Olympia’s Hearing Examiner approved the plan to subdivide 3.31 acres at 1515 Middle Street SE into a 16-lot townhome subdivision subject to modified conditions focused on public safety and environmental sustainability.
In a 43-page decision issued on February 7, Hearing Examiner Mark Scheibmeir enumerated the conditions, including the widening sidewalks along the west and north of the new road to eight feet, accompanied by adjustments to adjoining vegetative strips. A requirement for a revised landscaping plan has been imposed, which includes robust vegetative screening and safety devices along the open space to ensure long-term visual screening and public safety.
The project site has a zoning designation of R-4-8, which applies to the adjoining west, north, and east properties. The property to the south has a different zoning designation of Urban Village. It is part of the Briggs Village development. Directly to the west across Pifer Road is the City of Tumwater.
Olympia associate planner Lydia Moorehead described the site as an inverted "flag lot" with an irregular shape and some low-lying areas or "kettles" on the property. One kettle on the project site is proposed for stormwater management. Another kettle near the site boundary contains wetlands with a 100-foot buffer area protecting them; this buffer area falls outside the project site.
The proposed road system for the townhome subdivision will begin at Middle Street, traveling south through the narrow northern section of the property before turning west to run along the southern boundary. This road alignment allows for possible future connections to other areas.
Deviations from the city's Engineering Design and Development Standards (EDDS) have been approved to eliminate sections of the sidewalk east and south of the new roadway. That will widen the landscaped buffer between the road and neighboring properties. Traffic calming measures, such as speed humps or bump-outs, are planned to limit speeds and improve safety for residents along Morton Court and Brighton Way.
According to Moorehead, the initial application sought preliminary approval to subdivide 3.31 acres into 19 townhome lots. She noted there was significant public interest in the project. In response to community concerns, the proposal was revised substantially. The number of townhomes was reduced, and changes were made to eliminate the second sidewalk, increase landscaped buffers, and better integrate the development into the surrounding area.
Moorehead noted that most public comments throughout the application review focused on two issues: the location and design of the road and appropriate buffering east and south of the road.
At the public hearing held on January 22, Moorehead addressed concerns raised by Karen Messmer regarding safe walking routes near the project site. Messmer advocated for additional sidewalk construction along Middle Street towards Pifer Road.
However, Moorehead presented evidence that Pifer Road and Henderson Blvd. are already designated safe walking routes to nearby schools, making further sidewalk construction unnecessary.
Moorehead said city staff does not support the suggested condition of requiring sidewalk construction, saying Henderson Boulevard provides a direct route; there is a historical presence of a crossing guard, and an agreement with the school districts does not apply to high school students from sidewalk requirements.
Scheibmeir recognized Messmer’s compelling argument but stated there is insufficient legal justification for requiring the construction of an added sidewalk along Middle Street due to the existence of a recognized safe walking route along Henderson.
“If there were not an accepted route along Henderson Blvd., it would then be easy to justify the additional sidewalk, but with this existing safe route, there is insufficient justification – even if the route would be a more practical alternative,” said Scheibmeir.
The applicant for the project, KPFF Engineers, represented by Steve Schmitz, recognized that adjoining neighbors have legitimate concerns about protecting their privacy.
The applicant indicated it would not object to additional conditions requiring enhanced vegetative buffering east and south of the new roadway. That could include multiple rows of trees, boulders, and other landscape elements, so long as these added buffers were not found to compromise vehicle safety.
Schmitz added that they have no objection to the hearing examiner’s condition of widening the sidewalk to eight feet. However, the applicant opposed any requirement to construct a sidewalk along Middle Street west to its intersection with Pifer Road.
In addition to the reasons cited by Moorehead, the applicant noted that an adjoining wetland area and its associated kettle have a 100-foot buffer extending into the proposed new sidewalk location.
This buffer would prevent sidewalk construction in that area or make it significantly more difficult.
Scheibmeir noted that the project’s current design is the product of two years of review and revisions and has finally received approval from Olympia’s planning department. However, adjoining property owners nearby believed the development was ill-advised.
The applicant responded that the revised project complies with all applicable design guidelines, is consistent with the property’s zoning designation and aligns with the city’s Comprehensive Plan and related goals/policies.
Specifically, the plan supports addressing housing needs through infill development of underutilized properties like this rather than outward expansion of the city limits. The city staff concurred with this assessment.
Many neighbors questioned why the project's road was designed so close to their properties. They wondered why the city did not mandate its location further north in a more central portion of the site.
In response, the city explained that it does not have the authority to require a specific road location but must consider submitted applications. If a proposal satisfies all applicable approval criteria, the city must approve it.
Scheibmeir stated that if the road were located further north, the townhome lots required south of it due to minimum density requirements would be subject to the same shallow rear yard setbacks.
However, the approved design provides approximately 70 feet of buffer between the existing homes and proposed townhomes, including 14 feet of vegetative screening, a 20-foot road, another 14 feet for a sidewalk and additional landscaping, and a front yard setback from the townhomes.
Neighbors expressed frustration over the potential loss of standing forest that enhances the aesthetics of their properties. The hearing examiner reminded the public that the property was privately owned and acknowledged the property owner's right to develop their land in compliance with regulations.
"Denying this right would constitute an unconstitutional taking under federal and state law," Scheibmeir explained.
After considering the points of view, the hearing examiner agrees with the city that the application should be approved.
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
KarenM
The Hearing s Examiner said -
“If there were not an accepted route along Henderson Blvd., it would then be easy to justify the additional sidewalk, but with this existing safe route, there is insufficient justification – even if the route would be a more practical alternative,” said Scheibmeir.
The students who live in this new housing who attend Olympia High School will not walk blocks out of their way to Henderson to take that route to school simply because the staff said it is is safe. They will walk west to Pifer Road and walk north to the school. There is a well marked and respected crosswalk at Pifer and North St to get to the school grounds at the entry area. One local resident who has student kids stated just that in his testimony. I am disappointed that the staff did not require at least some sidewalk construction out on Middle Street. Even a sidewalk to Central St to the west would allow students to walk on lower-traffic streets along Central and 37th to Pifer.
While I generally do not have a problem with infill development I do want walking routes to be improved as increased traffic is generated by these new residents.
Monday, February 12 Report this
Yeti1981
Every added requirement adds to the cost of construction, which then adds to the end cost of a home. If we are in such desperate need of "affordable" housing, you certainly don't fulfill that need by making housing more expensive. Good on the Hearings Examiner for paying close attention to the legal justifications (or none) and keeping the costs down.
Tuesday, February 13 Report this
Dogmom
Once again, the powers that be are cutting down more trees. If the property owner can do whatever he wants to his property, then why does the City only allow you to cut down so many trees on your own property? There again, I guess money talks. I am so irritated that everyone talks about climate change and the environment but it is obviously all talk or else so many trees would not be allowed to be destroyed. One last comment, just how affordable will these homes be that are going to be built? I will bet they won't be for the average person who really does need an affordable home. I am talking about the person who works full time but still can't afford a place to live.
Tuesday, February 13 Report this
WillStuivenga
It would be very helpful if a map showing the exact location of the property that will be developed, and the location of the road (and requested sidewalks) were included with this story. Jolt, can you please provide a map? Thanks.
Tuesday, February 13 Report this
Olywelcomesall
Thank you Karen Mesmer for providing insights and testimony to the City Hearings Examiner of how this new important housing development will increase needs for a sidewalk on Middle Street. The City HE and city staff clearly missed the impact and "feel" (without evidence) that somehow Henderson Blvd sidewalks are an adequate alternative. You are absolutely correct that school kids are not going to walk out of their way to access Henderson Blvd. The route of Middle Street to Pifer is the currently used route. I walk, ride my bike and drive this section of Middle Street frequently. Middle street is the logical and most direct route for pedestrians/cyclists and often interrupt vehicles attempting to negotiate that part of Middle Street. In fact, many drivers attempt to avoid the traffic on Henderson use the Middle to Hoadly Street as a "bypass" further endangering pedestrians and cyclists due to the failure of the city to have bike and sidewalk clearances on key parts of Middle Street. The new Townhomes creates an even higher need to address this issue and should contribute to its solution.
Wednesday, February 14 Report this
OlyKid88
It doesn't make logical sense that a lot owner that is building to meet zoning requirement set by the City should be responsible for offsite improvements.
Remember, Olympia has very high impact fees that are intended to cover expenses related to growth. Typical new home construction in Olympia pays average impact fees of roughly $50k per unit before permits are issued. For a project like this, with 16 town home units, are we really talking about $600,000 to $800,000 in fees?
Beyond impact fees, the City has also passed additional tax levy's just for the purpose of sidewalks. Isn't the City responsible for road and sidewalk maintenance and improvements as part of its primary responsibilities with existing tax revenue paid by taxpayers?
Why can entire neighborhoods be built without the City requiring or providing appropriate streets, sidewalks and infrastructure, then when the last available lots are built on, the expectation is that owner is suddenly responsible to pay for all the offsite neighborhood upgrades that haven't been required, or built, over decades of development activity.
Since I don't seen an overwhelming effort to build, improve or replace aging streets and sidewalks in the City, the obvious question is where exactly is all this tax and dedicated levy money being spent.
The City of Olympia is very vocal that it wants more housing to be built. However, The City's high impact fees along with an arduous and time consuming process to obtain building permits work against this objective. With this Middle Street project, I think the owner is 3 years into the process and has likely spent a small fortune on site requirements, engineering, building design and environmental studies. Impact fees must be paid before the City will issue permits.
The City has spent countless hours and numerous community meetings in an effort to encourage low income/affordable housing to be developed. The City even went through the process of creating opportunity zones so that Multi Family Tax Exemptions could be given as an incentive to build in areas of historically low or no housing investment.
Recently, an excellent opportunity for an affordable low income housing project has been brought to the City for review and permitting. A well known and respected non profit, Humanity for Humanity, wants to build 12 low income affordable homes on 8th Avenue - land the City has given them.
Unfortunately, the City creates a big problem for the project to proceed. The City staff blindsides Habitat for Humanity in a public forum with a permit requirement involving numerous and costly offsite improvements. The offsite improvement are estimated by Habitat for Humanity to be in excess of the amount budgeted for their onsite development expenses. The suggestion by the City to Habitat for Humanity is to search out additional government funding sources.
This link is a must read for those in favor of more affordable housing in Olympia but wonder why it is so difficult to come by.
https://www.thejoltnews.com/stories/affordable-housing-project-would-face-costly-infrastructure-costs,13770
Wednesday, February 14 Report this