He Said...
She Said...
Ferry Zone
-
Current maximum building height allowed – 45 ft.
-
Proposed as of Sept. 4 – 55 ft, which can only be achieved with both under building parking and affordable housing
-
Still in progress – Lot coverage maximum, step-back requirements – each of these additional standards will impact the amount of square footage that may be built so it’s not possible at this point to determine what, if any, the actual increase in density is.
-
See additional notes below regarding an overlay zone or street frontage standards for Winslow Way.
End of 6 Story Discussion:
High School Road Zone
-
Current maximum building height allowed – 45 ft
-
Proposed as of Sept. 4 – 55 ft, which can only be achieved with both under building parking and affordable housing
-
Still in progress – Lot coverage maximum, step-back requirements – each of these additional standards will impact the amount of square footage that may be built so it’s not possible at this point to determine what, if any, the actual increase in density is.
-
See additional notes below regarding street frontage standards for High School Road.
Central Core Zone
-
Current maximum building height allowed – 45 ft
-
Proposed as of Sept. 3 – 55 ft, which can only be achieved with both under building parking and affordable housing
-
Still in progress – Lot coverage maximum, step-back requirements – each of these additional standards will impact the amount of square footage that may be built so it’s not possible at this point to determine what, if any, the actual increase in density is.
-
See additional notes below regarding an overlay zone or street frontage standards for Winslow Way.
Madison Zone
-
Current maximum building height allowed – 35 ft
-
Proposed as of Sept. 3 – 45 ft, which can only be achieved with both under building parking and affordable housing
-
Still in progress – Lot coverage maximum, step-back requirements – each of these additional standards will impact the amount of square footage that may be built so it’s not possible at this point to determine what, if any, the actual increase in density is.
-
See additional notes below regarding an overlay zone or street frontage standards that could apply to Madison Avenue and Ericksen Avenue (different standards for each).
Ferncliff Zone
-
There is no existing Ferncliff District. The proposed Ferncliff District is a mix of residential zones (R-8, R-4.3 and R-3.5) and the Gateway Zone. The current maximum building height in the Gateway Zone is 45 ft. The current maximum height in the R-8 zone is 40 ft. and for the R-4.3 and R-3.5 zones it is 30 ft.
-
No decisions have been made regarding this new proposed zone. There is no agreement amongst the Planning Commissioners on the boundaries of the zone, whether it should all be one zone or broken up further, or what height limits and other zoning standards would apply. At this point, it’s not possible to draw any conclusions about this proposed zone.
Additional Notes:
-
The Planning Commission will be creating additional “layers” of development standards for parts of Winslow. Overlay zones or street frontage standards will be created for the purpose of protecting the existing character of neighborhoods. Of particular importance to the community is Winslow Way and that is a great example of how a new overlay zone or street frontage standards could better protect the character of our main street. Our existing code would allow for a 4-story building to be built on Winslow Way if it had under-building parking. An overlay zone or street frontage requirements could require step-backs so that along the street the façade of a new building could only be 2-stories tall and any additional stories would have to be stepped back from that. The details of those requirements are in progress. Updating our code in this manner adds a layer of protection for our existing character that doesn’t exist in the code today.
-
As of our most recent meetings on September 3 and 4, the only incentive available to unlock the added story is the creation of affordable housing. The Planning Commission will consider if there are other incentives that should receive the benefit of the additional story. One example, that is of great interest to me, is development right transfers. A development right transfer program is a tool that the City could use to move available capacity in our Conservation Area to Winslow.
-
Comments continue to be made regarding an Inclusionary Zoning Program that would only require 10% of new development to be affordable. That was proposed for Alternatives 2 and 3 in the DEIS, but that is not under consideration by the Planning Commission. This was confirmed at the September 3 meeting.
Full Planning Commission Meeting
Click here to view the entire City Council meeting.
I don’t usually chime in on social media, but I feel that due to the inflamatory nature of this post, you all deserve to hear what actually happened at the last Planning Commission meeting. I encourage each and every one of you to attend our meetings and speak at public comment. Your voices are important to the commission and to the process of implementing HB 1220.
The Planning Commission is made up of seven individuals, each bringing their own perspectives, experiences, and beliefs to our discussions. While we may not always agree, we are all committed to working together to achieve a common goal. We all want to create a plan that best reflects the values and priorities of our community while also meeting our legal requirements.
Due to the House Bill 1220 requirements, this is proving to be a difficult and complex task. Complying with this mandate involves difficult trade-offs, competing interests, and strong emotions. Last year, Alternatives 2 & 3, which were drafted by consultants without Planning Commission input, proposed “massive upzoning”. Those alternatives did not adequately reflect the values, priorities, or concerns expressed by our community. Neither option was supported by the Planning Commission. For the last seven months, the Commission has taken on the heavy responsibility of creating our own preferred alternative that better aligns with community input.
I was elected Chair of the Planning Commission, and while that comes with some additional responsibilities like presiding over meetings and coordinating with staff in the preparation of agendas, the role does not come with greater authority or decision-making power than that of other commissioners.
Regarding the last Planning Commission meeting:
After public comment, the Planning Commission spent most of its remaining time discussing the work plan. I wouldn’t characterize my comments as asking, “that the work be speeded up”. What I did say was that I saw several items on the work plan that I thought could be removed that would allow us to tighten up our timeline for the Winslow Subarea Plan.
Why do I want items removed from the workplan?
I do not support making changes to the density and height of the residential zones or the mixed-use districts, other than Ferry and High School Road. Since I don’t support increasing height and FAR, I see no need for those items to be on the work plan.
The following are some of the items that could be removed from the workplan:
-
Finalize preliminary recommendations on boundaries, intensity and building height for any outstanding Winslow mixed-use districts.
-
Confirm boundaries, establish development standards and processes for the Winslow Core
-
Confirm boundaries, establish development standards, and processes for the Madison Zone
-
Confirm boundaries, establish development standards, and processes for the Ferncliff Zone
-
Confirm boundaries, establish development standards, and processes for the R-zones
It’s also likely that the Commission will need additional time built into the workplan to revisit our approach to House Bill 1220. Recently, the Growth Management Hearings Board issued a decision on Mercer Island’s Comprehensive Plan update and its House Bill 1220 strategy. This decision likely has implications for our Comprehensive Plan update review and related code amendments.
This work is not easy or quick. We have spent, so far, seven months doing what staff expected us to do over two meetings in January when they presented us with staff’s preferred alternative and asked us to, essentially, rubber stamp it. Believing we could do better; we chose not to.
Characterizing the Commission’s efforts as “moving full steam ahead with massive upzoning” does not reflect the reality of what has taken place. That description overlooks the months of careful discussion and serious deliberation that have occurred. We are not rushing – we are working through a difficult and sometimes uncomfortable process with thoughtfulness and diligence. No final decisions have been made, and, as mentioned earlier, we will likely have to revisit our approach to House Bill 1220 as a result of the Mercer Island decision.