About 20 west side residents came and several spoke, asking that the city settle the suit and rescind the land-use approval of the convenience store at 1919 Harrison Ave. Among their concerns is that it would generate too much traffic at a failing intersection, poses a safety concern and does not agree with the site’s zoning and the city’s comprehensive plan.
They also argue that a required traffic analysis wasn’t done and that the proposal violates city street standards. And they raise numerous other issues in dozens of court exhibits.
“I think that you have an obligation to do something about this,” Kathleen Byrd, one of the residents, said at the meeting.
Buxbaum did not address the residents directly; the two-page letter he distributed stated that the site in question is zoned for the type of use that was requested.
“The city cannot discriminate by treating one particular type of business or franchise differently from another,” he wrote.
Further, “the council can’t unilaterally ignore city code and come to agreement with one interested party without risking suit by another,” he wrote. Thurston County Superior Court has sole authority to decide whether the case should be reconsidered, he wrote.
West side resident Dan Leahy disagrees, saying it is the City Council’s role to intervene.
“The question is, whose side are they on, really,” he said. “They have to dig in and fight. They have to get into a fight. I mean, the notion that the code wasn’t violated or the standard wasn’t violated is complete nonsense on its face.”
Developer Mike Jenkins, president of MAJ Development Corp. of Vancouver, Wash., said his project has followed all the applicable codes. He said he hopes to begin building the store in spring or early summer, after the court matter is resolved. His business is named in the suit.
“By right of the law, of the code, we have our right to put our development up there,” he said. “Ultimately, at the end of the day, we’ll have a 7-Eleven store there.”
The notion of a convenience store at the busy intersection opens old wounds for neighbors who have now fought multiple development proposals there. They say the area is zoned for high-density corridor, envisioned for a pedestrian-friendly mix of residential and commercial. A 7-Eleven would further the trend of strip development, they say.
At one point, neighbors gathered 1,200 signatures from people who oppose the project, Leahy said.
The latest battle dates to March 2011, when MAJ Development proposed a two-building complex including a 7-Eleven store. The proposal was for a 4,600-square-foot building and a 3,000-square-foot one, with 29 parking stalls.
In an interview, Jenkins said he didn’t want to say who would move into the other building, only that it involves national franchises.
City staffers approved the proposal June 28. Leahy appealed the decision to city hearing examiner Thomas Bjorgen.
Among his arguments were that the zoning calls for high-density, multistory development, not one-story convenience stores. He said a traffic study is required, but instead the city just used a 2010 study commissioned for an earlier proposal for a bank. He argued that street standards were improperly waived to accommodate the convenience store.
Bjorgen mostly sided with the city in his decision Oct. 17.
He wrote that zoning ordinances take precedence over comprehensive plans, so the application cannot be denied even if it does not comply with density standards. Among other things, he ordered that only 26 parking stalls be allowed.
Leahy petitioned for Bjorgen to reconsider, which he denied Nov. 10. On Nov. 29, Leahy appealed to Thurston County Superior Court, suing the city, MAJ and the property owner known as 1919 Harrison LLC.
A hearing is set for March 16, said Robert Shirley, Leahy’s attorney.
In his letter, Buxbaum acknowledged that residents are upset but says their frustration is due to confusion about the City Council’s role in the process. According to his letter:
• The city’s decision was quasi-judicial, meaning the council had “no authority or role it can play in the review or approval of the permit for development on Harrison and Division. The Council is not in the position of being able to take legislative action that would retroactively change the rules as they currently exist.”
• The city has no authority to hold a hearing on the process, and neighbors must take up disputes with the court.
• The Hearing Examiner’s Office was the only venue where objections could be heard.
Buxbaum noted that the council on Jan. 10 agreed to hold a meeting on the west side to deal with the issue – not to reconsider it but to discuss the council’s role in permitting decisions and explain the case’s status.
Leahy was not satisfied by that. He said the council didn’t notify neighbors they would discuss the case Jan. 10, and he didn’t want another meeting for the city to tell neighbors it can’t do anything.
“They act like they’re not even in charge,” he said. “They have to start acting like they’re in charge.”
Jenkins said he is the regional developer for 7-Eleven and has worked on 40 other sites, including two in Tumwater, and that there are more to come.
“We have expansion plans in Olympia, and I’m sure we’ll run into these guys again,” he said. “It’s not going to stop us. … We have full intentions of going into other sites there.”
Matt Batcheldor: 360-704-6869
mbatcheldor@theolympian.com
