Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Mandatory Winslow topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commissioners lower large-project threshold to 2 acres and set split affordability targets for Winslow developments
Summary
The Bainbridge Island Planning Commission amended a proposed mandatory affordable‑housing requirement for large Winslow projects, lowering the lot‑area threshold from 3 acres to 2 acres and adopting a 15% total requirement split as 5% at 80% AMI and 10% at 120% AMI. Commissioners asked staff to return with maps and drafting language for implementation and legal review.
The Bainbridge Island Planning Commission on a unanimous vote narrowed the draft mandatory‑affordable housing rule for large developments in the Winslow Town Center and set income bands for the required units.
Commissioners amended the staff draft to apply the mandatory requirement to development projects with a total lot area of 2 acres or greater, down from the 3‑acre threshold originally proposed. Commissioner Schaub moved the acreage change, which passed without opposition.
Commissioner (S11) then proposed the affordability split that the commission adopted: 5% of units must be affordable to households at or below 80% of area median income (AMI) and an additional 10% must be affordable to households at or below 120% AMI (15% total). The motion passed unanimously.
Staff and commissioners said they chose the split to balance deeper affordability with projects' financial feasibility. Planning staff flagged that the draft treated the 15% as a single package and wrote it “to be a total of 15%” for review; staff also noted that lot area for the threshold is defined as lot area used for density calculations (excluding shoreline area and very narrow lots), and that an assembled development comprising multiple parcels could be treated as one development for the threshold.
Commissioners pressed staff on several implementation details before moving forward. Questions included how the city would prevent developers from subdividing to avoid the threshold, whether the requirement should be measured by lot area or by the number of units proposed, and whether a fee‑in‑lieu option should be created for mandatory projects. Staff said they would consult the city attorney about anti‑avoidance language (for example, time windows and common‑ownership rules) and could produce parcel‑size maps showing how different acreage thresholds (1.5, 2, 3 acres) would affect the number of properties covered.
Several commissioners warned that deeper affordability targets (for example, 50% AMI) would be very difficult to achieve without subsidies and that a mix of income bands would make projects more likely to pencil. Others said larger projects could use bonus density to cross‑subsidize lower‑income units. Commissioners also requested early outreach to local architects and developers for feasibility feedback before the public hearing.
Next steps: staff will prepare redlined code language reflecting the amendments, provide a GIS map showing parcels by size ranges in Winslow, consult with the city attorney on anti‑avoidance drafting, and include the amended language in the public‑hearing packet.
