Title
Amendments to the Olympia Municipal Code 18.05 Related to Master Planned Villages
Recommended Action
Information only. No action requested.
Report
Issue:
Discussion of potential amendments to the Olympia Municipal Code (OMC) title 18.05 specifically to “urban village” standards. These amendments would result in increased multifamily housing allowances in urban villages; removal of required commercial square footage per residential unit in village; setting a new range of minimum and maximum commercial square footage; increase in allowed number of stories for commercial structures from three to four stories; and removing the requirement of a daycare.
Staff Contact:
Jackson Ewing, Associate Planner, Community Planning and Development, 360.570.3776
Presenter(s):
Jackson Ewing, Associate Planner, Community Planning and Development
Nicole Floyd, Principal Planner, Community Planning and Development
Background and Analysis:
The City established specific zones and zoning code requirements for the development of “villages” within the City in 1995. Villages are intended to be mixed use districts that include both commercial and residential development. There are four categories of village types within the City ranging from smallest (least dense and least amount of commercial use) to largest (most dense and most commercial use). The categories from small to large are Neighborhood Center, Neighborhood Village, Urban Village, and Community Oriented Shopping Center. The proposed amendments are intended to affect the Urban Village zone only. There is only one Urban Village zone within the City, which is more commonly known as the Brigg’s Village.
The Briggs Village Master Plan was adopted in 2003. The Master Plan establishes the specific layout, design, and aesthetic for the village but the zoning code (OMC 18.05) establishes the development standards. Since the adoption of the Master Plan, significant development has occurred including almost all of the 800+ units of residential units envisioned. While residential development has occurred, the commercial (grocer, retail and office) uses have not been built-out as envisioned, leaving the village’s commercial core mostly vacant for 20+ years. In a desire to develop the commercial core, the applicant seeks to modify the zoning code requirements specifically related to the Urban Village zone. These amendments (if approved) would allow for subsequent amendment to the Briggs Village Master Plan. Application for both the Zoning Code and Master Plan Amendment submitted but they follow different regulatory pathways. The Planning Commission has authority over the Zoning Code Amendments, but not the Master Plan. The scope of amendment to the Urban Village Zone requirements will directly shape the scope of change permitted within the Master Plan. Before proceeding with the Master Plan Amendments, a recommendation from Planning Commission regarding the scope of code amendment warranted is needed.
Staff have reviewed the applicant’s request and are in support of many of the changes related to allowing for increased density and housing units. Market conditions and economic drivers were significantly different in 2003 when the Urban Village code language was initially adopted. The code language assumes commercial development is the most marketable and will occur first. This presumption is easiest identified when reviewing sizing, phasing and timing requirements; all of which intend to ensure residential development occurs in pace with the commercial development. For example, there is a maximum size limits for the grocer, but not a minimum size. In the 20+ years since the code’s adoption the economic landscape has changed significantly. Many of the applicant’s proposed changes aim to readjust accordingly. City Staff agree with this approach generally but encourage caution in placing too much focus on current economic conditions as was done in 2003. A broader view that considers the next 20 years, as is outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, is warranted.
Staff encourage the Planning Commission to carefully evaluate the proposed amendments against the Comprehensive Plan when developing their recommendation. Specific attention should be paid to the planned development and housing sections of the urban design chapters. Detailed staff analysis of the Comprehensive Plan is provided in attachment 3. Generally, the City Staffs found that the applicants proposed changes to OMC 18.05 are consistent, except for the issues related to:
Mixed Use Development: The Comprehensive Plan establishes a strong desire for the village’s commercial core to be walkable, mixed use, and to include considerable amounts of commercial development. The applicant’s proposal does not appear to retain the Comprehensive Plan’s intent related to mixed-use buildings. The applicant has submitted market analysis that shows increased units in the village will likely spur commercial and retail development in years to come. Further analysis is provided in attachment 4.
While commercial or mixed-use development is not as economically attractive as stand-alone apartments in the current economic landscape, there are opportunities to develop the ground floor as live/work units or to create commercial tenant space that is not leased until economic conditions change. This approach would better maintain the integrity of the “urban village” goals, providing for a compatible mix of housing with shopping, and a pedestrian-oriented character than the alternative proposed.
Single Family Development: the Comprehensive Plan establishes specific percentages stating that at least 60% of the residences in the village must be single-family units, then later a contradictory percentage stating only 50% of housing can be single family. The applicant’s proposal would meet neither specific number. The Comprehensive Plan section on the Brigg’s Village also includes language stating a need to allow flexibility for developers to respond to market conditions. Interestingly, the original Master Plan did not meet these numerical standards either. Staff support the increase in residential units because of consistency with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
In both topics, Staff encourage the Planning Commission to consider the balancing act between the various goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It cannot be denied that the city and region are in a housing crisis, and these amendments intend to allow additional housing units in the urban village zone.
Climate Analysis:
The proposed amendments would allow for increased housing opportunities in an area already served by city services. Increased urban density in an area that currently requires additional commercial and office space would allow for a more efficient land use pattern. The village is currently served by city water and sewer, and has existing private and public streets, as well as by public transportation (bus routes and bike lanes). New residents would have the option to utilize public transportation. The existing village contains sidewalk connections and bike lanes that provide pedestrian and bike access to the large city. New residents would have ample opportunity to bike or walk to nearby services including those offered within existing villages. This is consistent with the cities climate goals of promoting infill development.
Equity Analysis:
The proposed text code amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan goals for increased housing within the city limits. This will allow for the potential for increased housing stock. Housing has been identified as a major equity issue by Washington State and the City of Olympia and emergency declarations have been made. Increased multifamily housing in urban villages would help alleviate this problem and allow for increased density within the core of urban villages. Based on analysis provided by the applicant, these changes would allow up to 260 additional multifamily units to be built in Briggs Village the only “urban village” in the city.
Neighborhood/Community Interests (if known):
Applicable parties have been notified and a comment period is ongoing. Public comments will be provided in updated staff report at time of Public Hearing with Planning Commission.
Options:
1. Receive the briefing.
2. Do not receive the briefing.
3. Receive the briefing at another time.
Financial Impact:
None, processing of these amendments is covered by the department’s annual budget and application fees made by the applicant.
Attachments:
Draft Amendments (includes City Commentary)
OMC 18.05 Staff Analysis
Applicant’s Market Study for Briggs Village