RES 2003-44 WOODLAND VILLAGE FINAL PLAT AMENDMENT APPROVALRESOLUTION NO. 2003 44
A RESOLUTION of the City of Bainbridge Island,
Washington, approving a final plat amendment for
the Woodland Village Subdivision (SUBA-10096)
WHEREAS, the City has implemented an affordable housing program to meet the goals
of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as contained in BIMC Chapter 18.90,
which requires that land use applications of eight or more dwelling units or residential lots must
provide ten percent of the dwelling units for income -qualified households; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Policy H 4.1 of the Housing Element, BIMC
18.90.030 provides for density bonuses, by which density may be increased by one market
rate unit for every affordable unit provided; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the density bonuses is to help offset the cost of providing
affordable housing units that are sold at below market -rate to income -qualified households; and
WHEREAS, due to particular circumstances, certain residential development projects
may not be able to achieve the density bonuses normally associated with the affordable housing
requirement, and should therefore be exempt from the affordable housing requirement; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, the Hearing Examiner found that density bonuses
were not available to the Woodland Village subdivision, and
WHEREAS, the developers of the Woodland Village subdivision have submitted a final
plat amendment application to the Department of Planning and Community Development;
requesting that the affordable housing requirement be eliminated; and
WHEREAS, eliminating the affordable housing requirement requires an alteration of
subdivision pursuant to RCW 58.17; and
Resolution 2003-44 (Woodland village Subdivision)
Approved: November 12, 2003 City Council
WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Community Development reviewed and
forwarded to the City Council its recommendation for approval of the plat amendment, as
contained in the Staff Report dated September 17, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a Public Hearing on the Woodland Village final plat
amendment on October 22, 2003, which was continued to November 12, 2003; now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON,
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations of the Staff
Report dated September 17, 2003, as set forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached and
incorporated by reference, is adopted as the final decision of the Bainbridge Island City Council.
Section 2. The Mayor or Council Chair is authorized and directed to inscribe and
execute the City Council's approval on the face of the amended final plat, in accordance with
the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations contained in the Staff Report
dated September 17, 2003, as adopted in Section 1.
Section 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file the original of the amended
final plat for record with the Kitsap County Auditor and to file one reproducible copy of the
amended final plat (containing the Kitsap County Auditor's recording number) with the City
Clerk, the City Engineer, the Kitsap County Assessor and the applicant.
PASSED by the City Council this 12th day of November 2003.
APPROVED by the Mayor this 13`s day of November 2003.
ATTEST/AUTHHEENTICATE:
V
gusan P. Kasper, City Clerk
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
II'm, TO RaKWM1 a]A
Resolution 2003-44 (woodland Village Subdivision)
November 12, 2003 City Council
Darlene Kordonowy, ayor
November 6, 2003
November 12, 2003
2003-44
XIII.o
STAFF REPORT City of Bainbridge Island
Department of Planning
and Community Development
Project: Woodland Village Subdivision Amendment
File number: SUBA 10096
Date: September 17, 2003
To: Bainbridge Island City Council
From: Larry Frazier, AICP, Planning Director
Project Managers: Associate Planners Joshua Machen and Kathy Cook
Applicant: Landmark Management LLC
290 Madison Avenue N.
Bainbridge Island, WA. 99110
Request: To amend the plat of Woodland Village, eliminating the affordable
housing requirement due to the inability to achieve the allotted bonus
market rate lots (Plat Amendment Application, Attachment A).
Location: The three lots within the Woodland Village Plat affected by the proposed
change are 10152, 10268, and 10145 NE Garibaldi Loop. Section 23
Township 25N, Range 2E, W.M.
Zoning
Designation: R-2.9, two and nine tenths units per acre.
Comprehensive Plan
Designation: SUR, Semi -Urban Residential, 2.9 to 3.5 units per acre.
Environmental
Review: A SEPA MDNS was issued with the preliminary plat approval. The SEPA
mitigation conditions will continue to apply to this amendment.
Staff Analysis
I. Background—Policies and Regulations Pertaining to Affordable Housing
The Affordable Housing Requirement:
BIMC 18.90.030(B) states that any land use application to construct eight or more dwelling units
or residential building lots must provide at least 10% of the units for affordable housing. The
density may then be increased by one market rate unit for every affordable unit provided. For
example, assume the zoning allowed 20 units. Of these 20 units, 18 would be market rate and 2
would be affordable. An extra two market rate units would be allowed, for a total of 22 units.
BIMC 18.90.030(A) states that the requirements apply to all land use applications, except those
located in the Critical Areas Overlay District and the Neighborhood Service Centers (see
discussion below).
BIMC 18.90.030 (B) also states that the bonus units "may" be granted; the intent of the word
"may" is not clear. The code does not state that the bonus is guaranteed, nor does it address
whether the affordable housing requirement applies when a bonus is not achievable.
Relationship of the Density Bonus to the Affordable Housing Requirement:
Goal 4 and Policy H 4.1 of the Comprehensive Plan's Housing Element state that the purpose of
the density bonuses is to reduce the cost of the affordable units, and that all residential districts
are eligible for bonuses except for the Critical Areas Overlay District (CAOD). The CAOD was
exempted from density bonuses because of environmental concerns related to additional lots.
Note that the restriction on density bonuses in the CAOD is included in the Housing Element,
not the Land Use Element, which seems to imply that the bonuses are linked directly to the
affordable housing program. Note also that Goal 4 does not state that the CAOD (or any other
area) must provide affordable housing in spite of the lack of bonuses.
When BIMC 18.90 (Affordable Housing) was developed, the CAOD, which the Comprehensive
Plan exempts from density bonuses, was in tum exempted from the affordable housing
requirement. Although not stated explicitly, this would indicate that the affordable housing
requirement was intended to apply only when an accompanying bonus was available. (Note that
the Neighborhood Service Centers are also exempted in BIMC 18.90, but this is because separate
affordable housing requirements for NSC are contained in BIMC 18.66)
As stated above, 18.90.030(B) does not state that the bonus is guaranteed. Nor does it state
explicitly that the affordable housing requirement applies when a bonus is not achievable.
However, BIMC 18.90.020(B) "Siting of Affordable Dwelling Units or Lots" states "The
affordable units constructed under the provisions of this chapter shall be included within the
Woodland Village Subdivision Amendment fn: SLTBA10096
2
parcel of land for which the density bonus is granted. " This section appears to assume that the
construction of affordable units is linked to the availability of a density bonus.
The City's "Subsidy" and How it is Repaid
The increased density that is provided by the bonuses that accompany the required affordable
housing is considered to be a "subsidy" from the City, which all the developer to sell the
affordable units at below market -rate. When the initial income -qualified owner resells, the unit
may be resold at market -rate, but a portion of the appreciation must be paid to the City's Housing
Trust Fund, in recognition of the City's "subsidy." If the density bonus is not available, no
subsidy is being provided. However, if the affordable housing requirement is applied in such
cases, the developer would still be required to sell units at less than market -rate, and the original
income -qualified owner would still have to pay a portion of the appreciation upon resale to the
City, even though there was no subsidy. The end result is that developments in which density
bonuses cannot be provided are treated differently than those in which bonuses are available.
II. Findings of Fact
A. Assessor's Record Information:
a. Tax Lot Numbers: 5443-000-015-0007, 5443-000-020-0000, and 5443-000-025-0005
b. Owners of record: Antone Pryor
c. Lot sizes: 9.40 acres (Original Platted Parcel) .12, .13, and .12 acres (affected
lots).
d. Land use: The affected parcels are undeveloped.
B. History:
1. On July 9, 1999, the Hearing Examiner recommended conditional approval of the
preliminary plat and entered a report, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Recommendations; and on February 15, 2000, subsequent to gathering additional facts
regarding the wetlands density calculations, the Hearing Examiner entered an amended report
with revised Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations.
2. The Preliminary Large Lot Subdivision was approved by the City Council on April 26, 2000 by
the passage of Resolution 2000-6A.
3. The applicants applied for the proposed plat amendment on July 15, 2003.
4. A Notice of Application was published and mailed on August 9, 2003. One written comment
letter was received from Vince Mattson. Mr. Mattson notes that the Hearing Examiners decision
regarding the density is puzzling and that no findings of fact support the decision not to allow the
bonus market rate housing units. Even with the above concerns, Mr. Mattson opposes the
proponent's application to remove the affordable housing requirement from this plat.
C. Code Review:
1. BIMC Chapter 18.90.030 Required affordable housing (all zones).
Woodland Village Subdivision Amendment fn: SUBA10096
A. Applicability. This section applies to all land use applications, except those that are located
in the critical areas overlay districts and neighborhood service centers identified in the
comprehensive plan. With respect to land located within the Mixed Use Town Center and High
School Road districts, BIMC 18.40.040 and 18.40.050 shall apply. For purposes of this section,
any land included within a single application or related applications at one location in one or
more subdivisions, parts of subdivisions, resubdivisions, or stages of development, regardless of
whether any part of the land has been transferred to another party, shall be deemed a single
parcel. While this property contains critical areas (wetlands), it is not located in the
critical areas overlay district, therefore this section applied to the subdivision application.
B. Required Affordable Housing —Developments of Eight or More Dwelling Units or
Residential Building Lots. Any land use application to construct eight or more, but fewer than
50, dwelling units or residential building lots on the land subject to the application, must
provide at least 10 percent of the number of market rate dwelling units constructed pursuant to
that application as affordable housing for households whose incomes are at or below moderate -
income. The density may be increased by one market rate bonus unit for each affordable unit
provided. In 1999 the Woodland Village application was submitted to subdivide 9.4 acre
parcel into 30 lots. Under R-2.9 zoning, base density would allow 27 units, (3 of which
would be affordable) assuming that the wetlands were included in the calculation. The
density bonus would bring it to 30 units. The municipal code in effect at the time allowed
the inclusion of wetlands and wetland buffers in density calculations, and the staff
report dated March 12,1999 stated "Proposed plat's base density of 27 units is consistent
with density range of the urban residential district. Three additional bonus units are
proposed." The bonus units would have offset the required affordable housing (for a total
of 30 units)."
Residential developments are required to provide 10% of the base development as
affordable housing. In return, the developer receives a market -rate density bonus
equivalent to the number of affordable units required. This density bonus means that the
base density allowed by underlying zoning is exceeded. The extra market rate units are
intended to offset the cost of the affordable units (Note: the Optional residential density
bonus for affordable housing contained in BIMC 18.90.040 provides for an increase in
number of units above those bonus units granted by BIMC 18.90.030.
During the hearing and recommendation process with the Hearing Examiner there was
much discussion about whether wetlands should be included and what the base density
was ... but the Final Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions& Recommendation from the
Hearing Examiner, dated February 15, 2000, affirmed the 27 unit base density, with the
wetland area included in the density calculation. Final Recommendation reads in part,
"The Applicant's request to include the area of the wetland in the density calculation should
be granted. Since the affordable housing units proposed for the subdivision are the
minimum required by BIMC 1&90.040B, no additional residential density bonus should be
approved " The hearing examiner miscalculated by not allowing for the three bonus units
Woodland Village Subdivision Amendment fn: SUBA10096
2
permitted under BIMC 18.90.030, instead she referenced BIMC 18.090.040B, which
relates to optional bonus density for additional affordable units.
The applicants are now asking that the final plat conditions of approval be amended, to
remove the affordable housing requirement. Since, the applicants were not afforded the
three bonus lots to offset the affordable requirement at the preliminary plat phase; this
amendment would alleviate the burden of affordable housing without just compensation.
This amendment would also consistent with the City's determination not to require
affordable housing on the Stonecress development, which is immediately next door to
Woodland Village. In that case and others, the City has determined that if the bonus units
are not made available to a developer, then the affordable housing requirement cannot be
imposed.
III. Conclusions
A. History:
This application is properly before the City Council for a decision on amendment of the
subdivision conditions.
B. Code Review: BIMC Chapter 18.90.030 Required Affordable Housing (all zones).
The proposed amendment properly eliminates the affordable housing requirement
because the bonus units needed to off -set the requirement were not permitted at the
time of preliminary plat approval.
IV. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the plat amendment, removing the requirement for affordable
housing and modifying the following conditions of approval contained in Resolution 2000-6A:
14. A school impact fee of $3,090.00 is to be paid for each of the newly created lots. One half
of the fee, $1,545.00, shall be paid prior to final plat approval and the balance shall be paid
at the time of building permit issuance. 44w applicam may request exemption &am pa3ma
of the h 1 ' t £ £ any ofthe affordable housing units if any of unsthea f ..iable-
't 9£. r 1' F h t' .. the appl:ram mill not he responsible F +
� ent of the
�
11
_------------
27.
Woodland Village Subdivision Amendment fn: SUBA10096
Attachments
A. Plat Amendment Application
B. Notice of Application, published August 9, 2003
C. Comment letter from Vince Mattson received August 22, 2003.
D. Comment letter from Lois Andrus received August 26, 2003.
Woodland Village Subdivision Amendment fn: SUBA10096
EXHIBIT "A
STAFF REPORT City of Bainbridge Island
Depamnent of Planning
and Commimity Development
Project: Woodland Village Subdivision Amendment
File number: SUBA 10096
Date: September 17, 2003
To: Bainbridge Island City Council
From: Larry Frazier, AICP, Planning Director
Project Managers: Associate Planners Joshua Machen and Kathy Cook
Applicant:
290 Madison Avenue N.
Bainbridge Island, WA. 99110
Request: To amend the plat of Woodland Village, eliminating the affordable
housing requirement due to the inability to achieve the allotted bonus
market rate lots (Plat Amendment Application, Attachment A).
Location: The three lots within the Woodland Village Plat affected by the proposed
change are 10152, 10268, and 10145 NE Garibaldi Loop. Section 23
Township 25N, Range 2E, W.M.
Zoning
Designation: R-2.9, two and nine tenths units per acre.
Comprehensive Plan
Designation: SUR, Semi -Urban Residential, 2.9 to 3.5 units per acre.
Environmental
Review: A SEPA MDNS was issued with the preliminary plat approval. The SEPA
mitigation conditions will continue to apply to this amendment.
Staff Analysis
I. Background—Policies and Regulations Pertaining to Affordable Housing
The Affordable Housing Requirement:
BIMC 18.90.030(B) states that any land use application to construct eight or more dwelling units
or residential building lots must provide at least 10% of the units for affordable housing. The
density may then be increased by one market rate unit for every affordable unit provided. For
example, assume the zoning allowed 20 units. Of these 20 units, 18 would be market rate and 2
would be affordable. An extra two market rate units would be allowed, for a total of 22 units.
BIMC 18.90.030(A) states that the requirements apply to all land use applications, except those
located in the Critical Areas Overlay District and the Neighborhood Service Centers (see
discussion below).
BIMC 18.90.030 (B) also states that the bonus -units "may" be granted; the intent of the word
"may" is not clear. The code does not state that the bonus is guaranteed, nor does it address
whether the affordable housing requirement applies when a bonus is not achievable.
Relationship of the Density Bonus to the Affordable Housing Requirement:
Goal 4 and Policy H 4.1 of the Comprehensive Plan's Housing Element state that the purpose of
the density bonuses is to reduce the cost of the affordable units, and that all residential districts
are eligible for bonuses except for the Critical Areas Overlay District (CAOD). The CAOD was
exempted from density bonuses because of environmental concerns related to additional lots.
Note that the restriction on density bonuses in the CAOD is included in the Housing Element,
not the Land Use Element, which seems to imply that the bonuses are linked directly to the
affordable housing program. Note also that Goal 4 does not state that the CAOD (or any other
area) must provide affordable housing in spite of the lack of bonuses.
When BIMC 18.90 (Affordable Housing) was developed, the CAOD, which the Comprehensive
Plan exempts from density bonuses, was in turn exempted from the affordable housing
requirement. Although not stated explicitly, this would indicate that the affordable housing
requirement was intended to apply only when an accompanying bonus was available. (Note that
the Neighborhood Service Centers are also exempted in BIMC 18.90, but this is because separate
affordable housing requirements for NSC are contained in BIMC 18.66)
As stated above, 18.90.030(B) does not state that the bonus is guaranteed. Nor does it state
explicitly that the affordable housing requirement applies when a bonus is not achievable.
However, BIMC 18.90.020(B) "Siting of Affordable Dwelling Units or Lots" states "The
affordable units constructed under the provisions of this chapter shall be included within the
Woodland Village Subdivision Amendment &i: SUBA10096
2
parcel of land for which the density bonus is granted. " This section appears to assume that the
construction of affordable units is linked to the availability of a density bonus.
The City's "Subsidy" and How it is Repaid
The increased density that is provided by the bonuses that accompany the required affordable
housing is considered to be a "subsidy" from the City, which allows the developer to sell the
affordable units at below market -rate. When the initial income -qualified owner resells, the unit
may be resold at market -rate, but a portion of the appreciation must be paid to the City's Housing
Trust Fund, in recognition of the City's "subsidy" If the density bonus is not available, no
subsidy is being provided. However, if the affordable housing requirement is applied in such
cases, the developer would still be required to sell units at less than market -rate, and the original
income -qualified owner would still have to pay a portion of the appreciation upon resale to the
City, even though there was no subsidy. The end result is that developments in which density
bonuses cannot be provided are treated differently than those in which bonuses are available.
H. Findings of Fact
A. Assessor's Record Information
a. Tax Lot Numbers: 5443-000-015-0007, 54.43-000-020-0000, and 5443-000-025-0005
b. Owners of record: Antone Pryor
c. Lot sizes: 9.40 acres (Original Platted Parcel) .12, .13, and .12 acres (affected
lots).
d. Land use: The affected parcels are undeveloped.
B. History:
1. On July 9, 1999, the Hearing Examiner recommended conditional approval of the
preliminary plat and entered a report, Findings of Fact- Conclusions of Law and
Recommendations; and on February 15, 2000, subsequent to gathering additional facts
regarding the wetlands density calculations, the Hearing Examiner entered an amended report
with revised Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations.
2. The Preliminary Large Lot Subdivision was approved by the City Council on April 26, 2000 by
the passage of Resolution 2000-6A.
3. The applicants applied for the proposed plat amendment on July 15, 2003.
4. A Notice of Application was published and mailed on August 9, 2003. One written comment
letter was received from Vince Mattson. Mr. Mattson notes that the Hearing Examiners decision
regarding the density is puzzling and that no findings of fact support the decision not to allow the
bonus market rate housing units. Even with the above concerns, Mr. Mattson opposes the
proponent's application to remove the affordable housing requirement from this plat.
C. Code Review:
1. BIMC Chapter 18.90.030 Required affordable housing (all zones).
Woodland Village Subdivision Amendment fn: SUBA10096
A. Applicability. This section applies to all land use applications, except those that are located
in the critical areas overlay districts and neighborhood service centers identified in the
comprehensive plan. With respect to land located within the Mixed Use Town Center and High
School Road districts, BIMC 18.40.040 and 18.40.050 shall apply. For purposes of this section,
any land included within a single application or related applications at one location in one or
more subdivisions, parts of subdivisions, resubdivisions, or stages of development, regardless of
whether any part of the land has been transferred to another party, shall be deemed a single
parcel. While this property contains critical areas (wetlands), it is not located in the
critical areas overlay district, therefore this section applied to the subdivision application.
B. Required Affordable Housing — Developments of Eight or More Dwelling Units or
Residential Building Lots. Any land use application to construct eight or more, but fewer than
50, dwelling units or residential building lots on the land subject to the application, must
provide at least 10 percent of the number of market rate dwelling units constructed pursuant to
that application as affordable housing for households whose incomes are at or below moderate -
income. The density may be increased by one market rate bonus unit for each affordable unit
provided. In 1999 the Woodland Village application was submitted to subdivide 9.4 acre
parcel into 30 lots. Under R-2.9 zoning, base density would allow 27 units, (3 of which
would be affordable) assuming that the wetlands were included in the calculation. The
density bonus would bring it to 30 units. The municipal code in effect at the time allowed
the inclusion of wetlands and wetland buffers in density calculations, and the staff
report dated March 12, 1999 stated "Proposed plat's base density of 27 units is consistent
with density range of the urban residential district. Three additional bonus units are
proposed." The bonus units would have offset the required affordable housing (for a total
of 30 units)."
Residential developments are required to provide 10% of the base development as
affordable housing. In return, the developer receives a market -rate density bonus
equivalent to the number of affordable units required. This density bonus means that the
base density allowed by underlying zoning is exceeded. The extra market rate units are
intended to offset the cost of the affordable units (Note: the Optional residential density
bonus for affordable housing contained in BIMC 18.90.040 provides for an increase in
number of units above those bonus units granted by BIMC 18.90.030.
During the hearing -and recommendation process with the Hearing Examiner there was
much discussion about whether wetlands should be included and what the base density
was ... but the Final Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions & Recommendation from the
Hearing Examiner, dated February 15, 2000, affirmed the 27 unit base density, with the
wetland area included in the density calculation. Final Recommendation reads in part,
"The Applicant's request to include the area of the wetland in the density calculation should
be granted. Since the affordable housing units proposed for the subdivision are the
minimum required by BIMC 18.90.040B, no additional residential density bonus should be
approved. " The hearing examiner miscalculated by not allowing for the three bonus units
Woodland Village Subdivision Amendment fn_ SUBA10096
9
permitted under BIMC 18.90.030, instead she referenced BIMC 18.090.040B, which
relates to optional bonus density for additional affordable units.
The applicants are now asking that the final plat conditions of approval be amended, to
remove the affordable housing requirement. Since, the applicants were not afforded the
three bonus lots to offset the affordable requirement at the preliminary plat phase; this
amendment would alleviate the burden of affordable housing without just compensation.
This amendment would also consistent with the City's determination not to require
affordable housing on the Stonecress development, which is immediately next door to
Woodland Village. In that case and others, the City has determined that if the bonus units
are not made available to a developer, then the affordable housing requirement cannot be
imposed.
III. Conclusions
A. History:
This application is properly before the City Council for a decision on amendment of the
subdivision conditions.
B. Code Review: BIMC Chapter 18.90.030 Required Affordable Housing (all zones).
The proposed amendment properly eliminates the affordable housing requirement
because the bonus units needed to off -set the requirement were not permitted at the
time of preliminary plat approval.
IV. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the plat amendment, removing the requirement for affordable
housing and modifying the following conditions of approval contained in Resolution 2000-6A:
14. A school impact fee of $3,090.00 is to be paid for each of the newly created lots. One half
of the fee, $1,545.00, shall be paid prior to final plat approval and the balance shall be paid
at the time of building permit issuance.
units qualify for suGh an GxGmptieR, the app4eapA 3A411 net b@ responsible for- payaWPA of the
27.
Woodland Village Subdivision Amendment fn: SLJBA10096