Title
Consider Outcomes of the May 15, 2014 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting and Next Steps for Presentation to City Council on June 10, 2014
Recommended Action
City Manager Recommendation:
Move to provide City Council with a recommendation on next steps in the Community Renewal Area (CRA) process.
Report
Issue:
On May 15, 2014 the Community and Economic Revitalization Committee (CERC) met with the Citizens Advisory Committee to consider two redevelopment scenarios for the Isthmus area and the baseline condition. The CAC provided feedback about these development scenarios and the cost estimates associated with these scenarios. The redevelopment scenarios and the cost estimates are included in Attachment 1. What should the next steps in the Isthmus planning process be? Should the City proceed with the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Grant? What should the next steps in the CRA process be?
Staff Contact:
Keith Stahley, Director Community Planning and Development Director 360.753.8227
Presenter(s):
Keith Stahley, Director Community Planning and Development
Paul Simmons, Director Parks, Arts and Recreation Department
Lorelei Juntunen via telephone.
Background and Analysis:
At the May 15, 2014 CAC meeting the consultant team posed a number of questions to the CERC and the CAC.
• Do these designs reflect community priorities?
• What do you like?
• What do you not like?
Following a discussion of the costs and feasibility the consultant team asked:
• How does this change your thinking?
• What about mix of uses?
• What about implementation?
The evening concluded with a discussion about:
• Are we ready for this?
• What are the obstacles?
• What do you think we call this area?
Generally the CAC felt that a plan with several smaller parks strategically placed around the Isthmus and interspersed with a variety of residential, commercial and civic uses was preferred to one large central park. The CAC also liked the idea of transforming Sylvester Street into a “festival street - a street that can be periodically closed to traffic” and they all envisioned a mix of open space comprising approximately 30% of the area and mixed use redevelopment. There was discussion that the 35 foot height limit might be unnecessarily restrictive and that a 42 foot height limit would allow for more interesting architecture while having limited impacts on views. They felt that this issue should be studied in greater detail with visualizations prepared that help to illustrate the impacts from all key vantage points. They also recognized that parking is one of the ways that the City can support redevelopment on the Isthmus and that a comprehensive parking plan for the area should be developed. They do not want parking to be the visually dominating design element for the Isthmus. See the May 15, 2014 CERC/CAC minutes (File 14-0523) for more detail about the CAC’s discussions.
The CAC agreed that more refinement was necessary in the design scenarios and the cost estimates. They specifically requested that the consultant team look at both the costs and the revenues generated by redevelopment as well as the less tangible impacts that redevelopment might have. They asked that this work be done before the open house that is included in scope of work is held. Another meeting of the CAC will need to be held to review these materials.
The 2014 scope of work with ECONorthwest (Attachment 2) includes one additional public participation opportunity in the form of an open house as part of the CRA planning process. The scope targets this meeting for July. If the CERC thinks that additional public involvement will be necessary to facilitate community understanding of the CRA Plan a revised scope, schedule and budget will need to be developed.
The City of Olympia was awarded an RCO Grant in 2013 for $200,000 to assist in the acquisition of the Isthmus park property. The City Manager is in the process of preparing to sign and record a restrictive covenant required by the grant and would like feedback and direction on how to proceed. Recording the covenant may limit the City’s flexibility in pursuing redevelopment on the Isthmus. An assessment of the impacts of the RCO grant is being prepared by parks staff and will be available at the meeting. Redevelopment plans prepared thus far include approximately 30% or more of the area as park. While final plans will likely include a similar area of park, having the flexibility to redistribute this property to complement future redevelopment of the Isthmus may be worth not accepting the RCO Grant.
Options:
1. Discuss results of the May 15, 2014 CAC meeting and determine next steps for presentation to City Council on June 10, 2014 including:
a. What should the next steps in the Isthmus planning process be?
b. Should the City record the covenant for the RCO Grant?
c. What should the next steps in the CRA process be?
2. Discuss results of the May 15, 2014 CAC meeting and continue the discussion to a future CERC meeting and make no recommendations at this time.
Financial Impact:
Within project scope budget at this time. Changes to the scope may require additional project budget in the future.