Update on a Proposal to Allow Businesses In Neighborhoods

Gordon White (a member of the South Capitol Neighborhood Association board) attended the May 22 meeting of the City of Olympia Land Use and Environment Committee on our behalf. He wanted to hear how the committee proposes to move forward with allowing small-scale retail businesses to be established in residential neighborhoods. Following is his report from that meeting.

It was a pretty interesting meeting. I think the SCNA Board letter made an impact. The committee backtracked from their unanimous support for unfettered small scale commercial in all neighborhoods in their April meeting to something a bit more reasoned and a clear message to work through the Planning Commission Comp Plan update process.  Some key points about what the LU&E Committee is expecting after today’s meeting regarding policy language about small scale commercial in residential neighborhoods.

1. They backed off of the wide open wording they used in their 3-0 vote last month. Last month they did NOT want a conditional use process for evaluating and reducing impacts from “small scale commercial retail businesses” in neighborhoods. Interestingly the council member who was most adamant about no conditional use process, Jim Cooper, was absent. 
2. Today the two committee members present, Chair Dani Madrone and Council Member Robert Vanderpool, only spoke to the need for clear policy language for standards and side boards for any small commercial proposal and use a conditional use permit process. 
3. The draft Comp Plan Policy language provided by staff:  PL20.6 Allow small scale commercial uses within neighborhoods through conditional use permits to limit impacts. The staff report was less direct about whether there would be a conditional use process, instead only using the word “controls” for evaluating proposals. The report describes  the following:The chapter narrative and policies (PL20.6 is new) have been updated to allow small scale commercial uses in neighborhoods, but with controls to minimize impacts to the neighborhood and nearby residents. The use of the word “controls” was used to provide flexibility for the City to determine if conditional use permits or special regulations are most appropriate. The intention is not to serve as a barrier to such development, but to ensure that applicable rules are in place for harmony between commercial and residential uses in close proximity to each other.  
4. Two documents referred to in this part of the committees agenda:Draft Land Use and Urban Design Chapter and staff report on the committee webpage: staff report
5. Clearly the language requiring conditional use process was a work in process between when the draft policy language was developed and when the staff report was drafted. 
6. The City Manager, who rarely attends LU&E Committee, reminded everyone that the City will have a conditional use permit process for small scale commercial projects. 
7. Director, Community Planning & Economic Development, Susan McLaughlin provided an overview of how a conditional use process might work. She  noted that Seattle limited small scale commercials to corner lots only. Commission Chair Dani Madrone noted it would be good to look at what other cities do. 
8. The committee chair made a clear statement that this policy idea will go through the Planning Commission for full review. 
9. The change to a conditional use process and clear direction to take it through the Planning Commission is a big change from where the committee left it in their April 24 meeting.  It’s like that meeting never happened. 
10. The SCNA letter seemed to have helped move the LU&E Committee into a better place for how and when it considers the idea of small-scale commercial in residential neighborhoods. 
11. This means there is more time for fuller consideration of the concerns noted in the SCNA letter and comments from other neighborhoods. 
12. We will need to watch this closely since it is not clear what safeguards and conditions will be in place to address the issues our letter pointed out. Following the Planning Commission agenda and making comments directly to them will be important.
13. Another item we had made not of to the City planners, the problem of conversion of homes to businesses that we currently experience,  has been erased from the conversation at the land use Committee level. Only Robert Vanderpool made glancing mention of this problem.  Yet the current version of the comp plan actually deletes prior reference to a policy which opposes conversion of residences to businesses. This is opposite to the City’s housing initiatives. 
14. One very bad sign about the potential for the City to do a thorough job embracing our concerns is the recently released draft of the Comp Plan Draft EIS. It has only vague language underscoring the potential good that small scale commercial uses in neighborhoods could offer. There is NO analysis,  which is required of land use policies. Nothing about the potential challenges. It is a shallow and useless set of statements. It’s poor quality provides us a good place to fill in the downsides with our comments on the Draft EIS. Due June 13. Link to the Draft EIS, Olympia Comp Plan Draft EIS see section 6.3.2 Alternative 2: Adopt Updates