Density bonuses draw a critical eye

Published 8:00 pm Saturday, September 30, 2006

Developers would provide parks in exchange for taller projects.

It’s a fairly simple deal, says one island developer: the city lets him build taller buildings and he, in exchange, hands over a chunk of his property for a public park.

But some aren’t ready to buy in quite yet.

“The public’s gaining something, but the developer’s gaining more,” said Councilman Kjell Stokness, who joined some citizens at Wednesday’s council meeting in questioning a proposal that would grant density bonuses to developers for public amenities like parks or open spaces.

Such bonuses could come with stipulations that open spaces abut public areas and border 15-foot setbacks on private lands.

The density bonus would equal twice the percentage of the total lot area designated as open space. If 25 percent of the total lot area is reserved as parkland, a developer may be awarded a 50 percent density bonus, allowing for increased construction height limits.

The proposal was developed at the request of Kelly Samson, who hopes to apply a density bonus to a residential project on 2.8 acres at the southeast corner of Wyatt Way and Grow Avenue.

Under current zoning rules, his proposed Eagle Harbor Heights development could include nearly 40 residential units.

Samson hopes for a 50 percent density increase in exchange for a one-acre park.

“If you do nothing, you get (residences) but not the park,” Samson told the council. But with the rule change allowing Samson to build higher, the growing downtown may come to value the small park they received in exchange, he said.

“In five to 10 years that park’s going to look great,” he said, estimating the proposed parkland’s value at $2 million.

Samson urged the council to approve incentives more enticing than those offered in the past.

“The affordable housing (incentives) looked great on paper but were an ‘economic dog,’ and so nobody did it,” he said.

City planner Kathy Cook, who drafted the proposed density amendments to the city’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning rules, said the the changes are aimed at encouraging developers to include “amenities that make downtown more liveable,” while higher density buildings will help the city meet its state-mandated growth management requirements.

But some on the council are concerned the proposal may not strike enough of a balance.

“What benefit is changing if it (encourages) more people to crowd into one spot?” asked Councilman Bill Knobloch.

Stokness had hoped the proposal would include more details about who would develop park properties.

“(The proposal) says nothing about that,” he said. “Who designs it? Who does construction? Who pays for it?”

Association of Bainbridge Communities member Charles Schmid commended the proposal’s focus on providing more open space but questioned how long the incentive would stand.

“I’m afraid (the city) might just get rid of the open space (requirement),” he said, referring to the city’s recent reduction of a 30 percent open space rule in areas zoned for light manufacturing.

He also cited recent legal agreements struck between the city and property owners, including Samson, that he said reversed city rules and environmental protections.

Many recent or proposed rule changes appear “developer driven,” Schmid added.

The proposed density incentives were referred to the council’s Land Use Committee, which will discuss the matter further on Tuesday.