At Olympia's Land Use and Environment Committee meeting yesterday, April 25, Olympia associate planner Casey Schaufler presented the market analysis on neighborhood centers, which analyzed 12 existing centers and outlined proposals to support neighborhood businesses.
The city's policy for 20 years has been to plan for neighborhood business clusters that are small, walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly. The goal is for these clusters to serve residents' daily retail needs and provide community gathering spaces.
"The neighborhood centers have not developed as envisioned," Schaufler said, citing a market analysis done by MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design and Leland Consulting Group. He mentioned that limited street connectivity and low density had prevented some neighborhood centers from reaching their full potential.
The market analysis, Schaufler said, was conducted to determine which of the 12 neighborhood centers are thriving and what factors are contributing to their success and identify which centers still have future potential for expansion and benefit from city assistance.
According to the report's findings, the most successful existing neighborhood centers in Olympia rely predominantly on automobile traffic to provide their customer base.
Schaufler pointed out that the intended primary market area for neighborhood centers is considered to be within a quarter to half-mile radius, which could be walked. However, even the most viable centers now depend heavily on auto-centric transportation for customers.
Schaufler also discussed the concept of a 15-minute neighborhood, where residents can access their daily needs within a 15-minute walk of their home.
He noted that most neighborhood centers are located on the western and eastern sides of the city, areas developed in the second half of the 20th century. A key finding is that these areas are not well-connected for walking, with fewer than 10 miles of streets located within a 15-minute walk of the neighborhood centers. "The underlying issue is a lack of street connectivity and sidewalk infrastructure, which hampers walkability and accessibility of many centers in Olympia."
Schaufler reiterated that successful neighborhood centers rely on customers. Ideally, he added, the surrounding 15-minute walk area should feature a minimum of 12 dwelling units per acre.
However, Schaufler added that based on the city's density analysis in 2022, current densities are below even the minimums allowed in R 4-8 zoning districts average only 2.42 units per acre, R 6-12 zone is only 2.9 units per acre. "For neighborhood centers to have viable markets, our density should increase by a fair amount. We are not even achieving our minimum density."
The city planner informed the committee that most Olympia neighborhood centers could support up to 40,000 square feet or more of new commercial space. However, most of those that are not developing were mostly due to issues of the complexity of the Olympia Municipal Code (OMC) regulations.
"OMC can be difficult to work through. We do our pre-submission conferences. We try to provide as many notes as possible for the small businesses in those areas. It can still be daunting to go through a permit application process. It's challenging for small business," Schaufler commented.
Update comprehensive plan policies:
To refine guidance on appropriate siting and support for neighborhood centers.
Provide recommendations for neighborhood center criteria; for example, a neighborhood center should be adjacent to transit and have a transit stop with 12 hours of service minimum.
Evaluate whether to retain or remove current center designations based on current performance, acknowledging public feedback that other areas may benefit from small commercial uses even without full neighborhood center designation.
Update the city's zoning code and development regulations:
Permit small commercial uses (SCUs) in residential zones within approximately 300 feet of designated neighborhood centers.
Rezone a select few parcels within neighborhood centers to Neighborhood Retail (NR).
Update the NR zone and other regulations, such as solid waste and parking, to remove barriers to neighborhood commercial uses.
Implement citywide programs to support healthy businesses, including:
Establish a building improvement matching-grant program.
Make permanent pandemic-era programs such as the Simplified Sidewalk program that allowed for ROW "streateries" (for example, coffee shops that could put tables and chairs outside, activating some sidewalk space).
Consider prioritizing planned improvements – including roadway, redesigns, roundabouts, crossing, and sidewalk and bikeway improvements – to make neighborhood centers more friendly to multimodal users.
The committee advocated for further examining concepts around flexible zoning, mixed-use development, and neighborhood center viability through the lens of the comprehensive plan update.
13 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
KarenM
The consultant said that one underlying problem is limited street connectivity and lack of sidewalks. The aim is to have people walk to these neighborhood centers. So the streets do not need to connect for cars, they simply need to connect for people who are walking or cycling. There are a number of public connections identified in the Transportation Master Plan that could be improved with hard surface, vegetation removal, signage and lighting. These can be fairly inexpensive improvements that will make these pathways use-able. This could add to the number of people who can walk to a center.
Friday, April 26 Report this
kipkohl
While I applaud the effort to create neighborhood centers, I wonder if our climate plays a part in the pedestrian/car mis-match. Given the choice, I think most people would prefer a warm, dry car ride over a five minute walk in the rain to pick up a few items from a retailer. It’s an upward battle to pry people out of their cars as we’ve become firmly entrenched in our comfy, convenient first world lifestyles.
Saturday, April 27 Report this
BillString
I only live a literal five minute walk away from a perfectly walkable grocery store, and I have never once walked there in two years of residency. I'd have to agree with kip, its a lot more comfortable and convenient to drive to the store and back than battle the weather and avoid the homeless. These are the same reasons I never have and never will use public transit unless absolutely necessary. It is ALWAYS inconvenient, takes excessive amounts of time, and usually has homeless people on it. Conversely, my car is clean, convenient and is not full of homeless. Win win win.
Saturday, April 27 Report this
KarenM
Kip and Bill - First, you may not want to walk, but many cannot drive or should not drive. And some simply see walking as a healthy and pleasant way to get around. So please don't assume that providing for car transportation only is serving everyone. It is not.
I just joined hundreds, perhaps thousands downtown to watch the Procession of Species. It rained off and on most of the day. Downtown was full of people. We didn't melt and it looks like folks were having a great time. Virtually all of them walked several blocks, some walked many blocks to come to this event.
So it may not be something you want to do, and no one is saying you must. But let's make it possible for people to move around without a car. When you walk you actually experience the world in a different way. You can hear the birds, you might see your neighbor and visit a bit. It makes our community more inclusive and friendly to be able to walk safely.
Saturday, April 27 Report this
DezSpeaksTheTruth
What Karen said! Also pretty shameful for you to basically say a person without a permanent residence is someone you'd like to avoid at all costs and would rather do anything than be exposed to sitting in the same vicinity as them. F. Y. I. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE IT OR DON'T WANT TO BE IN REALITY AND SEE WHAT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE HOUSELESS BECAUSE OF ONE CIRCUMSTANCE OR ANOTHER DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T THERE OR THAT IT'S NOT HAPPENING. THE AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY LIVES PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK AND IF AN EMERGENCY HAPPENS OR WHATEVER AND THEY MISS ONE OR TWO WEEKS WORK, GUESS WHAT?! NOW THERE SHORT RENT, AND THEN GUESS WHAT?! THEY GET EVICTED FOR NON PAYMENT, AND THEN GUESS WHAT?! THEY CANT GET INTO ANOTHER PLACE BECAUSE OF EVICTION AND FEES. SO ITS A CYCLE AND VICIOUS ONE. NOT ALWAYS THE PERSON'S CHOICE TO BE HOMELESS AND LIVING ON THE SIDEWALKS AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS ETC. REMEMBER THAT NEXT TIME YOU LOOK DOWN AT SOMEONE WHO IS LESS FORTUNATE THAN YOU!
Sunday, April 28 Report this
MartyKenney
While I appreciate seeing this being reported on, I disagree with the focus of this article. I attended the meeting and heard less about the connectivity of neighborhoods and more about the challenging process that individuals must take to develop their personal property into "neighborhood retail" as the reason we are failing on our neighborhood center goals.
They mentioned many cases where individual citizens would come to the city with a plan, and instead of moving forward, they would walk away because of the arduous back end planning work as well as the steep fees that are required to develop property. Such as, frontage improvements for any properties within the designated neighborhood zones. Who has the cash to build sidewalks when you're just trying to open up a mom and pop coffee store??
It seemed to me like the council members were cluing in on this issue and I appreciated the questions they asked. Robert Vannderpool knows a lot about this, as well as Dani Madrone and Jim Cooper. I think that if the council can make changes to the OMC that allow for easier, lower cost development we might actually have a chance at making these neioghborhood goals actually come true. Without a change to the mentality of city planners and using the OMC as a roadblock to imagination, we will not achieve the goals that the previous council intended when their envisioned the neighborhood centers. But I believe that the people of Olympia to WANT to make neighborhood centers with their private property, so lets just actually allow it to happen. looking at you @OlympiaPlanning&Development.
Sunday, April 28 Report this
kipkohl
KarenM, It’s not that I don’t want to walk, I was merely stating conditions that might work against more pedestrian based development in this region. I live rurally so walking/biking to accomplish daily tasks isn’t really an option for me. If I lived in town I would definitely eschew my car in my daily routine more often.
Sunday, April 28 Report this
Olywalker42
Just want to add that walking in Olympia can be hazardous and often unpleasant. I do it because I have to and navigate broken and obstructed sidewalks daily. Hedges growing into sidewalks, low hanging tree branches or trees literally growing across sidewalks with branches at eye height, moss, leaves and other debris, kid’s toys, “free” items, cars parked on or across the sidewalks, bicyclists and not infrequently, dog ****. To avoid these obstructions, I walk on the street where I must dodge distracted and rude drivers ignoring stop signs and speed limits. So I understand why people don’t want to walk. I probably wouldn’t if I didn’t have to.
Sunday, April 28 Report this
Southsoundguy
Central planning doesn't work. It will always lead to a disjointed and unnatural environment, with no genuine sense of community.
Monday, April 29 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
Thank you for this article. Walkability is a good goal to have, but our community may not yet have the institutional knowledge needed in local governments to effectuate it (although I'm optimistic things will improve). For example, the terms "urban village" and "walkability" have become catch phrases used by developers to get approval for what end up being car-centric developments. Briggs is an example of what was supposed to be an urban village, but ten years on, they still have no grocery store. Developers (Bar Holdings) are at this moment proposing a similar development that they claim will be a walkable urban village on the corner of Old Highway 99 and 93rd Ave south of the airport. Some local elected officials have been swayed by their promises of walkability. But if you are familiar with that location, you will know that it is anything but walkable now and will not become walkable regardless of what kinds of sidewalks you put there. People are not inclined to walk on arterial roads. They are not pleasant places to walk or bike for the vast majority of residents. For example, I was a daily bike commuter on Yelm Highway for years and can attest to the fact that it was only me and one other guy who rode our bikes there regularly. Everyone else drove. For this reason, we need to be alert to the co-opting of the terms "walkability" and "urban village." We need to make sure elected officials maintain a healthy skepticism in that regard. This article is a good step in that direction.
Monday, April 29 Report this
KarenM
I agree with Ronda that the proposal at 93rd is not an urban village. It is remote.
She describes Briggs as an example of something that has gone wrong. I wouldn't go that far. Briggs is on a bus line. There are sidewalks throughout the development and it is connected to the surrounding neighborhoods. Yes, Yelm Highway is a problem, but it does not run through the middle of Briggs. The commercial parts of Briggs have not developed and perhaps there is still hope. The land is still vacant for those uses.
Then there are the areas within the city where there is hope for a small collection of commercial. These are not intended to be a complete 'urban village' but potentially provide some convenience for some needs. We have some examples for these such as San Francisco Bakery area.
Tuesday, April 30 Report this
OlyGuy
Who the heck wants to walk around and avoid homeless drug addicts asking for change on every corner?
Tuesday, April 30 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@KarenM, I definitely agree with you about the importance of mixed use--i.e., of allowing commercial uses in residential areas and vice versa. The San Francisco Bakery and the Briggs' new commercial area are really good improvements to those neighborhoods. Mixed use is essential for improving our quality of life and reducing drive time. But mixed use in low density areas (like Briggs and the San Francisco Bakery area) will not achieve the overall goal of making walkable communities. The reason, as this article states, is lack of density: "For neighborhood centers to have viable markets, our density should increase by a fair amount. We are not even achieving our minimum density." Unfortunately, the "Actions Recommended" section of the article omits the most important step that needs to be taken: lifting height restrictions in the urban core. To increase density to the extent needed to support the commercial uses, we need to build up, not out. Focus new housing in the densest areas first, only building out when we've finished building the urban core up. Don't dilute the urban core by building new urban villages in low-density neighborhoods. We're just building more low-density neighborhoods when we build urban villages. It's spinning our wheels. The only way a grocery store will have the customer base needed to be sustainable economically is either by having high housing density there (so people can walk to the store) or by catering to cars. If we don't want the cars, we need to create high housing density there. Restricting building heights is a major roadblock to achieving that. Restricting heights is a longstanding tradition because after one tall building is built, people say it's ugly (e.g., the Mistake on the Lake). Stopping tall buildings from being built is a habit we must break if we're to attain our goal of walkability. (Of course, tall buildings for housing need to be built where there is already an existing urban core or cluster of urban development, because building a tall building for housing far away from the urban core means putting a lot of people far from needed services). Hopefully Olympia's Land Use and Environment Committee will work on reforming zoning ordinances to lift height limits in urban areas. And hopefully in the future, city planning staff can include that among its recommended actions.
Tuesday, April 30 Report this