Thursday, October 1, 2026
A proposed residential development at 2631 Division St. NW is being reviewed under the City of Olympia’s newly implemented middle housing code amendments, which allow accessory dwelling units without increasing overall housing density.
The Rocco Townhouse project consists of two fourplex buildings on a 43,560-square-foot parcel.
During a pre-submission conference held by the Olympia Site Plan Review Committee on Wednesday, Dec. 17, City of Olympia Senior Planner Jackson Ewing said the updated code allows eight units to be built on a single parcel without requiring subdivision.
“This is a change from previous code requirements that would allow up to four units on a lot," Ewing said.
The property is in a zoning district that permits a maximum of eight units per acre. Ewing suggested the project could designate two of the units as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), but also said it would still count toward site density.
“You can do two of these eight units as ADUs, and that might be beneficial to you, because then you get bonuses like reductions in impact fees,” Ewing told the project developers.
He added that the ADUs do not create additional density beyond the eight-unit maximum on the roughly 1-acre parcel.
Ewing said there are two ways to potentially increase the number of units, either through subdivision of the property or by incorporating affordable housing, which may qualify for a density bonus of up to two additional units.
Applicant Glenn Wells said the project would move forward as a townhouse development if eight units remain the maximum allowed density.
“We are not going to change our townhouse design and convert some of them to ADUs if that is the maximum that we can have,” Wells said. “If that is the case, then I don’t think (ADUs are) in the cards.”
Wells asked whether adding affordable units could allow additional density, even if the entire project is not affordable.
“We would like to explore putting an affordable element into the project to see how many additional units we could achieve,” Wells said. “I assume any new units added through increased density would also have to be affordable. There’s a formula in the code, and that’s what we are hoping to clarify.”
City of Olympia Planning Manager Nicole Floyd confirmed the new middle housing code includes a density bonus for affordable housing, but said the specific increase is still being clarified. City staff is going to follow up once the provisions are confirmed.
When staff reviewed the project, the middle housing code had yet to be implemented. However, staff conducted the review under the updated code, which took effect on Monday, Dec. 22.
The middle housing code amendments consist of more than 100 pages of changes to setbacks, density calculations and development standards.
5 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Callie
There is less crime in mixed income neighborhoods. That's one good reason to have a few cheaper units. ("more affordable") We need housing. Go for it.
Tuesday, December 23, 2025 Report this
Southsoundguy
"The middle housing code amendments consist of more than 100 pages of changes to setbacks, density calculations and development standards." Central planning doesn't work.
Tuesday, December 23, 2025 Report this
Boatyarddog
SSGuy, What is the Real Issue for You? Housing or something else? Your posts are often without any content, just Complaints that point to nothing.
Wednesday, December 24, 2025 Report this
LivinginthePNW
I'm wondering what the yellow and pink highlights on the attached map mean?
Friday, December 26, 2025 Report this
Yeti1981
A few clarifications that might help this discussion.
First, this project is not an example of “central planning.” It’s the opposite. The updated middle housing code removes a major procedural barrier by allowing eight units on one parcel without subdivision. That reduces discretionary review, cuts time and cost, and lets property owners use their land more efficiently. The code sets clearer by-right standards instead of forcing every infill project into a bespoke process.
Second, on affordability and mixed income housing. Adding a small affordable component can be beneficial, but it only works if the incentive is predictable and feasible. In this case, staff themselves were still clarifying how the density bonus works. Uncertainty is expensive, and developers can’t design around incentives that aren’t clearly defined. That’s not ideology, it’s math.
Third, on the 100-plus pages of code changes. Volume doesn’t equal control. Much of that length comes from replacing vague discretion with measurable standards for setbacks, density, and unit configuration. The real question is whether the rules reduce friction and risk. In this case, they do by eliminating the need for subdivision just to reach eight units.
Finally, to the map question. The yellow and pink highlights typically indicate zoning and development overlays used during site plan review. They’re visual tools to show how the parcel is regulated, not proposed building colors or land use changes.
This project is a useful test case. It shows the code is helping modest infill move forward, while also revealing where incentives and affordability tools still need clearer, more workable implementation.
Monday, January 5 Report this