Bayan Trails development

OLYMPIA HEARING EXAMINER

DECISION

Community Planning & Development

601 4th

Avenue E. PO Box 1967 Olympia WA 98501-1967

Phone: 360.753.8314 Fax: 360.753.8087

[email protected] www.olympiawa.gov

June 9, 2015 Greetings, Subject: BAYAN TRAILS Case# 14-0139 The enclosed decision of the Olympia Hearings Examiner hereby issued on the above date may be of interest to you. This is a final decision of the City of Olympia. In general, any appeal of a final land use decision must be filed in court within twenty-one days. See Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 36.70, for more information relating to timeliness of any appeal and filing, service and other legal requirements applicable to such appeal. In particular, see RCW 36.70C.040. Please contact the City of Olympia, Community Planning and Development Department, at 601 4th Avenue E or at PO Box 1967, Olympia, WA 98507-1967, by phone at 360-753-8314, or by e-mail at [email protected] if you have any questions. Sincerely,

PAULA SMITH Assistant Planner Community Planning & Development

BEFORE TilE CITY OF OLYMPIA HEARINGS EXAMINER

2 IN RE: ) HEARING NO. 14-0139 )

3 GOLDEN ALON DI~YELOPMENT, ) FINDINGS OFf ACT, LLC (BA YAN TRJ\ll .. S) ) CONCLUSIONS Of. LAW

4 ) AND DECISION Applicant. )

5

6 APPLICANT: Golden Alon Development, LLC P. 0. Box I 068

7

8

9

10

II

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

10

11

22

23

24

25

Olympia, Washington 98507

REPRESENTATIVES:

Ross Jarvis, P.E. SCJ Alliance 8730 Tallon Lane N.E. Lacey, Washington 98516

Ron Thomas, Architect Thomas Architecture Studio I 09 Capitol Way N. Olympia, Washington 9850 I

SUMMARY OF REQUEST:

Jay Goldstein Attorney at Law 1800 Cooper Point Road S. W ., il8 Olympia, Washington 98502

Land use approval for construction of four senior apartment buildings containing 167 units, ten townhome style apartment buildings containing 70 units, for a total ol'237 residential units, along with a 5,000 square fool community building, a 4,000 square foot pool building and associated improvements including a public street network, parking, solid waste facilities, landscaping and utilities. Construction is proposed to occur in six phases over an estimated ten years.

LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:

607 and 709 Slcater-Kinncy Road N.E., Olympia, Washington, 98506. The project site encompasses two parcels: 118 17210100 and 11817210200.

SUMMARY OF DECISION:

The application is approved subject to modified conditions.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision - I

CITY OF OLYMPIA 1-II~ARING EXAM I NER 299 N. W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

CHEHAL IS, WASHINGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

, ... _,

24

25

BACKGROUND 607 and 709 Slcater-Kinney Road N.E. currently contain two res idences on twenty acres

of mostly forested land with significant wetlands on the west half. The Applicant. Golden Aeon

Development, LLC, proposes to convert the developable portion of the site into high density

residential units. primarily lor senior citizens. The project includes four senior citizen apartment

complexes containing 167 units, and ten townhome style apa rtment buildings containing an

additional 70 units, ior a total of237 residential units along with a 5,000 square foot community

building and a 4,000 square foot pool building. along with public roads, parking and other

improvements. all within l 0.86 acres of buildable area. The westerl y portion of the property" ill

remain in wetlands.

The project site ig bounded on the cast by Sleatcr-Kinncy Road S.E. and the North

Thurston II igh School and Chinook Middle School campus. To the south of the project is the

San Mar Vil las single-family residential neighborhood ("San Mar Villas"). t\s curlier noted, the

westerly half of the project is wetlands, and further west is the Chehalis Western Trail. To the

immediate north of the project is a most ly undeveloped residential parcel, followed by more

single-family development rurther north.

The site is designated Residential Multifamily- 18 Units Per Acre in the City's

Comprehensive Plan. The site's zoning designation is Residential Multifamily- 18 Uni ts Per

Acre (RM-18).

The Application for Land Use Approval was received November 12,2014. The Site Plan

Review Committee (SPRC) conducted an initial review. On November I 9, 2014, the SPRC

determined that the applica tion was appropriate for review by the I Iearing Exam iner pursuant to

Finding.~ of Fact, Conclusions c~( Law and Decision - 2

CITY OF OLYMPIA IIEARINC EXAMINER 299 N. W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

CHEHALIS, WASHINGTON 98532 Phone: 360-7-tS-3386/Fax: 748-9533

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

OMC 18.60.080(C), which provides that the SPRC has the prerogative to refuse to rule on a

proposed land use if it determines that the project is so extraordinarily complex or presents such

significant environmental issues that it should be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner and be the

subject of a public hearing. The SPRC determined that the application was appropriate for

review by the Hearing Examiner based on issues related to wetlands, storm drainage,

transportation impacts and groundwater.

Concept design review was completed January 22, 2015. The Design Review 13oard

requested certain changes relating to site design and landscaping and building design (Exhibit

I 0). These changes arc recommended as conditions or approval.

On J\pril22, 2015. the 1\.pplicant submitted revisions to its application as suggested by

the City. The SPRC rcconvcm:d on April 29, 2015 and recommended approval or the proposal

subject to conditions. On May 5, 2015, the City Council approved a Development 1\grcemcnt

(Exhibit 17) to ensure coordinated phasing of the development.

Subject to the changes requested by the Design Review Board, and the conditions

requested by the SPRC, the City recommends that the 1 rearing Examiner approve the project.

The most noticeable controvcr~y regarding the project is th

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

Additional written and oral public testimony was received during the hearing as described more

fully below.

A site review was undertaken prior to the public hearing.

The public hearing commenced at 6:30p.m., on Wednesday, May 20, 2015, in the City

Council Room in the City Hall. The City appeared through Cari Hornbein, Interim Principal

Planner, and George Steirer, Consulting Planner. Other staff present included Steve Sperr and

David Smith. The Appl icant appeared through its attorney, Jay Goldstein, its architect, Ron

Thomas, and its civil engineer, Russ Jarvis. A verbatim recording was made of the public

hearing and all testimony was taken under oath. Documents considered at the time of the

hearing were the City Staff Report including all attachments (Exhibits 1-17), all of which had

been received prior to the bearing. During the course of the hearing several additional

documents were admitted as exhibits as identified on the List of Exhibits attached hereto.

Ms. Hornbein and Mr. Stcirer of' Planning Staff provided brief testimony regarding the

City Staff Report, relying primarily on the report itsel [for an in-depth discussion of the project. The following is a brief summary of the Staff Report and its recommendations:

Within the approximately ten acres of bui ldable area on the site the Applicant proposes to

construct four senior housing apartments and ten multifamily townhomc style apartments. The

four senior housing apartments wi ll be located in the center and north portions of the site with

the townhome style apartments lining the south boundary. The four senior housing units will

contain 167 units and the seven townhome apartment bui ldings will contain 70 units, for a total

of237 un its. Centrally located within the development will be a community bui lding and a

community pool. The project is proposed to be constructed in six phases: Phase 1 would construct the first senior apartment building in the northeast corner of the site; Phase 2 would

Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law and Decision-../

C ITY OF OLYMPIA HEARING EXAM INER 299 N. W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

C HEHALIS, WASH INGTON 98532 P hone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I I

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

construct the second senior apartment bu ilding and the community building; Phase 3 would

construct the remaining two senior housing apartment buildings and the community pool; and

Phases 4. 5 and 6 would construct the townhome style apartments. Construction is expected to

take several years with construction slowly working from north to south across the site.

The City proposes that three public roads be constructed as part of the project: (I) an extension of 6th Avenue N.E. extending west from Sleater-Kinncy through the project site along its northern boundary; (2) a north-south road extending from the north boundary and running

along the edge of the wetland buffer to the west; and (3) a second east-west road running across

the southern half of the project and connecting to Sleater-Kinney Road to the east. The project will provide 299 parking stalls. It will incorporate existing sidewalks along

Slcater-Kinncy and G~lso provide internal sidewalks and walking trai ls. The site will be serviced

by public water. sewer and stormwater l~tcilitics .

Signi ficanl effort has been made to save as many trees on site as possible. 1\ buffer of

trees wi ll n.:main along Skater-K inney to provide screen ing. A similar buffer of trees will be

maintained between the south boundary and the adjoining San Mar Villas. All existing trees in the wetland buffer will be preserved except those needing to be removed for stonnwater and

related purposes.

Access to the site is from Sleater-Kinncy N.E. As part of the project modifications wi ll be made to Slcatcr-Kinncy in the areas when,; the project's two entrances will be located. These modifications include the installation or left turn lanes and the removal of raised medians.

The project wi ll generate impact Ices to Lacey, Thurston County, Olympia and the North Thurston School District. None of these fees are in dispute.

The Staff Report contains a detailed analysis of the design regulations pertinent to the

RM-18 Zone. As noted in the Stall' Report, the project is consistent with the zone's permitted

Findings of Fact, Conclusiom of Law and Dec1sion - 5

CITY OF OLYMPIA HEARING EXAMINEr~ 299 N.W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

CH EHALIS, WASHINGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 7~8-9533

uses and complies with the required mix of dwelling units; with the transitional housing

2 requirements; with ti1e general residential development standards: with minimum lot size

3 requirements and witi1 Critical Areas Regulations, wetland buffers, bicycle storage and parking

4 facilities.

5 The project has undergone review by the Design Review Board. The Board

6 recommended approval subject to several conditions (Exhibit I 0). Detailed des ign review will

7 occur prior to or conjunction with ti1e building permit application.

8 City Staff recommends approval of the project subject to forty-two conditions. As curlier

9 noted, the proposed condition generating the most notoriety is Condition No. 23, requiring the

10 construction of a local access street connection to San Mar Drive within the San Mar Villas.

II Following the presentation by Ms. llornbein and Mrs. Steirer. David Smith of City StarT

12 testified in further support or the City's request that the project's road system be connected to San

13 Mar Drive. Mr. Smith explained that the City's Comprehensive Plan and Development

14 Regulations strongly encourage such connections in order to create social interaction and

15 promote multi-modal connections. Mr. Smith noted that the proposed connection would not be

16 to encourage thru trallic (that is, an alternative to Sleater-Kinney) but rather to better facilitate

17 traffic between the two neighborhoods. f-or example, the road connection would provide greater

IS efficiency for mail and parcel delivery: public works employees: garbage/recycling collection;

19 meter reading, etc. It \Vould also provide greater options for emergency vehicles and would oflcr

20 an alternate route if Sleatcr-Kinney became blocked. At the same time Mr. Smith believes that

2 1 the connector would not encourage thru-usc as the route would be slowed by stop sign control.

22 Further. once thru traffic reached San Mar Villas it would encounter curving. s low and somcwha

23 narrow roads with only indirect egress to Slcater-Kinney. In other words, drivers might allcmpt

24 once to usc this as an alternate route but would soon discover that it is a poor choice.

25

Findings of Fact. Conclusions of La II' and Deci.HOII - 6

CITY OF OLYMPIA HEARING EXAMINER 299 N.W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

CHEHALIS, WASIIINGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

Following the City's discussion regarding the proposed road connection, Mr. Smith as

2 well as Ms. Ilornbein addressed the project's need to "scale down" the south end of tbe

3 town home bui ldings in order to transition the scale of this development to the smaller scale of

4 the adjoining San Mar Vista residences. This requirement to "scale down" arises from an earlier

5 Hearing Examiner Decision in 2008 involving an appeal of the 18th Avenue Estates land usc

6 approval, Case No. 08-0202 (Exhibit 25). That project which involved a ~imilar difference in

7 scale between new development and an existing, smaller residential neighborhood, required that

8 "any appearance of scale d iffe rences between project build ings and existing neighborhood

9 buildings must be 'minimized' ... by stepping the height ol"thc building mass, and dividing large

10 building facades into smaller segments." (l learing Examiner Decision at Page 31). In response II to th is need the City and Developer agree to mod i f"y the south end or the town homes (the end

12 neares t San Mar Villas) to create a series or steps down in the buildings' height ancl appearance,

13 giving the ends of the buildings a one/two story appearance similar to that found in San Mar

14 Vi llas.

15 The City's presentation was completed by brief testimony from Steve Spcrr from the City

16 Engineer's Oflice. Mr. Spcrr testified that the project, if approved, will allow the project's water

17 mains to be connected to the San Mar Vi lla water mnins, thereby better regu lating water pressure

18 and delivery throughout the area. Similarly. the project's sewer mains will be stubbed at the edge

19 of San Mar Villas. This will provide an opportunity fo r at least the northern portion of San Mar

20 Villas to connect to City sewer.

21 At the completion or the City's presentation the Appl icant presented testimony in support

22 of the project. The project's architect, Ron Thomas, provided a general overview. Mr. Thomas

23 explained that the project has been designed to leave as may mature trees on the !-lite as possibk

24 incl uding buffers a long S lcater-Kinney nncl thc boundary wi th San Mar Vi llas. These efforts to

25

Findings of Fact. Conclusions ofLall' and Decision - 7

CITY OF O L YMPIA HEARING EXAMI NER 299 N.W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

CH EHALIS, W ASHINGTON 98532 Phon e: 360-748-3386/Fax : 7~8-9533

preserve trees will require some deviations from road standards. Mr. Thomas further explained

2 that the project hopes to retain many of the existing ponds on the property as well as the

3 substantial wetlands, and provides for construction of an outlook for wetlands viewing which

4 will be open to the public.

5 Mr. Thomas explained that the City's design regulations mandated a certain percentage o

6 townhomes and that these needed to be located on the south side of the project. The town homes'

7 height satisfies the s ite 's 35-foot limitation- the same limitation imposed in San Mar Vil las. Mr.

8 Thomas explained that the townJ1omes have been designed to mimic the look of homes within

9 San Mar Villas and have recently been redesigned so that the south end of each townhome has

I 0 been scaled down to transition to the smaller scale of San Mar Villas. Further attempts to scale

II the development to its adjoining neighborhood include reduction of the community building to

12 one-story and location of much of the parking below the town homes. Mr. Thomas also noted

13 that setbacks have been varied in their depth and exceed minimum requirements in order to

14 create an adequate landscape buffer, and the townhomes have been designed with very few

15 windows on their south ends so that the residents of San Mar Villas cannot see the townhomes or

16 be seen from them.

17 Russ Jarvis, the project engineer, next spoke on behalf of the Applicant. He explai ned

18 again how the proposed roads deviate from standards in order to save as many trees on site as

19 possible. Mr. Jarvis testified that the project has been designed to maintain the stabi I i ty of the

20 adjoining wetlands and to protect those wetlands by 120 foot buffers from all development. In

21 addition, the wetlands will be cleaned of garbage and historic homeless encampments wi II be

22 removed and shrubbery planted to discourage their return. Trai Is wi II be constructed to provide

23 access to the wetlands, to the wetlands overlook and to the Chehalis Western Trail beyond. The

24 Applicant is excited to work with the North Thurston High School to allow its students to

25

Findings ofFacl. Conclusions of Law and Decision - 8


CHEHALIS, WASHINGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386!Fax: 748-9533

undertake wetlands studies as well as providing opportunities to work with the elderly residents

2 of the senior citizens apartments.

3 Both Mr. Thomas and Mr. Jarvis spoke in opposition to the proposed road connection to

4 San Mar Drive. Both felt that any benefit would be minor and would be outweighed by its

5 burdens, and that none of the residents of San Mar Villas, nor the public in general, support the

6 connection.

7 The Applicant's presentation was concluded by brief testimony from its attorney, Jay

8 Goldstein. Mr. Goldstein cha llenged the City's claimed benefits rrom the connection noting that

9 the amount of time saved by using the connection was miniscule while the burdens upon the

10 neighborhood were significant, especially increased pedestrian danger, and suggested that the

II requirement raised an issue of substantive due process. Mr. Goldstein acknowledged that it

12 would be appropriate to establish a connection between the two neighborhoods for

13 pedestrian/bicycle access but asked that the road connection be denied.

14 Following the Applicant's presentation the hearing was opened to public testimony.

15 Ronald Toliver, who resides in San Mar Villas, spoke in opposition. Mr. Toliver views his

16 neighborhood ns "residential" but believes that the project is "commercial" in its scale and scope. 17 Mr. Toliver does not believe that its commercial scale should be allowed. I le fears that it will

18 exacerbate tmnic backups on Slcatcr-Kinncy. lie is particularly concerned with the proposed

19 street connection as San Mar's streets are already too narrow and the connection wil l pose

20 significant safety risks.

2 1 Tony Jackson, a resident of San Mar Villas, testifi ed in opposition to the tral1ic impacts

22 ofthe project Except for these concerns Mr. Jackson was not opposed to the project. 23 Ron Eisman~ who resides in San Mar Villas, spoke in opposition to the project. l-Ie is 2-l concerned about the height of the adjoining townhomes but is particularly concerned about the 25

Findings oj Fact, Conclusions vf Law and Dec:i.~ion - 9

CITY OF OLYMPIA H EARI NG EXAMINER 299 N.W. CENTEH ST./ P.O. BOX 939

CHEHALIS, WASH I NGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

proposed roadway connection. Mr. Eisman feels that the additional traffic wil l pose a significant

2 risk, especially to children, and that traffic from the project will use the connection to circumvent

3 backups on S leater-Kinney.

4 Dr. Brenda Hood, who resides in San Mar Villas, spoke in opposition to the project. Dr.

5 llood first wished to voice her frustrations with City Staff and its responses to her inquiries. Dr.

6 Hood felt that she and others were thwarted in obta ining information from the City. Dr. Hood

7 felt that the Design Review Board had favored a continuous fence along the common boundary

8 running al l the way into the wetlands. In other words, Dr. Hood felt that the DRB approved

9 "walling ofr' the project from San Mar Vil las. Dr. Hood supported the idea of preventing any

I 0 access, whether vehicular or pedestrian. from the project to San Mar Villas. She believed that

II this access would increase the problem with vandalism currently caused by juveniles coming

12 riom the apartment complexes west of the Chehalis Western Trail. She believed that the

13 connection between the two neighborhoods, coupled with the proposed trails through the

14 wellands, will only encourage juveniles to hang out in wetland areas.

15 Dr. llood raised a number or other concerns regarding the road connection. She noted

16 that San Mar Villas lacks streetlights and sidewalks, and pedestrians and cyclists are required to

17 navigate around parked cars by walking in the middle ofthe road , often in pitch black conditions.

18 The introduction of additional traffic from the project will greatly worsen this problem. Dr.

19 Hood added that the proposed connection would invite the project's residents as well as its

20 visitors to look for parking within San Mar Villas, further worsening the existing pedestrian

21 di lemma. Finall y, Dr. Hood noted that it is presently not possible for school buses to turn left

22 onto the San Mar roads if there is a vehicle at the intersections, and so any additional vehicles

23 waiting at these intersections will only worsen this problem.

24

25

Findings ojFacr. Conclusions qj'Law and Decision- 10

C ITY OF OLYMPIA HEARING EXAM INER 299 N.W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

CHEHALIS, WASHINGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

David Gibler, who resides in San Mar Villas, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr.

2 Gibler supported the statements made by other neighbors and added that the proposed trail

3 system in or near the wetlands wi II be underwater much of the year.

4 Lynette Lindelof, who resides in San Mar Villas, spoke in opposition to the project. Ms.

5 Lindelofhas two children attending Chinook Middle School and testified to the current problems

6 with children going from the west side of Sleater-Kinney across the road to get to school. Ms.

7 Lindclof is concerned that these problems wi ll only worsen with additional development.

8 Stephanie Brodin, who resides in San Mar Villas, testified in opposition. She opposes the

9 project because of its scale; because of the character of the proposed development; and because

10 of its lack of compatibility with the adjoin ing San Mar neighborhood. She notes that the new

I I development will have 230 units in the same amount of area as San Mar Villas which contains

12 only 77 units.

13 Charlene T lunt, who resides in San Mar Villas, testified in oppositio n. Ms. Hunt noted

14 thatthe speed limit along Sleater-Kinney is restricted because of the school zone. She believes

15 that if the road connection is allowcJ it will encourage drivers to circumvent the school zone

16 speed limits. She shared in the concern that San Mar Villas had no sidewalks and that its

17 pedestrians and cyclists must interact w ith cars. This problem will only worsen with the

18 proposed connection.

19 The owner of the property, Nina Sueno, and three of her children, Carolyn Sueno Lee,

20 Michael Sueno and Paul Sueno, a ll testified in support of the project. Collectively the members

21 of the Sueno Family explained that the development is motivated by their desire to leave a good

22 legacy. They want a development that wi ll retain the site's natural beauty and as much of its

23 serenity as possible. Their goals are to develop the site responsibly, enhance the overall area and

24 be a credit to the local community. The project has been designed to preserve as many trees as 25

Findings ojFacl, Conclusions ofLa~t~ and Decision- II

CITY OF OLYMPIA HEARING EXAMINER 299 N. W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939


possible, protect the wetlands and develop the remaining portion of the site in an

1 environmentally responsible way. The project is targeted to "active and independent" seniors. 3 that is, individuals 55 and older who will enjoy the walking trails, outdoor fitness area, pea 4 patches, swimming pool, and access to the Chehalis Western Trail. The family is also excited to

5 develop a working relationship with the North Thurston School system and allow the site to be

6 used for school projects. 7 Sam Hunt, who resides in San Mar Villas, next spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. 8 llunl noted that the site's wetlands arc, in 1:1ct a lake for len months of the year. lie is concerned

9 that Lhe site's improvements will only add impervious surfltcc and rurther threaten the quality of

10 the wetlands. Mr. llunt went on to explain the large scale modifications about to be made to

II North Thurston Iligh School as well as the construction or a new adjoining middle school, and 12 how these changes will impact traffic along Sleater-Kinncy. Mr. llunt is worried about growing

13 traffic problems and is particularly concerned about a road connection with San Mar Vi llas.

14 Doug Brodin. who resides in San Mar Villas, spoke in opposition. Mr. Brodin is

15 concerned that the project will interfere with the sense or community currently enjoyed in the 16 neighborhood. Lie notes that the project lacks support from its neighbors. He is also concerned 17 over the "lack of communication" by City Staff.

18 /\tthc conclusion of public testimony City Staff provided a brief response to Brenda

19 llood's testimony regarding the position of the DRI3 and its discussion as to whether boundary

20 fencing could be extended as Jar as the wetlands. During those hearings Staff explained that

21 such fencing is prohibited by environmental regulations as it would impair the movement of

22 wildlife. Staff reminded the DRB that critical areas are not within its authority and, thus. the

23 ORB's recommendutions did not include a recommendation to extend the fencing.

24

25

Findings ofFacl, Conclusions of Law and Decision - 12

CITY OF OLYMPIA HEARING EXAM INER 299 N.W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

CH EIIALIS, WASHINGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 7.t8-9533

At the conclusions of all testimony City Staff requested that the hearing be kept open to

2 allow the City Attorney's Office to respond to the comments of the Applicant's attorney, Mr.

3 Goldstein, regarding substantive due process. Pursuant to the City's request the hearing was kept

4 open until Friday, May 29,2015 for briefing by the parties. Within this timeframe the City

5 provided briefing on the substantive due process issue and the Applicant responded.

6 ANALYSIS

7 A great many residents of San Mar Villas have conu11ented on the project, and those who

8 have commented arc universal in their opposition. They have justifiable concerns about the

9 intensity of its land use, its scale, its traffic and its general impact upon their adjoining

10 neighborhood. But much of this hostility is directed not so much at the specific project but at the

II City's 1995 decision to zone this property RM-18. The neighbors would like the public hearing

12 to be a referendum on that earlier decision, but that is an issue well outside the jurisdiction of the

13 Hearing Examiner.

14 The opponents to the project do not contest the iind i ng that the proposed usc is a

15 "permitted" use within the RM-18 zone. As a permitted usc the project is reviewed in a narrower

16 way than review of a conditional use, where neighborhood impacts are given greater weight.

17 This review is focused upon whether the project is in compliance with the Development

18 Regulations, Critical Areas Regulations and other regulations that are applicable to the RM-18

19 zone. The Hearing Examiner is not allowed to consider whether there is pub I ic support for the

20 project nor, again, the broader review applied to a conditional use.

2 1 Pursuant to OMC 18.04.020(8)(8) the purpose or the RM zone is "to accommodate

22 predominately multifamily housing, at an average maximum density of eighteen units per acre,

23 along or near (e.g. one-four mi le) arterial or major coJlective streets where such development can

24 be arranged and designed to be compatible with adjoining uses; to provide for development with 25

Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law and Decision - 13

---------

CITY OF OLYMPIA HEARING EXAM INER 299 N.W . CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

CH EHALIS, WASH INGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

a density and configuration that facilitates effective and efficient mass transit service; and to

2 enable provisions of affordable housing." Opponents argue that this project is not "compatible" 3 with the adjoining San Mar Villas. The problem with this argument. however, is that the 4 project's compatibility is not measured by generalized standards, but rather by the stricter 5 standard ofthe project's compliance with the Development Regulations in Chapter 18.04 ofthe 6 Olympia Municipal Code and other related chapters (Chapter 18.32; 18.38; etc.). City StafT has

7 examined the project and has found it to be compliant with all of the applicable development 8 regulations. Opponents have not challenged these findings- they simply feel that the project is a 9 bad idea. ;\t the risk or repetition. it is not the !!caring l ~:

however, that the criteria listed in T3.20(l) of the former Comprehensive Plan remain usefu l

2 guide I incs.

3 As noted earlier in the Background section, the City argues that the street connection will

4 encourage social interaction, provide easier travel for mail and parcel delivery and similar

5 neighborhood-to-neighborhood services. and wi ll provide an alternate to Slcater-Kinncy if

6 necessary. These assertions. while true, fa il to recognize that the amount or actual benefit is

7 quite small. Opponents to the connection argue that San Mar Vi llas' roads are narrow and have

8 no sidewalks, [(lrcing pedestrians and bicyclists to travel in the main roadway whenever there arc

9 parked cars. This problem is greatly worsened by the lack of street lights and the serpentine

10 nature of the roads which reduces sight distance. Stated somewhat differently, a car traveling

ll from Bayan Trai ls to San Mar Vi llas will suddenly enter onto dark, narrow, curving streets

12 where pedestrians and bicyclists must interact with traffi c. ln addition, the connect ion may

13 encourage unwanted usc of internal streets in an attempt to circumvent school zone speed limits

14 and traffic queuing on Slcater-Kinney. The connection might also encourage visitors and

15 residents of Bayan Trails to turn to San Mar Villas for parking, further worsening the dilemma

16 for pedestrians and bicyclists. The opponents' concerns regarding the connection arc legitimate

17 and they outweigh the bcneJits of the connection. Accordingly, I am removing the requirement

18 for a street connection.

19 This decision renders moot the question of whether the requested street connection was a

20 violation of substantive due process. Nonetheless, I conclude U1at the connection, if it had been

21 imposed. would not have been a violation of substantive due process righls.

22 EDDS 2.040(B)(3)(h) requires that iC the ! I caring Examiner decides to not impose the

23 street connection that a neighborhood connector trail must be constructed in its place. I would

24 require th is neighborhood connector trai l even if it was not made mandatory. The trail will allow

25


CITY OF OLYMPIA IIEARING EXAM INER 299 N.W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

CH EHA L IS, WASHINGTON 98532 Ph one: 360-748-3386/Fax: 7-&8-9533

for social interaction, encourage outdoor activity and make the wetlands outlook and other public

2 amenities within Bayan Trails available to residents of San Mar Villas.

3 Accordingly, I make the following:

4 FINDINGS Of' FACT

5 I. The Applicant. Golden /\ion DcveJopmenl. LLC, requests Jand usc approval for

6 construction of four senior apartment bui !ding containing 167 units and ten townhome style

7 apartment buildings containing 70 units. together with a 5,000 squnrc foot community building

8 and a 4.000 square foot pool building. Associated improvements include public streets. parking,

9 solid waste facilities, landscaping and utilities. A 120-l'oot wetland bufTer is proposed with

10 buffer averaging to offset the impacts of roads and trails within the outer portion of the buffer.

II Construction is proposed over six phases over a multi-year period.

12 2. The Findings of Fact contained in the foregoing l3ackground and Analysis

13 sections are incorporated herein by reference and adopted by the I h.:aring Examiner as his own

14 Findings of Fact.

15 3. The project is located at 607 and 709 Slcntcr-Kinncy Road N.E .. Olympia. 16 Washington, 98506. The project site encompasses two tax parcels: 11817210 I 00 and 17 11817210200.

18 4. The proposed site is designated as RM-18 in the Comprehensive Plan and is

19 zoned RM-18.

20 5. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy /\ct. the City, as lead agency, issued a

21 Mitigated Determination ofNon-Signi ficancc (MDNS) on April28, 2015. No appeals have been 22 filed.

24

25

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of/.au ancl Decision - 16

CITY Of OLYMPI A H EARING EXAM INER 299 N.W. CENTER ST./ J>.O. BOX 939

CJIEIIALIS, WASHINGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

6. Notification of the public hearing was mailed to the parties of record, property

2 owners within 300 feet and recognized neighborhood associations, posted on the s ite and

3 published in The Olympian in conformance with Olympia Municipal Code 18.78.020.

4 7. The Design Review Board (DRB) convened on January 22,2015, and

5 recommended approval of the concept design review subject to certain conditions contained in

6 the Staff Report.

7 8. The Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) convened on April 22,2015, and

8 recommended project approval subject to conditions contained in the Staff Report. 9 9. On May 5, 2015, the City Council approved a Development Agreement (Exhibit

I 0 17) to ensure coordinated phasing of the development.

II ] 0. The Staff Report. at page 3, contains Findings related to the existing site 12 conditions and surrounding development. The l tearing Examiner has reviewed those Findings

13 and adopts them as his own Findings of Fact.

14 11. The Staff Report, at pages 4 and 5, contains a detailed description or the proposed

15 improvements. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his own

16 Findings ofFacl.

17 12. The City of Lacey has provided written comment on traffic impacts on Sleater-

18 Kinney Road and the need to mitigate traffic impacts on the Lacey transportation network. The

19 City's requested mitigation measures have been included in the MDNS.

20 13. The North Thurston Public School District has commented on school impacts and

21 the need to mitigate these impacts through mitigation fees. The Staff recommends that the

22 requested mitigation fees be imposed as additional conditions to the SEPA MDNS, and as a

23 condition ofpermit approval.

24

25

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision- 17



14. The StaffReport, at page 7, contains Findings related to the project's compliance 2 with the purpose of the RM-18 zone, OMC 18.04.020.8.8. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed

3 those Findings and adopts them as his own Findings of Fact.

4 15. The Staff Report, at page 7, contains Findings establishing that the proposed usc

5 is a "permitted use" within the RM- 18 district. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed those

6 Findings and adopts then'l as his own Findings of ract.

7 16. The Staff Report, at page 7, contains Findings related to the project's compliance 8 with OMC 18.04.060.N.l and the need for a mix of dwelling types. The Hearing Examiner has

9 reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his own Findings ofFact.

10 17. The Staff Report, at page 8, contains Findings related to the project's compliance II with OMC 18.04.060.N.2 and the need for transitional housing types. The Hearing Examiner

12 has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his own Findings of Fact.

13 18. The Staff Report, at pages 8 and 9, contains a listing of residential development

14 standards and the project's compliance with these standards. The Staff finds that the proposal 15 complies with the RM-18 development standards as set forth in OMC 18.04.080. Table 4.04.

16 The I Tearing Examiner has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his own Findings of

17 Fact.

18 19. The Stall Report, at page 9, conta ins a list of required lot size requirements and

19 the Staffs findings that the project complies with the requirements of OMC 18.04.080(D)( l)-20 Transitional Lots. The I tearing Examiner has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his

2 1 own Findings of Fact.

22 20. The Staff' Report, at pages 9 and I 0, contains Findings related to required setbacks

23 pursuant to OMC 18.04.080(0)(1) and the project's compliance with these requirements. The 24 Hearing Examiner has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his own Findings of Fact.

25


CITY OF OLYMPIA I-IEARING EXAMINER 299 N.W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

CH EHALIS, WASI-IJNGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

21. ~n1c Staff Report, at page I 0, contains Findings related to the wetlands found on-

2 site and that the site is therefore subject to the provisions of OMC 18.32. The Hearing Examiner

3 has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as hi s own Findings of Fact.

4 22. The Staff Report, at pages 10 and II. contains Findings related to the project's

5 compliance with the general provisions of the Critical Areas Regulations, OMC 18.32.1 OO(F).

6 These Findings note that a Wetland Report was prepared (Exhibit 8), in compliance with OMC

7 18.32. 115(B). The I !caring Examiner has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as hi s own

8 Findings of Fact.

9 23. The Staff Report, at page II , contains Findings related Lo the project's compliance

I 0 with required mitigation pursuant to the Critical Areas Regulations, OMC 18.32.1 OO(G) and (H).

II The Staff finds that the Applicant's Wetland Report provides for adequate mitigation; that the

12 SEPA MONS also provides for mitigation fo r protection of the wetl ands; and that the project is

13 appropriate for wetland buffer averaging subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff Report.

14 The Hearing Examiner has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his own Findings of

15 Fact.

16 24. The Staff Report, at pages 12 and 13, conta ins Findings related to the Appl icant's

17 Wetland Report. The Staff takes exception to the Wetland Report's findings that the reduced

18 buffer from the street connection to the San Mar neighborhood to the south "would result in a

19 significant impact to the wetland buffer in the southwestern portion of the project site." The

20 Staff finds that the proposed road connection would not result in a significant impact to the

2 1 wetland buffe r. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed the Staffs proposed Findings and adopts

22 them as his own Findings of Fact recognizing, however, that the street connection to the San Mar

23 neighborhood will not be imposed and, therefore, the street connection wi ll not result in a

24 significant impact to the wetland buffer.

25

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Lall' and Decision- 19


CHEHALIS, WASH INGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

25. The Staff Report, at page 13, contains Findings with the project's compliance with

2 the general provisions of OMC 18.32.135(8) and the need to minimize unavoidable impacts to

3 Critical Areas. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed those F indings and adopts them as his own

4 Findings of Fact.

5 26. T he Staff Report, at page 13, finds that Staff is unable to determine whether

6 additional mitigation measures may be required until the Applicant updates its Wetland Report

7 and its buffer averaging calculations based upon a street connection to San Mar Drive. As the

8 Hearing Examiner is not requiring the street connection to San Mar Drive the requested updated

9 Wetland Report and buffer averaging calculations are unnecessary unless the neighborhood

I 0 connector trai l (imposed in lieu of the street connection) is determined to encroach upon the

I I wetland buffer.

12 27. The Staff Report, at page 14, contains Findings related to compliance with OMC

13 18.32. I 50. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his own


15 28. The Staff Report, at page 14, contains Findings related to the required wetland

16 buffer, and that this project requires a 120-foot buffer per OMC 18.32.535. The Hearing

17 Examiner has rev iewed those Findings and adopts them as his own Findings of Fact.

18 29. The Staff Report, at pages 14 ru1d t 5, contains Findings related to wetland buffer

19 reduction based upon the findings of a Wetland Mitigation Report (Exhibit 8), and the finding

20 that the report demonstrates that the wetland buffer's functions and value would be protected if

2 1 the mitigation measures described in the report are implemented. The Hearing Examiner has

22 reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his own Findings ofFact.

23 30. The Staff Report, at page 15, contains Findings as to the number of motor vehicle

24 parking spaces. These Findings establish that the project's 209 surface parking stalls and 90 25

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Lcrw and Decision- 20

C ITY OF OLYMPIA HEARING EXAM INER 299 N.W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939


parking spaces in the townhouse style units, or a total of 299 parking stalls, will satisfy the

2 parking requirements establ ished pursuant to OMC 18.38.060(L). The Hearing Examiner has

3 reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his own Findings of Fact.

4 31. The Staff Report, at pages 15 and 16, conta ins Findings related to the project's 5 compliance with long term and short term bicycle spaces. Sta ff finds that the project provides 36 6 long term bicycle spaces in each of the four senior center apartment complexes, and one long

7 term space in each garage of the 70 townhouse style units, for a total of214 long term bicycle

8 spaces. satis fying the project's need for al leasl 207 long term bicycle spaces. Staff also finds 9 that the project will provide five short term bicycle spaces at each entrance of the four senior

I 0 housing apartments and one short tenn bicycle space at each entrance of the 70 townhouse style

II units, for a total of90 short term bicycle spaces, satisfying the project's requirement for 21 short 12 term bicycle spaces. The I !caring Examiner has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his

13 own findings of Fact.

14 32. The Staff Report, at page 16, contains Findings related to the project's compliance 15 with OMC I 8.38.200 and the requirement to locate surface parking lots behind buildings. The

16 Staff finds that U1e proposed parking will enable interior courtyards and encourage communi ty

17 gathering places but that additional information is needed to demonstrate compliance with

18 deviation standards from other parking requirements. The I learing Examiner has reviewed those

19 Findings and adopts them as his own Findings of fact.

20 ..,.., .) .) . The Staff Report, at pages 16 and 17, contains Findings related to des ign review .

21 As noted in the Staffs recommended Findings, the south elevations of the town homes have

22 recently been redesigned as identified on Exhibit 7 to address the requirement that the ends of

23 these buildings are reduced in size and scale to provide a better transition to the adjoining single-24

25

Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Low and Decision - 21



family residential neighborhood. With this additional information the Hearing Examiner adopts

2 the Staffs proposed Findings of Fact as his own Findings of Fact.

3 34. The Staff Report, at page 17, contains a discussion of the project's compliance 4 with the Engineering Design & Development Standards (EDDS), and that preliminary plans have

5 been reviewed and conceptually approved by engineering staff for all improvements except for

6 transpo1tation, stormwater and an offsite sewer line. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed these

7 proposed Findings and adopts them as his own Findings of Fact. The Hearing Examiner does

8 not adopt, however, the Staffs proposed Findings relating to the need for a local access street

9 connection south to San Mar Drive as noted earlier in the Analysis section.

10 35. The Staff Report, at page 17, contains f-indings related to the project's compliance II with transportation requirements including the Applicant's request for deviations from the street

12 standards. The Hearing Examiner has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his own


14 36. The Staff Report, at pages 17 and 18, contains Findings related to the project's 15 compliance with stormwater requirements and finds that, as conditioned, engineering

16 improvements will comply with City standards but that the Applicant must still complete a final

17 design, provide for monitoring of the stormwater system and prepare a contingency plan. The

18 Hearing Examiner has reviewed those Findings and adopts them as his own Findings of Fact.

19 37. The Staff recommends approval of the land use subject to forty-two conditions set 20 forth in the Staff Report as modified by suggested language changes identified in Exhibit 28.

21 Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner makes the fo llowing:

22 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

23

24

25

1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 2. The requirements of SEPA have been met.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision - 22


C HEHALIS, WASH INGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

3. Any Conclusions of Law contained in the foregoing Background section or and

2 Analysis section are incorporated herein by re ference and adopted by the Hearing Examiner as

3 his own Conc lusions of Law.

4 4. Any Finding herein which may be deemed a Conclusion is hereby adopted as

5 such.

6 5. The proposed use is a permitted use within the RM-1 8 zone. 7 6. The Hearing Examiner is granted authority to no t require a street connection 8

between the project and the adjoining San Mar Villas, EDDS 2.040.B.3.h, but if a street 9

connection is not imposed a neighborhood connector trail must be constructed to provide a paved 10

connection to the ex isting adjacent street. II

7. Good cause has been shown for not requiring a s treet connection between the 12

13 project and San Mar Vi llas to the south , but a neighborhood connecto r tra il will be required to

14 provide a paved connection to the existing San Mar Drive.

15 8. The project complies with the required mix or dwe lling types. OMC

16 18.04.060.N.I

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9. T he project complies with requirements for transitional housing types. OMC

18.04.060.N.2.

10. The project complies with the residential development standards set forth in OMC

18.04.080 Table 4.04.

II. The project complies with the requirements for lo t s ize and setbacks for

transitional lots. OMC 18.04.080(0)(1).

12. The project is subject to the provisions ofOMC 18.32, Critica l Areas Regulations.


C ITY OF OLYMPIA HEARING EXAMINER 299 N. W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

C HEHALIS, WASHINGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

25

13. The project, as conditioned, is in compliance with OMC 18.32.1 OO(E),

18.32.1 OO(F), 18.32.115(B), 18.32.1 OO(G), 18.32.1 OO(l-1), and 18.32.135(A)(B) and (C) and is in

general compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance. Chapter I 8.32 OMC.

14. The project must comply with OMC 18.32.150 - Notice on Title.

15. The project, as conditioned, is in compliance with OMC 1 8.32.535.

16. The project, as conditioned, qualifies for wetland buffer reduction pursuant to

18.32.535(1-I).

17. The project satisfies the vehicular and biking parking requirements of OMC

18.38.100.

18. The project, as conditioned, satisfies the requirements of OMC 18.38.200.

19. The project, as conditioned, satisfies the requirement that any appearance of scale

differences between project bui ldings and existing neighbo rhood buildings must be minimized

by stepping the height of the building mass, and dividing large building sides into smaller

segments.

20. The project, as designed, has met the requirements for compliance with the

Engineering Design & Development Standards.

21. The project, as conditioned, complies with the requirements for transportation. If

requested deviations from street standards are not approved modifications to the site plan may be

required to comply w ith transportation requirements.

22. The project, as conditioned, complies w ith engineering requirements for

stormwater management subject to final design, monitoring of the stormwater system and a

contingency plan.



CHEHALIS, WASH lNGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

23. The land use should be approved subject to conditions.

2 Now, therefore, having entered his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the land us

3 application is approved subject to the following:

4 CONDITIONS

5 Changes from the Staff's recommended conditions are italicized

6 I. This approval is based on the development being substantially in conformance

7 with Exhibits l through 4, and as required to be amended by the Conditions of Approval.

8

2. This approval is subj ect to the Deve lopmen t Agreement entered into by the City 9

10 of Olympia and Golden AI on Development, adopted by resolution and approved on May 5,

II 2015.

12 3. Building ! Ieight: Buildings shal l not exceed 35 feet in height, measured per OM

13 18.04.080 Table 4.04.

14 4. Bicycle Parking- Location/Design: Final details regarding bicycle parking on

15 the building and engineering plans shall be submitted; final location and design shall be in

16 accordance with OMC 1 8.38.220.C.

17 5. Landscaping: A detailed landscape plan in conjunction with engineering plan

18 shall be provided in compliance with OMC 18.36, wellhead protection standards, and subject to

19 Detail Design Review conditions of approval.

20

21 6. Hours of Operation/Construction Noise: Pursuant to OMC 18.40.080.C.7,

22 construction activity is restricted to the hours between 7:00a.m. and 6:00p.m.

7. Impact Fees: Impact fees for transportation, parks, and schools shall be paid prior

24 to building permit issuance.

25

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law cmd Decision- 25

C ITY OF OLYMPIA HEARING EXAMI NER 299 N.W. CENTER ST./ P.O. BOX 939

CH EHALIS, WASHI NGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

24

25

8. SEPA: The development must comply with the Mitigated Determination ofNon-

Significant issued on April 28,2015, which includes:

a. The project shall pay traffic mitigation fees to Thurston County to mitigate

offsite impacts. These fees are collected due to the Tramportation Impact Analysis. The

mitigation collected will.fimd designated transportation improvement projects. The mitigation

fee shall be per the leflerjiom Kevin I lughes. Thurston County Public Works, Dated May 12,

2015, to Dave Smith, Oty of Olympia (A IIachment 1 2).

b. ((contamination is suspected, discovered. or occurs during the proposed

SEPA action, testing of the potentially contaminated media must be conducted. lfcontamination

of.~oil or groundwater is readily apparent, or is revealed by testing. Ecology must be not(/ied.

Contact the Environmental Report Tracking System ( 'oordinator in the Southwest Regional

Offlc:e (SWRO) a/ (360) -107-6300. For assistance and information about subsequenl cleanup

and to ident(fy the type o.ftesting that will be required, contact Thomas Middleton with SWRO.

Toxic Cleanup Program a! the phone number given above.

c. The on-site sewer system shall be connected to the existing 8-inch sewer

main that is located approximately 380' north of the subject property, in the Sleater-Kinney Road

right ofway.

d. The project shal l pay traffic mitigation fees to the City or Lacey to

mitigate ofrsitc impacts. These fees arc collected according to LMC 74.27 and resu lts of the

Transportation lmpact Analysis. The mitigation col lected will fund designated transportation

improvement projects.

Findings ofFact, Conclusions of Law and Decision - 26

CITY OF OLYMPIA HEARI NG EXAM INER 299 N.W. CENT ER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

CH EHALlS, WASH INGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

The mitigation fee will be determined at the date of payment for issuance of the building

2 permit, unless otherwise noted. The fee shall be increased on July I and each year thereafter in

3 an amount equal to the increase in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. The

4 estimate for the City of Lacey's traffic mitigation fees is attached to this threshold determination.

5 The Applicant wi ll receive credits toward City of Olympia transportation impact fees

6 based on trips generated, credits to be determined at the time of building permit issuance.

7 e. Historic Preservation/ Archeology - Although the site is not listed as

8

9 potential historic or cultural resources site, there is the possibility that archaeo logical material

10 could be on-site. Therefore, should historic or archaeological material be encountered during

l l ground disturbing activities or construction:

12 1. Construction shall be suspended immediately at that location;

13 II. The contractor shall immediately contact the City of Olympia at

14 (360) 753-8314 or Michelle Sadlier, Historic Preservation Officer at (360) 753-8031 ; 15 111. A qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained by the

16 Applicant to document and assess the discovery; 17

If the discovery involves potential Native American resources, the IV. 18

Appl icant shall also contact the Washington State Department of Archeology and 19

Historic Preservation (DAHP) and the affected tribe for additional consultation; and 20

v. In no case should additional excavation be undertaken until a 2 1

22 protocol has been agreed upon by the above mentioned parties.

23 9. Design Review: The following concept design review conditions of approval

24 shall be met prior to or at the time of building permit application. Said plans shall address the

25 Findings ofF act, Conclusions of Law and Decision- 27


CHEHALIS, WASHINGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax : 748-9533

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

fo llowing conditions of approval from Concept Design Review, to be approved by a

subcommittee of the Design Review Board prior to permit issuance (italics added for

clarification):

a. Context Plan:

1. Based on Staffs analysis of neighborhood scale and character

under OMC 18.170.110, approve the context plan for the north, west and eastern portions

of the site. ror the southern portion of the site, review recent changes to the design

(Exhibit 7) to confirm that the changes satisfy the need to improve neighborhood scale

and character between the townhome buildings and single-family homes in San Mar.

b. Preliminary Site and Landscape Design:

I. Provide greater separation between walkways and building for

greater privacy of the ground floor units. OMC 18.170.020

II. Increase the separation between the community and pool building

and multifamily buildings for increased light , privacy of the end unit, and sense of

comfort for residents. OMC I 8. 170. 020

111. Provide screening between parking areas and adjacent streets to

reduce the visual impact on pedestrians and neighboring properties. Screening shall

comply with landscape requirements in OMC 18.36, 18. 170.030, and 18.36

IV . Variation of the fence along the south property l.ine shall be

provided, with detai ls to be submitted at the time of Detail Design Review. Allow the

fence to be extended as far west as possible under the City's Critical Area Regulations,

OMC 18.32, 18. 170.50.


CITY OF OLYMPIA H EARING EXAMI NER 299 N.W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

v. Revise the landscape plan per design standards in OMC

18.170.060 and OMC 18.36 and submit at the time of Detail Design Review. In

addition to comments made in the January 8, 2015 preliminary land use rev iew, the

revised plan shall address the following:

1. Increase the width of planting beds a long the building

foundations for increased screening of blank wells (e.g., on the east and west

elevations of the senior apartments where the depth o r the bed is approximately

three feet).

2. Select plants to minimize head light glare into the ground

floor units of the senior apartments.

3. Identify how the area between the community and pool

buildings will be used, e.g. , indicate whether outdoor seating will be provided.

4. Clarify vegetation within the townhome auto courts;

indicate whether container plans/trellises are proposed.

5. Where evergreens are proposed, provide adequate

separation from building wall s.

c. Preliminary Building Design:

1. Move windows or adjust floor plans as needed to minimize

opportunities for residents from one unit to look directly into other units. OMC

18.170.130

II. rurther study the use of materials and colors to better define the

base, middle, and upper leve ls of the bui ldings. OMC I 8. I 70. 1-10




111. Provide variation of material/color schemes throughout the project. 2 OMC 18.170.140

3 IV. Modify the south elevati.ons of the townhome buildings to improve

4 neighborhood scale and character (see discussion above under Context Plan). OMC

s 18.170.110

6 10. If the application does not meet the minimum landscape standards, an application

7 for the alternative landscape standards shall be provided in a manner that meets the requirements

8 of OMC 18.36.

9

10 11. Prior to Phase 3, a lot consolidation to remove the property line between the

II northern lot and the southern lot shall be completed in accordance with OMC Title 17.

12 12. The development shall comply with the Bayan Trails Wetland and Soils Report

13 and Mitigation Proposal dated April2015, prepared by SCJA, including:

14 a. Existing trail systems in the wetland buffer shall be maintained and

15 improved to ensure safe access for users.

16 b. In the buffer areas, invasive vegetation shall be removed and replanted 17

with taller, denser native shrub and tree species. 18

c. Areas with temporary impacts from pipe and trench installation sha ll be 19

restored and replanted with native vegetation, and the construction area shall be surrounded by 20

21 silt fences and other appropriate erosion control devices until all surfaces are stabilized and

22 restored to a native plant community.

23 d. All planting restoration areas shall be monitored over a 5-year period

24 fo llowing completion of vegetation community planting to ensure that the native plant

25

Findings of Fact, Conclusions ofLaw and Decision - 30



community su rvives. Survival rates of 80% or development of 60% or more canopy coverage of

2 native plant communities at the end of 5 years, and less than 15% cover from the targeted non-

3 native species (Himalayan blackberry and English ivy) shall be required for the mitigation

4 planting to be cons idered successful.

5 e. A performance assurance device for all landscaping in the wetland and

6 wetland buffer, in compliance with OMC 18.36.200(8). shall be provided prior to any certificate

7 of occupancy.

8 f. Signs, in a manner and form to be approved by the City of Olympia, shall

9

10 be placed every 50 feet along the buffer boundary describing the area behind the sign as a natural

II area to remain in an undisturbed native vegetation condition.

12 g. The surface around the level spreader stormwater trenches in the wetland

13 buffer as well as the buried pipeline pathway shall be revcgetated with native species.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

h. All landscaping shall meet the requirements of OMC 18.36.200.

Water

13. The developer shall install water facilities in accordance with the provisions of

Chapter 6 of the Engineering Design & Development Standards. (EDDS), (2.050.8.) water. The

water system shall be designed to provide adequate domestic plus fire flow at the required

residual pressure.

14. During Phase 3, extend an 8 inch water main, from the intersection of Road B and

Road C, to the existing water main in the San Mar Dri vc right of way located south of the

southern property line of the site, complete 'vvith required easement if not within the public right

ofway. Road 8 and Road Care identified on Sheet RD-01 of Exhibit 3.

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Lm1 and Decision - 3/

CITY OF OLYMPI A HEARI NG EXAMI NER 299 N.W. CENTER ST. / P.O. BOX 939


Sewer 2 15. The developer shaH install sewer facilities in accordance with the provisions of 3

Chapter 7 of the Engineering Design & Development Standards, (EDDS), (2.050.A.) sewer. 4

16. Extend an 8 inch sewer main south from sanitary sewer man hole #6 shown on 5

Sheet 9 of the April 22, 20 15 civil plans to the sanitary sewer clean out at the property line north 6

7 of San Mar Drive, complete with required easement if not within public right of way.

8 Storm

9 17. This development shall comply with lhe Drainage Design and Erosion Control

10 Manual for Olympia October 2009 (DDECM). 11 18. The proposed Demolition & TESC plan is conceptually approved and further 12 details will be requi red with engineering permit application fo llowing Land Use Approval. 13

19. The stormwater design for th is development shall take measures to protect the 14

quality and function of the neighboring wetland. Wetland protection shall be confirmed through 15

hydrologic modeling and requirements found in the DDECM prior to construction of each phase. 16

20. 17

The stormwater design for the entire development must include a contingency

18 plan, to be reviewed and approved prior to construction of Phase I, for expanding the size of

19 infiltration faci lities should the post-construction infiltration rate be less than the design rate.

20 2 1. Starting with Phase 2 of the development, infiltration verification testing per the

2 1 DDECM must be performed on each constructed stormwatcr faci lity utilizing infiltration for

22 stormwater mitigation to ensure compliance with the DDECM.

23

24

25

22. The 2009 Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual for Olympia (DDECM)

does not provide guidance for the design and sizing ofbioretention facilities for stormwater


C IT Y OF OLY MPIA HEA RI NG EXAM INER 299 N. W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939

C HEHALIS, WASHI NGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

mitigation. All bioretention facilities proposed for this development shall be designed in

accordance with the most cmrent edition of the Washington State Department ofEcology's

Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.

23. Sufficient right of way shall be dedicated , and construction of a neighborhood

connector trail south to the San Mar Drive on the south property line, prior to Phase 3, to comply

with the EDDS 2.040.

24. A minimum of three elements ofthe site plan will require Deviation Requests as

per the Engineering Design & Development Standard, (EDDS). These must be reviewed and

approved as part of the Engineering Permit Application and Approval process for Phase I of the

project. These three elements related to (1) tree protection and the resultant meandering of

sidewalks inside and outside of the right-of-way (ROW), (2) use of bioretention cells outside of

the right of way for street storm water treatment, and (3) onsite street parking and lane width for

streets within the project limit.

25. If sidewalks are separated from the streetscape by more than I 0 feet with street

trees adjacent to or between the sidewalk and streetscape, a lighting analysis is required to

determine if additional lighting is required.

Solid Waste

26. The proposed apartments along the north half of the site, and townhomes along

the south side, shall require a compactor for garbage, and either a second compactor or loose-fill

drop box for recyclables and cardboard. Roll-off trucks need 70 feet of clear space in front of

the compactor/drop box (containers). If the containers are to be under cover, the roof shall be J 4




2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

feet high and the lifting bale within 2 feet of the threshold. Twenty-five feet of overhead

clearance is required for loading and unloading the box. The enclosure shaH meet the conditions

of Engineering Design & Development Standards (EDDS), including a minimum width of20 to

22 feet. Due to the location and orientation ofthe solid waste area in relation to the roadway,

front-loading trucks shall not serve solid waste containers, because they would be required to

back into traffic with significant blind spots.

27. During the construction of the multifamily buildings and townhomes, garbage and

recycle containers shall be located in areas with adequate access by collection vehicles in

accordance with the provisions of the EDDS. Containers and collection vehicles may consist of

drop box, front-load and side load during the construction phase.

Lighting

28. A street lighting plan shall be submitted and installed by the Applicant for all

street light installations facilities in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4 Transportation

of the Engineering Design & Development Standards (EDDS), transportation , ( 4F) Illumination.

The proposed street lighting represented on the civil plans is conceptually approved and further

details shall be required, including an illumination study of the existing street lights on Sleater-

Kinney Road to determine if the existing lighting is adequate for safe vehjcle and pedestrian

movements and provide solutions for any deficiencies found. An analysis for the entire project

shall be completed prior to construction of Phase 1.

Urban Forestry

29. The Applicant shall update the locations of all SAVE TREES at time of

engineering submittal.



CHEHALIS, WASH INGTON 98532 Phone: 360-748-3386/Fax: 748-9533

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30. Save Trees in questjon shall be site verified by Applicant's Urban forester prior to

installation of fencing for tree protection. Installation of Tree Protection Fencing shall be

inspected and approved by Applicant's Urban Forester and City Urban Forester with each phase

prior to demolition or any clearing and grading. If a utility is located within the Tree Protection

fencing (critical root zone), the Applicant's Urban Forester shall inspect and consult with the

City Urban Forester on a course of action to save and protect trees.

3 I. Tree Protection Fencing detail shall be added to the Grading Plan and the

Demolition Plan for each phase.

32. Tree Density Calculations shall be updated prior to clearing and grading of each

phase.

Fire

33. f-ire hydrants are required at 300 foot spacing. l lydrants must deliver 2500 GPM

fire flow.

34. Access to roadways shall be 20 feet minimum unobstructed width and meet

Olympia Engineering Design & Development Standards.

35. Requires addressable fire alarm system with communication by point.

36. Requires NFPA 13-R fire sprinkler systems minimum. NFPA 13 systems may be

required depending on construct ion type and building size.

37. Standpipes arc required in the four senior housing buildings.

38. Knox key boxes are required. Numbers and locations arc to be determined.


CITY OF OLYMPIA HEARING EXAMINER 299 N.W. CENTER ST./ P.O. BOX 939


Other 2

39. The landscape deviation requests related to parking lot islands and screening 3

requirements of OMC 18.36.080 B & C must be reviewed and approved as part of the 4

Engineering Permit Application and Approval process for Phase 1 of the project. The 5

6 application shall be revised and resubmitted to demonstrate compliance with the requirements,

7 including, but not limited to, how the proposed landscaping exceeds the minimum standards.

8 40. The property owner shall record a notice approved by the Director with the

9 Thurston County Auditor, regarding the wetland , per OMC 18.32.150. The notice shall provide

1 o documentation in the public record (i.e. the title) of the presence of a critical area and its buffer,

I I the application of OMC 18.32 to the property, and the limitations on uses and activities within or

12 affecting this area.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41. Additional information related to specific details of the replanting (size, location,

species) and the buffer averaging calculations for the area impacted by the street connection to

San Mar Drive shall be required , prior to issuance of any building permit or a clearing and

grading permit, for analysis of mitigation.

42. As an additional SEPA mitigation Condition, authorized per OMC 14.04. I 55, the

Applicant shall comply with the school mitigation requirements in the letter from Mike Laverty,

of the North Thurston Public Schools, to the City of Olympia, dated April 30, 2015 (Attachment

14.).

5 day of June, 2015. DATED this


Mark . Scheibmeir City of Olympia Hearing Examiner

CITY OF OLYMPIA BEARING EXAMINER 299 N.W. CENTER ST. I P.O. BOX 939


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

RECONSIDERATION/APPEAL

Trus is a final decision of the City. Any party may file a Motion for Reconsideration within 10 days of service of this decision in accordance with OMC 18.75.060. Appeals shall be made to Superior Court pursuant to provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW. The filing of a Motion for Reconsideration is not a prerequisite for seeking judicial review. lf a Motion for Reconsideration is filed , the time for filing an appeal shall not commence until disposition of the Motion.




Exhibit 18:

Exhibit 19:

Exhibit 20:

Exhibit 21:

Exhibit 22:

Exhibit 23:

Exhibit 24:

Exhibit 25:

Exhibit 26:

Exhibit 27:

Exhibit 28:

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Email from Lawrence Hanna to Ian Colby dated November 19,2014.

Petition presented by residents of San Mar Villas dated May 17, 2015.

Letter from Beverly Huether.

Letter from Barbara Huether elated May 19, 2015.

Letter from Doug and Stephanie Brodin dated May 19, 2015.

Petition signed by additional residents of San Mar Villas.

Letter from Jay Goldstein.

Copy of the Decision entered in In Re 18th Avenue Estates, Case No. 08-0202.

Excerpt from the City's Comprehensive Plan.

Copy of the Applicant's PowerPoint presentation.

Proposed language changes to the Staff's recommended Conditions of Approval.

Cover LetterBinder1Part 1 - HEX Final Decision ReducedPart 2 - HEX Final Decision Reduced

Blank Page