Probably the most interesting reading I've come across in the city council packets has been a discussion on antiquated plats and what to do about them. Basically, there are planned neighborhoods across Olympia that have never been developed.

Some of these neighborhoods were planned well before modern standards were in place, so there is a risk of some of these plats being developed with none of our modern standards enforced. We're not talking about plans that were laid out in the 1980s, this is more like the 1890s.

The city is going through the process now of finding these "antiquated plats" and scrubbing them from the books.

Pete Swenson from Thurston Regional Planning Council wrote a facinating memo on the topic. The entire piece is available here, but here's a bit:

...there was a huge flurry of platting in the period 1889-1891, the era when Washington became a state and Olympia won the vote to become its capital. Then came the “financial panic” (now called “recession”) of 1893, and Olympia actually lost population during the 1890s.

Back then, in the days before the automobile, average residents of cities and towns got around on foot or by streetcar, so they lived in compact development patterns. Lots 25-30 feet wide were common, a practical and very workable size for row houses. There are many plats in Olympia with lots this size.

The meaning of a platted lot was different then too. Today a lot is intended for one main structure, usually with front, rear, and side yard setbacks. Back then, platting was simply a means of conveying land. There were no setback requirements; people could build right up to the lot line, or across it if they owned more than one lot. This provided more flexibility for the sale of land to buyers with varying incomes. If people wanted a larger parcel for a larger house and yard, they typically bought several of the smaller lots and built across the lines. Most of the old Olympia plats with narrow lots are actually in ownership patterns of two to four adjacent lots.

Another difference: there was no public review or approval process for a plat. Property-owners were required only to have the land surveyed and to file the plat with the county auditor before they could sell lots. As a consequence, many of the nineteenth century plats in Olympia have streets and small lots laid out in a grid pattern that works well in most places, but is unworkable for steep slopes or wetlands. Some plats were even laid out on tidelands, in the expectation that some day they would be filled and developed (as with the Port Peninsula).

In the mid-1930s, states throughout the country adopted new planning and subdivision statutes. Though the standards have changed, the process defined then for local government review and approval of plats is basically still in use today. The new process raised the issue of how to deal with the plats filed under the earlier statutes. Should such lots be grandfathered in, and accepted as still valid?

With many of Olympia’s older neighborhoods already developed under the old plats, Olympia has until now grandfathered-in any lot that was ever legally created. In comparison, Thurston County has many nineteenth century plats that were never developed (e.g., the proposed towns of Puget and Gate).

Here's a staff report that basically says the city is going to think about this some more and decide what their options are.

This didn't really get exciting for me until I saw the maps that Pete prepared for the council, and there are some pretty big examples out there of antiquated plats. So, I'm going to peruse the maps and find some nice ones to show you in the next few days.