Yelm hearing examiner holds record open on 39‑lot Palisades subdivision over access and safe‑route questions

Hearing Examiner Mark Scheifmeier on Feb. 26 held the public record open on a proposed 9.7‑acre subdivision in Yelm that would create 39 detached single‑family lots (City file LD2024.0072), citing unresolved questions over the city’s access standard, pedestrian safe‑route requirements and several site‑specific infrastructure matters.

The examiner asked the city attorney to produce a written determination and legal brief showing how the proposal satisfies Yelm Municipal Code 18.52.080 (the city’s vehicle‑access requirement) and invited the applicant to submit its own legal response. He set a deadline of Friday, March 7, 5:00 p.m., for those materials; he said he will not render a final decision until he has reviewed any written submissions on that narrow legal issue.

Why it matters: The access rule at issue requires subdivisions of 25 or more units to provide more than one vehicular access from an arterial or collector street. The hearing record showed the proposed streets would connect to existing Palisades Street SE — a local access residential street — and not directly to a city‑designated arterial or collector, creating a legal barrier to approval unless the city’s director has lawfully granted an exception or the applicant obtains a variance.

City staff told the examiner the city recommends approval with conditions. Staff’s report and the applicant’s traffic impact analysis (TIA) recommended an intersection improvement at State Route 507 that includes a southbound left turn lane, and noted the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will require an intersection control evaluation to determine final improvements. The city also issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the project on Feb. 5, 2025; the MDNS and its conditions are listed as conditions of approval in staff’s recommendation.

Safety, fire and pedestrian access: The examiner and staff discussed fire‑safety requirements. The International Fire Code (IFC) requires automatic sprinklers for residential developments of 30 or more units served by a single public or private access road; staff said the preliminary plat anticipates future connections and sprinkler systems so it could meet IFC requirements. At the request of Southeast Thurston Fire Authority, staff said additional fire hydrants would be required near Lots 11–12 (or 27–28) and where Road B connects to existing Palisades Street.

The examiner cited Washington State law RCW 58.17.110, which requires a demonstration of safe walking routes for those who would otherwise walk to school. The property sits roughly one quarter mile from Ridgeline and Mill Pond elementary schools. Staff and the applicant said a proposed off‑site improvement to a city‑owned park across Palisades — a new pathway, replacement basketball hoop, a play structure and landscaping that would connect to Carter Loop — would help form a safe walking route, but the examiner said a specific safe‑route proposal had not yet been demonstrated to his satisfaction.

Stormwater, open space and maintenance responsibilities: The subdivision would reuse an existing stormwater pond that currently serves the Palisades subdivision. Staff and the applicant said the applicant would need to demonstrate in civil plan review that the existing facility can serve the new lots, obtain a stormwater maintenance agreement and either form a second HOA or a joint agreement with the existing Palisades West HOA. The applicant told the examiner it proposes to expand and rework the pond — replacing the wet‑pond component with a different treatment approach and formalizing maintenance access — and to hydroseed and plant new landscaping on the steeper Tract D, which is otherwise largely passive open space. Staff noted Tract A would be dedicated as on‑site open space but does not meet the city’s 5% open‑space requirement; the applicant agreed to off‑site park improvements on the city parcel instead.

Other conditions and design items: Staff said the plat shows frontage improvements along SR 507, sidewalks at the project perimeter and sidewalks along private Tracks B and C where required. The preliminary landscaping and perimeter fencing plan submitted by the applicant proposes a six‑foot perimeter fence and typical residential street trees. The applicant and staff also said standard traffic impact fees would apply and that because the required intersection improvement is not in the city’s six‑year TIP, the project would not be eligible for a fee credit.

Public comments: Neighbors testified about construction‑traffic routing, neighborhood safety, water pressure, the condition and future maintenance of the stormwater pond and potential traffic impacts on nearby Mill Road. Karen Yukish, president of the existing Palisades HOA, urged that construction traffic use the new Road A rather than routing through the existing neighborhood and said homeowners did not want their HOA merged with the new subdivision’s HOA. Resident Bob Horn and others emphasized that the proposed connections do not meet YMC 18.52.080 and urged the examiner to treat that as a barrier absent a formal variance or written administrative exception.

Examiner’s conclusion and next steps: Scheifmeier said the application “got off to a very poor start” but that testimony and supplemental materials had improved his view of the proposal. He nevertheless concluded, as a matter of law based on the current record, that the city’s access requirement had not been shown to be satisfied and directed the city to file a written explanation and the applicant may file a response. The record will be held open solely for those legal materials until March 7, 2025 at 5:00 p.m.; the examiner will then begin the statutory decision period.

No vote or final decision was taken at the hearing.