Title
Recommendation on Proposed Scope of Actions for Neighborhood Centers
Recommended Action
Following response to questions from staff
Report
Issue:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 17, 2014 to gather input on proposed neighborhood center actions. Tonight the Commission will deliberate and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding future actions the City can take to help neighborhood centers develop according to community goals
Staff Contact:
Amy Buckler, Associate Planner, 360.570.5847
Presenter(s):
Amy Buckler
Background and Analysis:
RESPONSE TO OPC QUESTIONS FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING
Following are staffs responses to questions emailed by Planning Commissioners following the November 17 public hearing:
1. Request an update to Attachment 4 regarding status of neighborhood center provisions in the Comprehensive Plan Update:
On October 7, 2014 the City Council directed revisions to policy language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding neighborhood centers; these revisions were included at their final public hearing on 11/4. The revisions in track change format are as follows:
PL21.2: Include Support housing, a food store*, and a neighborhood park or civic green at all neighborhood centers. Allow churches, schools, and convenience businesses and services that cater primarily to neighborhood residents. Prohibit auto-oriented uses. Vary the specific size and composition of such centers for balance with surrounding uses;. Where practical, focus commercial uses on civic greens or parks, and l Limit the size of commercial uses.
PL21.4: Allow neighborhood center designs that are innovative and provide variety, but that ensure compatibility with adjoining uses. Consider appropriate phasing, scale, design and exterior materials, as well as glare, noise and traffic impacts when evaluating compatibility. Require that buildings with include primary access directly from street sidewalks, and be oriented toward the neighborhood and any adjacent park or green and to any adjacent housing. Require that signage be consistent with neighborhood character.
*The Planning Commission's final recommendation letter (November 2014) included a suggestion to add "café or bakery" after "food store" in PL21.2. The City Council will consider comments and give final direction on the draft on November 25, 2014.
First Reading of the adoption ordinance is tentatively scheduled for December 9 with adoption on December 16, 2014.
2. Summarize provisions that have been proposed for housing in or adjacent to neighborhood centers:
The Comprehensive Plan Update includes the following policies, which were recommended by the Planning Commission in 2013:
PL14.3: Preserve and enhance the character of existing established Low-density Neighborhoods. Disallow medium or high-density development in existing Low-density Neighborhood areas except for Neighborhood Centers.
PL14.4: In low-density Neighborhoods, allow medium-density Neighborhood Centers that include civic and commercial uses that serve the neighborhood. Neighborhood centers emerge from a neighborhood public process
Medium-Density Neighborhoods include multi-family (apartment) uses.
The Planning Commission would need to consider the types of housing that should be allowed in conjunction with neighborhood centers as part of any future recommendation for amendments to the development code regarding neighborhood centers/retail (first proposed action on Attachment 2.)
3. Clarify the basis for the 2035 population projections (in Attachment 4). Specifically, were zoning changes assumed?
TRPC's 2023 population projections provided in Attachment 4 are based on 2010 zoning and trends (i.e., migration, employment, etc.). Note: These are especially rough estimates because small area projections will typically be less accurate than the regional projection for which the model was built. These projections are also due for an update based on more recent data.
Projections are a product of the assumptions used. As trends change so will the assumptions built into TRPC's projection model. The projection model assumes current zoning. The City could consider other zoning scenarios that would result in higher (or lower) projections.
4. Would it be possible to estimate a population scenario for 2020 assuming a much more aggressive ADU initiative?
It should be possible to include an assumed number of ADU's within the projection model. More analysis would need to be done to come up with a practical to work from.
***********************************************************************************************
BELOW IS PREVIOUSLY INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO OPC
***********************************************************************************************
The City has had a policy of encouraging the development of neighborhood centers for over 20 years, but they have not developed as described in the Comprehensive Plan, but for a few exceptions. Neighborhood Centers are small walk and transit-friendly business clusters within residential neighborhoods that serve the day-to-day retail and service needs of local residents and foster community interaction. These are important to community-wide goals to increase walkability, reduce our carbon footprint, improve human health, and foster neighborhood connections and resiliency.
The Planning Commission seeks to further community goals for neighborhood center development. As a first step, the Commission has gathered input about the public's desires as well as barriers to neighborhood center development. With help from staff, they launched an online questionnaire on OlySpeaks.org and received 668 responses. Meanwhile, staff interviewed 13 business owners and 8 property owner/developers who have operated a business, designed or developed a neighborhood center in Olympia.
See Attachments 1 and 1B for a summary of what was learned.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS:
· Neighborhood centers vary: The 17 areas identified for neighborhood centers in the Comprehensive Plan are not one-size-fits-all. They are currently in various stages of development, from thriving mixed retail to abandoned gas station, or designed as part of a planned village but not developed to green field with no known future development plan. The envisioned characteristics for each location may vary. Feasibility of operating a successful business will vary by location as well.
· The number of households within ½ mile is one key to determining center feasibility, especially pertaining to new construction. Many developers will refer to the industry rule of thumb that states at least 1,000 households within a ½ mile are required to support a small convenience store; this number goes up to 2,000 households for a small neighborhood business district with a mix of retail uses (see article in Attachment 3).
If the number of households within ½ mile does not meet the industry standard, achieving construction of new commercial buildings in neighborhood centers will be a challenge (see Attachment 4 for population data.) In most cases, the developer and the business owner are not the same entity. Construction costs are tacked onto the lease paid by the business, resulting in higher lease rates for new construction vs. existing buildings. A developer will be unlikely to finance development of a new building if he or she does not believe likely tenants would be able to afford the lease.
This is support by the fact that almost all the businesses operating in one of our neighborhood centers today are housed in a building constructed between 1902-1957 (exception: data on Victoria Square and Glenmore areas not available.)
· Other characteristics besides number of households within ½ mile impact business feasibility as well. Location on a well-traveled street increases visibility and the potential customer base for a business. Other avenues to increase business revenue may help as well. For example, The San Francisco Street Bakery includes a wholesale component, which provides additional revenue beyond the retail bakery.
· What 'comes first' in each center may vary: An October 28, 2014 article in The Olympian hailed the Wildwood Center as the "poster-child for Olympia's neighborhood centers." However, in the short-term it may not be feasible for undeveloped neighborhood centers to achieve construction of a new mixed retail building. But smaller-scale uses, such as community gardens and food stands, and other place-making could be a start to creating activity in neighborhood centers. We have seen this in places such as The Commons on 9th & Adams.
· There are areas within the City that are not identified for future neighborhood centers, but seem as though they fit the concept. This includes The Commons and the Medical Arts/Capitol Apartments area on the westside at 4th and Sherman.
Based on preliminary input and analysis, staff proposes a scope of actions for public and Planning Commission review - See attachment 2. Other background information about neighborhood centers is also attached.
Neighborhood/Community Interests (if known):
· See Attachments 1 & 1B, and 6
Options:
Deliberate and make a motion on a recommended scope of future actions the City can take regarding neighborhood centers. These actions would be forwarded to the City Council and other departments for consideration.
Staff has provided a proposed scope of actions in Attachment 2. The Commission may deliberate on the entire proposal at once or may choose to deliberate separately on each proposed action. The Commission may propose other actions or make changes to any of the proposed actions.
Financial Impact:
Included in base budget