Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Woodmont Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff proposes council review for Woodmont development agreement; committee asks for traffic and ingress analysis
Summary
Planning staff recommended bringing a development agreement for the Woodmont project to full council before routing the planned unit development to the hearing examiner; committee members asked for traffic/ingress analysis and agreed to return the item to committee before a council vote.
Planning staff told the Economic Development Committee that, under the city’s municipal code, development agreements for mixed‑use projects are negotiated with the council while planned unit development (PUD) design review is handled by the hearing examiner.
“We suggested that we bring a development agreement to the city council in the beginning,” planning staff said, explaining the recommended sequence: a council negotiation and approval of a development agreement, followed by the hearing examiner’s review of the consolidated PUD and related permits.
Committee members supported bringing a development agreement to the full council first, citing lessons from a previous project where the council did not see an earlier PUD and the outcome was “not desirable.” Several members asked staff to require traffic memos and to consider ingress and egress because the Woodmont site is long and narrow and abuts a small residential street.
One council member said adding ingress and egress points improves safety, but another member cautioned that too many access points can create pass‑through vulnerability for adjacent residents; members suggested the traffic engineer determine the proper configuration.
Staff noted that deviations from code requested by the applicant (for example, frontage or recreational area modifications) should be written into a development agreement so the hearing examiner and subsequent reviews operate from that negotiated baseline. The planning staff also reminded the committee that the city’s permit process can require fees and SEPA review where applicable.
The committee did not take a final vote on a development agreement; members instructed staff to return the proposal to the committee with traffic and circulation details and then forward a recommended development agreement to the full council for a formal decision.
