“Editor’s note: This is the first story in an intermittent series examining the city’s comprehensive plan.* * * * *Putting half the island’s future growth in Winslow underpins Bainbridge Island’s Comprehensive Plan. Certainly, that directive fuels much of the public debate about development.But that apparently simple idea can confuse more than clarify – not everyone agrees on where Winslow actually is, a question that some say was never really settled during the comprehensive planning process.That issue was controversial to the point that nobody wanted to talk about it, and no final vote was ever taken, said Lois Andrus, a member of the Winslow Master Plan Committee. The Winslow Master Plan, which the committee produced, does contain an apparently clear definition of Winslow’s boundary for growth-allocation purposes. But as city planners begin their five-year evaluation of the successes and failures of the comp-plan, it appears that small area cannot contain half the island’s projected growth. Moreover, the study showing that half of the island’s population could indeed be contained in Winslow and the reports showing that 37 percent of island growth occurs in Winslow use boundaries far larger than those finally adopted on the WMP.There is a lot of confusion about this, said the city’s long-range planner, Marti Stave. We get requests for information about Winslow – how many acres of land there are, for instance – and we have to go back and ask them to tell us what they mean by Winslow.Which Winslow?The disconnects stem from the way the comprehensive plan was developed.When the city began the process nearly a decade ago, citizens were asked to choose from among three possible visions for island land use – dispersing growth throughout the island, creating villages in the neighborhood service centers of Lynwood, Island Center and Rolling Bay, or concentrating growth in Winslow, with limited growth elsewhere.Overwhelmingly, the citizens chose the growth-in-Winslow model – but a different Winslow than what is presently in the WMP.When we started out, it was the historic Winslow boundaries that were supposed to take half the growth, Stave said.A map from the planning department shows historic Winslow before it was disincorporated to make way for today’s all-island city. Generally speaking, Weaver Road is the western boundary, High School Road is the northern boundary, and Grand Avenue is the eastern boundary, which meanders to exclude much of the property adjacent to the Wing Point golf course.But there are little jogs that make a big difference. The northern boundary jogs up Madison Avenue to take in the Sakai property. The original Commodore development is included. And south of Wyatt Way, historic Winslow extended westward to the head of the bay.That was the definition used to report that from 1992 to 1998, 37 percent of the growth was occurring in Winslow.A different and even more expansive definition was used to determine that Winslow could accommodate half the projected island growth.For comprehensive plan purposes, the island was projected to see 7,430 new residents by 2012. Half of that growth, or 3,715, was assigned to Winslow for planning purposes. In 1996, an economic analysis was undertaken by Property Counselors, an outside consultant. It showed that accommodating 3,715 people would require 1,456 new dwelling units – an average of 2.55 people per unit.The study showed that such growth could be achieved by penciling in potential growth on a map of downtown. But this map used an area substantially larger even than historic Winslow, extending west to Sportsman Club Road and north to New Brooklyn.When the Winslow Master Plan was finally adopted in 1998, though, the relevant boundaries were far different. For population-allocation purposes, Winslow was defined as being a study area illustrated on a map. And that map shows only the area between Madison Avenue (including property fronting the west side of Madison) and Highway 305, generally south of High School Road. The boundary goes east of the highway near the ferry terminal to take in the ten acres north of Winslow Way east of Ferncliff.I don’t see how you could get half the growth in that area, Stave concedes.Others don’t either. The feasibility study from Property Counselors, the consultants, projected only 670 new units for the small area defined as Winslow in the WMP. And because virtually all of those units would be apartments or condos rather than detached single-family homes, the assumption of 2.55 persons per unit may not apply.Andrus, who was a strong advocate for a limited definition of Winslow, thinks the final language may simply be a mistake.I always thought that half the growth should come in the historic Winslow boundaries, she said. I was opposed to making the boundaries larger, but I never heard anyone talk about making them smaller.City planner Kathy Cook, who worked with the WMP committee and took notes at all meetings, said the committee did indeed intend that Winslow would be the small, in-town area shown on the WMP map, and said the minutes of the meetings support that interpretation.The significance of the definition stems from the frequency and fervor with which the half-the-growth-in-Winslow mantra arises in public debates, particularly over proposed development.The popular perception appears to be that the city is falling far short of directing half the growth into Winslow. Yet if historic Winslow is the test, then much of the recent construction near Wing Point and to the west of Ferncliff qualifies as in-town growth, as do the west-side subdivisions such as Hillandale on Weaver Road, Midden Point on Eakin Drive and Leslie Landing at the foot of Weaver. Using the larger boundaries, the city may not be far from its 50-50 target.Looking forward, the Sakai property – on Madison Avenue across from Ordway School, and on which developer Doug Nelson is planning a two-phase development – is part of historic Winslow as shown on the city map. If both stages of that project are built, the city will come closer to an may even achieve a 50-50 balance, so long as Winslow is defined as historic Winslow rather than on the WMP map.No matter how Winslow is defined, though, growth can be channeled there only by providing positive incentives to build and live in Winslow, rather than by trying to discourage building in the outlying areas.There are building lots platted all over the island, Stave said. We can’t prevent people from building on those lots. So to get growth in Winslow, the whole idea was to make it an attractive place to live – make people want to live there.Does it work?The city’s record on providing incentives for developing in Winslow has been mixed, at least according to developers.Ordinances currently on the books allow a developer in the Town Center area – what the WMP map calls Winslow – to purchase the right to increase development density, thereby putting more people in less land. But after developer Rod McKenzie purchased additional density rights for his Courtyards on Madison project, for $8 per square foot, the city proposed a several-fold increase in price.Although the city council backed off, and approved only a small increase to $10 per foot, the proposal still had an impact.It seems like when somebody actually went ahead and bought additional density, the city said, ‘somebody’s making money off this, and we’ve got to stop it,’ said one developer, who has been active in the Winslow core area. Even making the proposal, he said, sent a signal to the development community that the city wasn’t serious about encouraging growth in WInslow.Putting half the growth in historic Winslow may be feasible, Stave said, but it requires consistent policies and political commitment.We say we want this on paper, but then when we see what is actually involved – the densities in Winslow – not everybody is happy, she said. But if we want half the growth in Winslow, we have to accept the density as well. “