Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yelm council affirms variance allowing single-access Palisades subdivision over safety objections
Summary
The Yelm City Council voted to affirm the hearing examiner’s decision to grant a variance allowing the Reserve at Palisades subdivision to move forward with 63 homes served primarily by Palisades Street, rejecting an appeal that argued the development violates Yelm Municipal Code and poses public-safety risks.
The Yelm City Council affirmed the hearing examiner’s decision to grant a variance for the Reserve at Palisades subdivision, allowing the developer to proceed with a plan for 63 homes that rely primarily on Palisades Street for access.
The outcome matters because opponents said the variance weakens the city’s subdivision access rules and could create a precedent for future developments that lack arterial or collector access. Appellant Justin Linson argued the examiner relied on speculative future road connections and on home sprinkler systems rather than present-day compliance with Yelm Municipal Code 18.52.080.
City Attorney Brent advised the council that this was a closed-record appeal: council members could review only the materials in the hearing record, the hearing examiner’s findings and conclusions, and applicable legal standards. Brent outlined the limited legal grounds for overturning the examiner — that a decision must be clearly erroneous, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law. Staff planning and the hearing examiner had recommended that the variance be upheld.
Appellant Justin Linson told the council he was not presenting new evidence but urged the body to reverse the variance. Linson said, “If a solution is already anticipated, it’s not an actual hardship under the law,” and warned that relying on future infrastructure or sprinklers could create a dangerous precedent. Developer Matt Lewis of DARE Custom Homes argued the application met the variance criteria, said the project could not obtain direct access from State Route 507 because of WSDOT spacing rules, and described mitigation measures including a required turn pocket and pedestrian crossings. Lewis said, “We do meet the legal standard” and described a contractor record of communications with WSDOT.
City staff and the fire marshal supported the hearing examiner’s findings. Staff noted the examiner required automatic sprinklers in each new home and a future road connection shown in the city’s record; the fire marshal submitted a letter saying the planned future connection and sprinklers would satisfy International Fire Code D107 conditions used in the examiner’s analysis.
During council discussion, members debated whether the site’s access limits amounted to an applicant-created “constraint” or a nonattributable “hardship” under Yelm Municipal Code 18.14.100. Councilor Crossman moved to deny the appeal and affirm the hearing examiner’s decision; the motion was seconded. In a roll-call vote Council member Wood voted yes, Council member Richardson recused, Crossman yes, Kengeser yes, Hess no, newly sworn Council member Johnstone yes, and Kaminski yes. The motion carried and the council announced it had affirmed the hearing examiner’s decision.
Because this was a closed-record appeal, the council’s decision was limited to findings tied to the existing record; Brent told the council any reversal, modification or remand would require specific findings supported by the record and the law. The hearing record shows the project was described as 39 new lots bringing the total number of residences served from 24 to 63, and speakers referenced WSDOT’s 660-foot spacing standard and the international fire code in their arguments.
The hearing closed after the council vote. Any party seeking to challenge the council’s affirmation would have to demonstrate one of the legal standards Brent listed — clear error, lack of substantial evidence, or illegality — in subsequent proceedings.
