Two years after its initial review, the Bailey's Inn Phase II project has returned to the Olympia Site Plan Review Committee with revised plans that scale back the building height and unit count.
The new plan for the Bailey's Inn site, located at 3337 Martin Way E, calls for a four-story residential building with 82 units, a reduction from the previously proposed five-story building with 89 units that was reviewed in 2023.
The site is 1.1 acres at the intersection of Martin Way and Franz Anderson Road.
At the committee meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 8, Glenn Wells, the project architect, explained that the apartment project is being developed under a long-standing developer's agreement with Olympia.
One key condition of the agreement is that the project must extend Franz Anderson Road to connect with Martin Way.
Wells noted that the connection presents a challenge due to the site's steep grade. He mentioned not including on-street parking on the uphill side of Franz Anderson Road due to the steep slope.
The project architect reiterated that the Bailey's Inn housing development would consist of 82 residential units and have a pedestrian plaza with a large entrance on the corner of Franz Anderson Road and Martin Way.
Wells discussed the project layout of the building, which would have tenant amenities, an elevator, a stairway and structured parking on the first floor.
Above the parking level, the building would have three floors of residential units, with a courtyard on the second floor. Wells added that the project would have a continuous driveway connecting Franz Anderson Road and the adjacent Manor project, connecting to Martin Way.
According to Wells, another unique aspect of the site is the significant distance — around 15 feet — between the property line and the back of the city's sidewalk. He noted that the setback is already built into the design, starting right at the property line.
Wells argued with city planners that this condition should exempt the project from recessing the fourth floor by an additional 8 feet, as typically mandated.
Casey Mauck, Olympia's associate planner, acknowledged Wells's argument but stated that the current development code language does not provide an exception or clear path to waive the 8-foot stepback for the fourth floor.
Wells expressed reluctance to comply with the stepback requirement, citing structural and aesthetic challenges.
Options like a code amendment or variance were discussed during the meeting as potential paths to address the stepback requirement. However, the city planners emphasized the high legal bar for granting such exceptions.
Nicole Floyd, Olympia's principal planner, explained that if challenged legally, making exceptions to the established development standards would need to pass a "straight-face test."
The city planning team acknowledged Wells' logic but pointed out that a clear legal basis would be required to waive or modify the stepback rule through a code amendment or variance.
Later in the discussion, Mauck said she had done additional research on the stepback code language and found a potential path for the developer to avoid the stepback requirement.
She explained the code requires the upper floors to be stepped back when the building "abuts" the street or sidewalk.
Mauck defined "abut" as sharing a common boundary. She suggested this could provide a potential solution for the project.
Since there is a 15-foot setback between the property line and the sidewalk, the building may not be truly "abutting" the street, which could mean the stepback requirement may not apply in this case. She told the developer she would follow up on it further.
4 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
notdeskandchairs
Here you go, a prime example of how over regulation prevents housing from being produced.
Olympia is populated with political A Butts
Saturday, January 11 Report this
citizenken
According to Black's Law Dictionary,6th Edition., the definition of "Abut" is: "To reach; to touch. To touch at the end; be contiguous; join at a border or boundary; terminate on: end at: border on; reach or touch with an end." The term "abutting" implies a closer proximity than the term adjacent. No intervening land.
Sounds like Mauck, of the City's Planning Commission, is on to a valid interpretation of the code that would indicate the “stepback” requirement is not applicable in this case. It seems the City is taking a reasonable approach to accommodate the project while still maintaining consistent interpretation of City Code, just what I think they should do.
Regulations, building codes, are just rules generally designed to protect the public, subject to change or refinement when necessary. Sound like good government to me.
Sunday, January 12 Report this
JW
Hand wringing and crying about lack of housing on one hand, development-choking regulations and nanny-stating on the other.
Must be the rich not paying their fair share or something.
Sunday, January 12 Report this
Southsoundguy
This should make it clear that even if one has title to land, they don't own it. We should get real about this and convert these holdings to long term ground leases.
Monday, January 13 Report this