Commission adds policy to study implementing form‑based code; heated discussion over Winslow capacity and FAR changes

The Planning Commission voted unanimously on March 26 to add a policy directing staff to study implementing a form‑based code (LU 4.12) as a future work plan item. Senior Planner Jennifer Sutton reintroduced the proposal and said staff recommends placing the policy in the land use element to allow consideration of form‑based code in a later phase.

Commissioner Alex moved to add the policy and later amended the wording to read in substance that the commission should “study implementing a form‑based code to make future development more predictable.” The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

The meeting then focused on a lengthy staff presentation and discussion of the Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) used to support the draft preferred land use alternative. Jennifer summarized key points: an expanded Winslow boundary and increased business/industrial lot coverage in some areas increased projected jobs and dwelling capacity in the Winslow subarea; the LCA estimates the draft preferred alternative yields roughly 977 additional dwelling units in Winslow compared with the no‑change alternative, adding roughly 2,000 people citywide in the 20‑year horizon when pipeline units are included.

Commissioners pushed staff for specifics and flagged substantive concerns. Commissioner Peter said he was surprised to find that base FAR values in the Ferry and High School zones had been increased (from 0.5 and 0.3 respectively in prior materials to values used in the LCA) without clear, explicit direction from the commission, calling the undocumented change “very problematic.” He suggested that if base FAR is increased, the commission should consider mandatory inclusionary requirements or other conditions so any added market‑rate capacity provides community benefit. “The fact that the change was made and it's not really explicitly called out here in this documentation is very problematic to me,” he said.

Staff and commissioners discussed utilization rates for the voluntary inclusionary bonus (strategic economics/consultant estimates put utilization low—e.g., 3% in the ferry zone, 5% in the high school road zone, and 0% in some core/connection zones—reflecting high affordability requirements and limited developer uptake for the proposed bonuses). Commissioners asked staff to provide: (1) the LCA results at the earlier base FAR values (0.3/0.5) so the commission can compare outputs; (2) a Winslow zone‑by‑zone table showing dwelling unit estimates under alternative 1 and the draft preferred alternative; (3) the consultant model assumptions (average unit size, vacancy assumptions, and which projects are counted as pipeline); and (4) examples of tiered programs (Sammamish cited) and possible mandatory or in‑lieu tools to pair with any increases in base capacity.

Council liaison Ashley Matthews said she would brief City Council on the commission’s discussion and return with any council preference for how to proceed; staff said they would prepare the requested tables and the draft code updates (scheduled for the next meeting packet). Commissioners left the meeting requesting clearer documentation linking the consultant memos, DEIS numbers and the land capacity outputs before final recommendations to Council.

What’s next: staff will return with the zone‑by‑zone LCA breakdown, the base‑FAR comparison results, draft code language implementing the commission’s earlier housing motions (including a tiered system example), and clarifications about which consultant produced each figure.