The Olympia Site Plan Review Committee held a presubmission conference for a proposed nine-lot short plat development at 3900 Martin Way E.
In the narrative, the proposed project is a nine-lot short plan on a 2.24-acre vacant lot. The zoning for the property is R4-8. Access to the site is at the terminus of San Mar Drive NE through a proposed gated private lane.
Chris Carlson, planning manager for the project, said the developer plans to serve the project with a private street.
He added the developer decided not to gate the private street, but proposed a gated pedestrian to the Chehalis Western Trail, which will be the safe walk route for students attending North Thurston schools to access sidewalks on Martin Way and Sleater-Kinney Road.
A hammerhead turnaround is proposed between lots 7 and 8 for emergency vehicles.
A Soil and Vegetation Protection Tract is proposed along the west boundary of the site.
City planner Jackson Ewing raised concerns about the access to the site, citing a large, mapped wetland area to the north.
"And looking through reviews, I was not able to find a recent delineation, especially focusing on areas near this property line for the project," Ewing said.
He suggested having a wetland biologist determine the buffer and how it affects the property before approving the access.
Tiffani King, engineering plans senior examiner, echoed the need for a thorough wetland assessment.
She explained that the city's stormwater map showed potential stormwater facilities encroaching into the parcel. However, she acknowledged that the accuracy of this information was unclear and would require further verification.
Ewing also noted that access to the Chehalis Western Trail will be required to be public.
King commented that the city would not be amenable to a private road, as the preference is for a public street that meets city standards, including a cul-de-sac at the south end and public access to the Chehalis Western Trail.
"Private roads are only allowed if city council approves it, and they still have to be built to city standards," King explained.
"There's no benefit to creating them — the homeowners have to take care of it, rather than the city."
3 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Southsoundguy
Anyone still believing that a deed gives you ownership of land is delusional. You’re just turning it into a revenue source for these rent-seeking leeches.
Wednesday, December 4, 2024 Report this
jimlazar
Good for the City staff. This is a key access point to the Chehalis-Western Trail for people living in the San Mar area. It has been an informal access for more than 15 years, so there is a "perfected easement" for public use. Requiring a clearly marked public access is the right solution.
I'm glad to see the City staff sticking up for the public interest.
Wednesday, December 4, 2024 Report this
johnvaneenwyk
The frustration that is felt with regard to land ownership is totally understandable. The old fantasy of “a man’s [sic] home is his [sic] castle, moat and all, originated in a world far less populated than the one we live in now. Currently, there are two reasons for restrictions on what we can do with our land:
1) deadbeat landowners who previously fouled all the land )owned by other people) around them with little regard for the future. Combine that with the cost of cleaning up after ourselves, which seriously reduces profits (think of collection ponds for gold mining, etc), which we have avoided for two hundred years, and the stage is set for regulation. However unpleasant, our country made a lot of money by npot cleaning up the messes it created.
2) more people mean more consequences for land owners. The balance between personal rights and community rights has tipped in favor of community as populations increased. In the olden days, what I did on my own land had little effect on others because there weren’t many others around. So personal rights are increasingly in conflict with community rights (thus the NIMBY movements—think of housing for sexual offenders)—and vice versa>
so we all have to pay more for the offenses of the past. It is frustrating and unfair. Why should the majority have to pay for the malfeasance of the few? Because there’s no one else to pay it.
It is going to increase. Unfortunately...
Thursday, December 5, 2024 Report this