Title
Briefing: Potential Code Amendment for Buffering Single-Family Housing
Body
Issue:
Whether to amendment development code to limit development adjacent to single-family housing.
Staff Contact:
Presenter(s):
Todd Stamm
Background and Analysis:
On December 11, 2012, the Olympia City Council responded to public concerns about development near certain single-family housing by adopting an emergency ordinance applying to High Density Corridor zones (HDC-1; HDC-2; HDC-3; HDC-4). Ordinance 6820 temporarily requires that within any of the four High Density Corridor zones any new buildings within 100 feet of a single-family lot shall not exceed a height of 35 feet and any buildings on property adjacent to single-family housing or a residential zone shall have 8-foot step backs at every third floor (aka 'wedding cake' design).
The emergency ordinance will be in effect for one year, or more if extended by the Council. The Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation on the appropriate means of addressing this issue, including whether or not to amend the development code.
The current Comprehensive Plan includes various provisions regarding compatibility of large and smaller structures. For instance, Land Use policy 8.3 is, Locate and design multifamily structures so they are compatible with adjoining lower density residences. Similarly Land Use policy 8.4 reads, Establish zoning and design standards that ensure compatibility of adjoining residential and commercial areas, in order to maintain or enhance the neighborhood's character, livability, and property values. Consider requiring commercial structures to use building scales, roof forms, and building materials similar to, or compatible with, the adjoining residential structures; 'low key' signage; and carefully controlling site lighting that minimizes off-site impacts. (Note, because this issue is presented in the context of the current Plan, comparable elements of the proposed Plan update have not been noted.)
Olympia's development code includes numerous provision for transitioning building scale and buffering land uses at zoning boundaries. Among these are requirements that buildings above three stories in the Professional Office - Residential Multi-family, General Commercial, and High Density Corridor 1, 2, 3 & 4 must be 'stepped back a minimum of 8 feet,' i.e., the fourth floor must be stepped back. The Council's December 2012 action increased this requirement to every 3rd floor in the HDC zone, extended the requirement to projects adjacent to single-family housing not within a residential zone, and capped heights at 35 feet within 100 feet of these residential sites. The attached map highlights locations within the city where special limitations are imposed adjacent to certain residential zones prior to December, and where new regulations would be applicable if extended to existing single-family housing not otherwise buffered by these regulations, i.e., where a change might be made to limit development adjacent to existing single-family housing.
The proposed amendment would probably reduce the commercial or residential density or both of affected projects, and could increase construction costs. More specific analysis including a thorough summary of applicable Comprehensive Plan provisions, and potentially alternative approaches, will be presented at the public hearing.
Neighborhood/Community Interests (if known):
To date all interested parties have been owners and residents of property northwest of the intersection of Harrison Avenue and Division Street; additional interest from other affected areas is expected.
Options:
This is a briefing only. The Commission's public hearing regarding this proposal is tentatively scheduled for October 21. Notice of the public hearing will be published in the Olympian and emailed to Thurston County staff and representatives of all recognized neighborhood associations at least ten days before the hearing.
The staff seeks the Commission's suggestions regarding:
1. Whether this tentative hearing date is appropriate
2. Any additional public notice or outreach, such as to directly affected property owners
3. Additional information the Commission would want available at the hearing
4. Whether consideration of new regulations should be extended to the GC and PO/RM zones
5. And, should a broader variety of buffering options be presented and considered?
Financial Impact:
Cost of process included in base budget
Attachment:
Residential Zoning Setbacks Map reflecting residential 'buffer' areas