings to include the relocated storage containers significantly exceed all minimum setback requirements. Section 17.26.090 YMC limits building heights in the Commercial district to 40 feet and the buildings onsite are in compliance. 21. Section 17.26.130(C) YMC requires screening of refuse containers with a fence not less than six feet in height, and prohibits the location of such structures between the street and the front of the building. The applicant proposes to locate the refuse container inside of the food storage building except on pickup days, when it will move the container to a location determined by its garbage service provider (LeMay). 22. The site plan shows an eight foot wide, perimeter, landscape planting area that will provide visual separation for the site along the northwest and southwest property lines. The final landscape plan must meet the planting requirements of YMC 17.80.050(C) and the water conservation requirements of YMC 13.04.097. Conditions of approval hereinafter address the treatment of the attached storage containers in accordance with Design Guideline Standards. Fencing will screen the pallets and bins storage area. 23. The City agrees with the applicant that the existing parking lot has approximately 80 spaces and that the 393 seat sanctuary requires 66 parking spaces. The food bank will not operate during the time of church services and therefore will share the existing parking lot. The Trip Generation Report shows that the food bank operates approximately 1.5 hours per day and generates 125 trip ends per day. Assuming 30 minutes for each food bank customer onsite, approximately 45 vehicles would need parking at any given time. The existing 80 spaces is more than adequate to serve the food bank. 24. A condition of approval requires landscaping along the southern edge of the building to screen the building and blank wall in accordance with the design guidelines. Conditions also require installation of a backflow prevention device and a new fire hydrant. A condition also requires that restrooms in the YPCC church facility remain open and accessible during food bank operations to ensure compliance with the IBC. 25. The City has determined that the preliminary storm drainage plan submitted by the applicant generally meets City stormwater requirements. A condition of approval requires preparation of a final stormwater plan for review and approval as part of the civil plan improvements. -14- CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented by this request. 2. The applicant has shown that the request for a special use permit and site plan review approval to allow expansion of the Yelm Prairie Christian Center to include a food bank operation satisfies all criteria set forth in the YMC and therefore should be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Refuse containers shall be screened and of a material and design compatible with the architectural theme of the buildings on the site. At a minimum, the enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall not be located between the buildings and 103rd Avenue. The location of the refuse container for pickup purposes must be approved by the City and LeMay, Inc. 2. A pedestrian access plan shall be provided that shows access from the parking lot to the food bank, from 103`d Avenue to the food bank, and from the food bank to the Christian Center building. The plan shall also include measures to separate vehicle traffic in the parking lot from food bank operations. 3. A detailed landscape plan consistent with the preliminary landscape plan shall be prepared, to include water efficient plant species. All areas outside the proposed food bank operation which were disturbed by the operation of the food bank without required permits shall be restored as part of the required landscaping. A five foot planting strip with thuja is required along the southern edge of the food bank building. 4. If the landscape plan includes irrigation, it shall be include the following water conservation requirements: a. Choose irrigation devices and design the irrigation system to positively prevent runoff or overspray onto impermeable hardscape under all conditions regardless of wind or possible equipment misalignment. b. Assign separate station/zones (hydrozones) to areas with dissimilar water or scheduling requirements. For example; separate zones should be designed for trees, shrubs, flowers, shady areas, sunny areas, drip irrigation and sprinklers. c. Locate sprinkler heads based on a thorough evaluation of physical, environmental, and hydraulic site conditions, including wind. The design must not permit sprinklers to overspray onto impermeable hardscape under any condition. -is- d. Specify drip irrigation for all zones planted in one-gallon or larger size. e. Specify weather-based irrigation controllers (WBIC). f. Specify check valves wherever necessary to prevent low-head drainage. 5. The pallet and bin storage area shall be screened consistent with Section 17.57.060 (B) YMC and the standards of the Yelm Design Guidelines. 6. A reduced pressure backflow assembly consistent with Section 246-290- 490 Washington Administrative Code shall be installed at the water meter serving the property. 7. At all times during food bank operations, the restrooms in the main church structure shall be open and available for use by food bank customers and workers. Signage about restroom availability shall be provided in the area of food bank operations. 8. Fire hydrants shall be installed so that no portion of the building or pallet and bin storage area is greater than 150 feet from a hydrant. 9. A final stormwater site plan consistent with the preliminary site plan and the 2012 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington shall be prepared. 10. Civil plan submission shall include: • The location and screening of refuse containers • The final landscaping and irrigation plans • The screening of the pallet and bin storage area • The location and details of the backflow prevention device • The location of fire hydrants • The final stormwater site plan 11. Civil plans, including the plans and details required by this approval, shall be reviewed and approved by the City and shall be fully implemented by the applicant. 12. The Examiner shall retain jurisdiction over this matter should future disputes between the parties need resolution. The parties may submit such disputes to the Examiner in writing or at a future public hearing. 13. The applicant shall engage a qualified, onsite septic system service company or qualified engineer to investigate, inspect, and evaluate the onsite septic disposal system serving the church building. The applicant shall make all repairs/improvements to the system recommended by the company/expert. The applicant shall also execute a contract with a qualified company to perform periodic maintenance/inspection of the system in accordance with health department regulations or company -16- guidelines. The expert and company selected by the applicant shall be acceptable to the City, and shall provide all inspection/maintenance reports to the City. 14. The decision set forth herein is based upon representations made and exhibits, including plans and proposals submitted at the hearing conducted by the hearing examiner. Any substantial change(s) or deviation(s) in such plans, proposals, or conditions of approval imposed shall be subject to the approval of the hearing examiner and may require further and additional hearings. 15. The authorization granted herein is subject to all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Compliance with such laws, regulations, and ordinances is a condition precedent to the approvals granted and is a continuing requirement of such approvals. By accepting this/these approvals, the applicant represents that the development and activities allowed will comply with such laws, regulations, and ordinances. If, during the term of the approval granted, the development and activities permitted do not comply with such laws, regulations, or ordinances, the applicant agrees to promptly bring such development or activities into compliance. DECISION: The request for a special use permit and site plan review approval to allow expansion of the Yelm Prairie Christian Center located at 501-103�d Avenue N.E., Yelm, to include an accessory food bank operation as shown on Exhibit 4 to the record is hereby granted, subject to the conditions contained in the conclusions above. ORDERED this 17th day of February, 2015. � S PHEN K. AUSSEAU , JR. Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED this 17th day of February, 2015, to the following: APPLICANT/ Yelm Prairie Christian Center OWNER: P.O. Box 578 Yelm, WA 98513 REPRESENTATIVE: Christian Aldrich, RLA Hatton Godat Pantier 3910 Martin Way S.E., Suite B Olympia, WA 98506 -��- OTHERS: Loren Combs Brad Carlson 3600 Port of Tacoma Road P.O. Box 578 Tacoma, WA 98424 Yelm, WA 98597 Dale Richardson 16132-83`d Way S.E. Yelm, WA 98597 CITY OF YELM -is- CASE NO.: 20140270 NOTICE 1. RECONSIDERATION: Any interested party or agency of record, oral or written that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner may make a written request for reconsideration by the hearing examiner. Said request shall set forth specific errors relating to: A. Erroneous procedures; B. Errors of law objected to at the public hearing by the person requesting reconsideration; C. Incomplete record; D. An error in interpreting the comprehensive plan or other relevant material; E. Newly discovered material evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing. The term "new evidence" shall mean only evidence discovered after the hearing held by the hearing examiner and shall not include evidence which was available or which could reasonably have been available and simply not presented at the hearing for whatever reason. The request must be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on March 3, (10 days from mailing) with the Community Development Department 105 Yelm Avenue West, Yelm, WA 98597. This request shall set forth the bases for reconsideration as limited by the above. The hearing examiner shall review said request in light of the record and take such further action as he deems proper. The hearing examiner may request further information which shall be provided within 10 days of the request. 2. APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION: The final decision by the Examiner may be appealed to the city council, by any aggrieved person or agency of record, oral or written that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner, except threshold determinations (YMC -19- > ' • p 15.49.160) in accordance with Section 2.26.150 of the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC). NOTE: In an effort to avoid confusion at the time of filing a request for reconsideration, please attach this page to the request for reconsideration. -20- . . . ... . _� .-_>�:�.�t�x,� ,:,,.x» .. ,.....�., ...,_ ..,..«.:�.N.�.noz�4,.'w..�th.,:�W.a.�.....�<.,.v.,�:.�s . ... ;�. . . .. . .. �;... ^ . .. . ,.-. �; , . ... .. .� . -:, .._i:��,, s. . . . . . ., . ..:. � _u-.- ,... �,.d.�..;, a �