Woodinville council unanimously delays Green Partners 'Midtown' plan, seeks clearer affordability and infrastructure commitments

The Woodinville City Council voted unanimously on March 18 to postpone substantive action on Green Partners LLC’s proposed Midtown redevelopment and asked the developer to return with a more detailed plan that addresses infrastructure sequencing, affordability commitments and design standards.

Deputy Mayor Randolph moved the measure after lengthy public comment and council discussion about a 19.2‑acre site in downtown Woodinville. The motion asked staff to work with Green Partners and return with a revised proposal that includes clearer timing for roads and utilities so the city is not left with unfinished infrastructure, stronger early‑phase affordability (council members repeatedly cited a 10% minimum target), and options for ownership or workforce housing. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote, 7–0.

Jason Henderson, representing Green Partners, said the materials in the packet were a feasibility study and not final design: "We're not in a rush... We realize this is gonna be a back and forth process, and we wanted a lot of public input and council's input on making it right," he said. Council members cautioned that the city needs commitments up front — not optimistic renderings — and emphasized community engagement and repair of trust after the previous property operator closed and existing buildings were demolished.

Council members raised several consistent themes: guarantee early investment in infrastructure so streets and utilities are built before later phases; require a meaningful share of affordable units early in the build‑out rather than as a distant promise; incorporate open space, setbacks and Northwest design character; and consider how ground‑floor retail and residential mixes will affect downtown vibrancy and sales tax. Several councilors suggested the development agreement should specifically tie affordable housing and infrastructure to early phases rather than leaving them as aspirational benefits.

Staff said the developer had also requested a technical code map amendment to allow ground‑floor residential in parts of the CBD; councilors debated whether that map change should be evaluated independently through Planning Commission or together with a holistic project plan. Robert Grumbaugh, planning staff, said the map amendment itself is relatively straightforward but acknowledged council concerns that a code change and a development agreement can appear to move together and influence each other.

The council’s instructions require Green Partners to return with a more definitive plan that documents infrastructure timing, the amount and timing of affordable housing and other public benefits, and a community engagement plan. No final approvals or code amendments were enacted at the meeting; the item was tabled so the council can review a revised submittal.

Next steps: staff will coordinate with Green Partners on a revised plan and return to council at a future meeting; the council also suggested a planning‑level presentation to the Planning Commission once an integrated plan is available.