Hearing examiner upholds Yelm sign code, denies Circle K appeal for second monument sign

Hearing examiner Mark Scheifeyer denied an appeal on July 9, 2025, from Corporate Identification Solutions (CIS), representing Circle K, challenging the City of Yelm's denial of a second monument sign for a proposed development at the intersection of Yelm Avenue and Killian Street.

The appeal centered on whether the site's two separate customer-serving structures should be treated as a "multi building complex" under the Yelm Municipal Code, which the appellant said would allow an additional monument sign at the corner and a monument sign at each street entrance.

Mark Scheifeyer, the city's hearing examiner, opened the public hearing and said he had reviewed the parties' written materials and inspected the site. He told the parties he would receive argument rather than new testimony and reminded them that the appellant bore the burden to show the city's action was "arbitrary and capricious."

Appellant representative Mr. DeHayes argued the proposal included "two separate structures on this site, that will support two different operations with two different products and product types," and said that created "two distinct different customer journeys" that, he said, fit the municipal code's definition of a multi-building complex. He added the applicant was not seeking more signs than the code would permit under that interpretation: "we're not trying to exceed the zoning code in any way."

City staff, represented in the record by a city representative identified as Mr. Coller (name recorded in the transcript as Coller/Culler) and by Chris McCarroll, the city's building official, urged a contrary reading. The city told the examiner the sign code was written to limit corner parcels to a single monument sign unless multiple walled, roofed buildings met the definition of a building in Yelm Municipal Code 18.02. As the city's response stated, "Circle K is not the first gas station on a corner in Yelm," and staff pointed to prior approvals under the current code where only one monument sign was allowed for corner fuel/convenience sites.

City staff also noted a local example in which a Shell station was allowed two monument signs because the car wash there was treated as a separate walled structure; the examiner considered that a close factual analog but concluded the city's interpretation remained reasonable.

Scheifeyer explained his standard of review: when a municipal regulation is ambiguous, courts and hearing officers give deference to a city's reasonable interpretation of its own code unless the appellant demonstrates the interpretation is inconsistent or unreasonable. He said the city's reading of the term "building" as a walled, roofed structure was a reasonable one. "It is a common-sensical interpretation of the term building," Scheifeyer said, and while the case was "a close call," he found the appellant had not met the burden required to overturn the city.

"I'm going to deny the appeal," Scheifeyer said, and told the parties he would reduce his conclusions of law to a written decision. He reminded the parties that further judicial appeal would be available under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) to the Thurston County Superior Court and that applicable deadlines for such an appeal would apply.

The hearing record also notes staff had received approval for two pricing signs on the fueling canopy (one facing Killian and one facing Yelm Avenue), a matter discussed by city staff during the hearing but treated separately from the monument-sign appeal.

The examiner's written findings and conclusions will be prepared and provided to the parties to support any potential further appeal under LUPA.