Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bainbridge Island Planning Commission sends three FAR options to City Council after hours of debate over housing shortfall
Summary
After a long debate about housing capacity and affordability, the Planning Commission voted to forward three options for Winslow FARs to the City Council — accompanied by a staff memo summarizing the Commission's concerns — and directed staff to seek Department of Commerce feedback on funding/program implications.
On April 9, the Bainbridge Island Planning Commission voted to forward three alternative approaches to the City Council for addressing dwelling‑unit capacity in the Winslow subarea after an extended discussion about density, infrastructure and affordability.
Vice Chair Patty Charnas presented staff’s land‑capacity analysis, saying that using a base floor‑area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 for the Ferry and High School Road districts would show about 99 dwelling units above the city’s statutory housing obligation, while reverting to the proposed base FARs of 0.5 and 0.3 would produce a deficit “of 420 dwelling units,” creating a compliance risk with state requirements. “We did not change it to 1,” Charnas told commissioners while summarizing the packet’s scenarios.
Commissioners debated three paths: keep the higher base FAR (the staff’s larger‑envelope scenario), adopt the lower ‘3/2’ adjustment staff modeled (which commissioners said risks encouraging market‑rate development), or adopt a higher FAR combined with prescriptive affordability measures such as unit‑size caps, mandatory inclusionary rules or in‑lieu fees. Commissioner Alex moved that the Commission present three options to the City Council and include a memo explaining the pros and cons of each; the motion to forward the three options with a discussion memo was adopted after multiple amendment attempts.
Debate focused on two practical questions: whether the state’s reviewers are counting housing by unit count only or by income band (affordability), and whether the Commission and staff have time and resources to design incentive and subsidy programs that would make denser projects actually deliver income‑restricted units. “Are you only looking for the dwelling‑units count? Or is it possible to do a more nuanced solution that we’ve been trying to figure out?” Commissioner Alex asked, urging coordination with the state. Commissioner Sarah pressed a separate point from the consultant’s analysis, saying the consultant’s table showed “none of the units serve between 80 and 120% AMI,” raising concern that higher FAR alone could produce mostly higher‑income units.
Commissioners also raised infrastructure limits: several members warned that sewer capacity could constrain how much housing the island can actually support, and recommended measures — such as unit‑size caps tied to bedroom counts — intended to nudge development toward smaller, more workforce‑oriented units.
The Commission’s final package to Council will present: (1) the staff’s existing analysis (the 4/6 base column discussed in the packet), (2) the staff’s adjusted 3/2 analysis, and (3) a 3/2 variant coupled with an “affordability toolkit” (examples discussed included unit‑size caps, incentives, and potential in‑lieu fees). Staff was asked to include a concise memo summarizing the evening’s discussion so City Councilors understand the Commission’s concerns and rationale.
Next steps: the Planning Commission also directed staff to consult the Washington State Department of Commerce about how subsidy‑type programs and funding mechanisms would be treated in the state’s review (staff agreed to reach out), and the City Council will receive the three options and the Commission’s explanatory memo for its consideration.
