Woodinville council sends Green Partners 'Midtown' ground‑floor amendment to planning commission after public debate

The Woodinville City Council voted 5–2 on May 20 to add Green Partners LLC’s proposed amendment to Figure 21.42.040 — the city’s map for active versus residential uses at street level — to the planning commission’s 2025 work plan for study, rather than approving any development agreement or the project itself.

The decision followed a presentation by the developer and architects and more than an hour of questions from council members and public commenters concerned about scale, traffic and the amount and timing of promised affordable housing. Jason, a Green Partners representative, said the meeting’s purpose was limited: “This isn’t a vote on the development agreement. It’s simply asking that we study this ordinance and the development agreement with planning commission,” he told council.

Why it matters: the request would allow the city to consider authorizing occupied ground‑floor residential through a development agreement, an approach Green Partners says could help make marginal retail spaces viable while adding housing. The developer said the 19.2‑acre Midtown redevelopment concept could accommodate roughly 1,300 housing units, approximately 89,000 square feet of commercial space and public infrastructure including four new roads and a Wooden Creek restoration buffer; the developer estimated construction would generate 600–800 job‑years and suggested full build‑out might add about $1,000,000 a year in ongoing city revenue. Jason also said an approximate 10% affordable set‑aside would equate to about 130 units if the full 1,300 units were built. Several packet tables and the DA draft in council materials contained placeholders and blanks that staff and the developer said reflect ongoing work.

Public comment and council concerns: residents and former officials raised repeated concerns that rezoning without a fully defined development agreement could produce ad‑hoc zoning changes that favor profitability over walkable retail and family housing. “This feels like a repeat of what happened with Old Town,” said Alison Farmer during public comment, urging council not to forward the map amendment without a tied DA. Gary Harris, a former council member, said he had not received clear answers about the prior Molebox agreement and urged caution.

Council questions focused on when affordable units would be delivered in phased construction, the proposed mix of retail versus residential space and traffic mitigation. Deputy Mayor Randolph asked whether allowing ground‑floor residential would materially reduce unit counts; Jason replied that the central block might include “15 to 20” ground‑floor residences and roughly 30 townhomes on the south side of the creek, changes that would not “move the needle” on total unit counts but could affect street‑level retail viability.

Action taken: Deputy Mayor Randolph moved to add the code amendment to the planning commission’s work plan. The roll‑call vote was Yes: Council members Evans, Edwards, Mayor Millman, Arndt and Randolph; No: Council members Bess Campbell and Taylor. The motion carried 5–2. Councilmember Bess Campbell said she opposed forwarding the item without clearer policy guidance on the desired balance of retail and residential in downtown; she suggested the council should set policy guardrails before asking planning to undertake the technical work.

What happens next: placing the amendment on the planning commission work plan authorizes a formal review by the commission, including public hearings, analysis of the development agreement, environmental review (SEPA) and opportunities for the council to set policy priorities and negotiating points for any DA. The council emphasized that nothing approved tonight binds the city or commits the council to approve the development agreement itself.

Who said it (selection of direct quotes): Jason (Green Partners): “This isn’t a vote on the development agreement. It’s simply asking that we study this ordinance and the development agreement with planning commission.” Alison Farmer (public commenter): “When a developer is allowed to ask for a zone amendment during a DA process, I feel the intention of that course is there to support a DA, not to enable the developer to come up with a feasible one in the first place.”

Next steps: the planning commission will schedule deliberations and public hearings; staff and the developer will continue to refine the DA and the packet information that currently contains blanks. The council directed staff to proceed with the planning‑level review rather than to take approval action this evening.