Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Far topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Steering committee questions staff changes to base FAR, urges planning-commission review
Summary
Steering committee members pressed staff about apparent increases to base floor-area-ratio rules for Winslow Ferry and High School zones, saying the packet sent to Commerce did not match the planning commission's recommendation and asking that the planning commission publicly review any changes before Commerce review.
Members of the Bainbridge Island steering committee spent the meeting disputing staff's packet language that appears to raise base floor-area-ratio (FAR) limits for two zones and discussing how FAR increases should be tied to affordable-housing requirements.
A committee member said the draft sent to Commerce differs from what the planning commission recommended and warned the city could lose the chance to show compliance. "This is our shot at compliance reaching compliance or preliminary compliance with Commerce," the committee member said, arguing the planning commission had not signed off on the versions sent to the state.
Planning staff said the packet explained bonus FAR routes already in code ' including affordability, historic preservation and ferry-parking relocation ' and that Commerce would accept updates. Staff summarized existing base FAR levels, noting that the residential base FAR in the High School Road zone is "0.3" and that mixed-use base FAR in some zones is currently higher; the packet proposes raising the ferry and high-school mixed-use base to as high as "1" in some alternatives.
Several committee members said the steering committee's intent was not to increase base zoning except when coupled with affordable housing. "If we're gonna increase the base that much, then we should just have a mandatory program for them," one committee member said, pressing whether mandatory inclusionary zoning would be required if base FAR increased.
Staff and commissioners discussed trade-offs between a voluntary program with higher affordability thresholds and a mandatory program with a lower required percentage of affordable units. Staff noted the planning commission recommended higher bonus FAR only when projects included substantial affordability (for example, 20'5' to 25' of units below 80% AMI or a 100% affordable project), but members pointed out some packet alternatives show base FAR increases without that affordability condition.
The steering committee asked staff to circulate a single working draft (with track changes/redline) and to send the packet to citizen advisory committees before finalizing materials for the planning commission's public hearing. The committee also asked the Planning Commission to take up the base-FAR increase issue in its public review.
The group did not make a final policy decision; instead members directed staff to return with clarified language and for the planning commission to consider the matter in a public hearing.
Ending: The committee agreed to circulate an integrated packet of committee comments by the end of the week and include the draft in the Planning Commission public-hearing packet so that the public and advisory committees can comment prior to further council action.
