King County Council Approves Annexation-Related Joint Study With Woodinville

The King County Council has approved a joint planning effort between the county and city of Woodinville to study issues related to growth within the Sammamish Valley.

The King County Council this week unanimously adopted the 2012 updates to the King County Comprehensive Plan, the blueprint for growth in the County’s unincorporated communities.

They did not address  but instead, with city support, approved a joint study between the two to develop joint recommendations for promoting the wine and agriculture industries in Woodinville. 

Through the study, the county and city will analyze and consider:

  • Transportation infrastructure,
  • The finite nature and value of agricultural soil resources,
  • Character of the surrounding rural area,
  • Vacant, buildable, and redevelopable land within the existing urban growth area,
  • The adopted Countywide Planning Policies and King County Comprehensive Plan,
  • Input from the public and interested stakeholders, including local businesses and surrounding city and unincorporated area communities,
  • Failing septic systems and pollution in the valley; and
  • Non-conforming uses on the unincorporated lands in King County and on the agricultural lands.

The County Executive’s office and related planning staff will be coordinating with the City on moving forward with the joint planning effort, county staff told Patch this week.

The King County Comprehensive Plan guides growth and development in the unincorporated areas of the county and sets policy on such major issues as annexations, transportation, and the environment. Every four years, the KCCP is reviewed and major updates occur. The last major review was in 2008.

For more information on the Council’s Comprehensive Plan Update, go to: www.kingcounty.gov/council/issues/comprehensive_plan.aspx

Like Woodinville Patch on Facebook Follow us on Twitter | Sign up for our daily newsletter

Saira V. December 07, 2012 at 04:23 AM
"Vacant, buildable, and redevelopable land within the existing urban growth area," What does this mean? Sounds like political double-speak to me. Isn't the purpose of an agricultural preserve to preserve land for agriculture and avoid urban encroachment? If there are non-conforming uses then tear them out and return the land to farming as the county intended.
Susan Boundy-Sanders December 07, 2012 at 06:09 AM
Hi Saira, based on conversations with County Councilmembers, I'm confident that the County's language, "Vacant, buildable, and redevelopable land within the existing urban growth area," refers to underused land that is already available inside the city limits. By including it as a study item, I'd guess the County Council is sending a signal that they realize Woodinville already has plenty of land inside its borders for the uses it wants. I think -- hope -- that this is the County's way of signaling to Woodinville that the County is going to keep the pressure on Woodinville to show good stewardship of its own land before the County will allow it to pave over farmland.
Susan Boundy-Sanders December 07, 2012 at 06:34 AM
Unfortunately, "good stewardship" is not the direction the Woodinville City Council appears to be choosing. Tuesday evening, the City Council voted to rezone Office land next to the Sammamish Valley agricultural land into Central Business District. That allows buildings as tall as 57 feet in the parcels directly adjacent to unincorporated agricultural land. That's bad enough on its face. What makes it really regrettable is that Woodinville has three legal criteria that are required in order to qualify for a rezone: need, compatibility with surrounding properties, and suitability for the new uses. Woodinville didn't even seem to make a good-faith effort to prove its case. For example, the ordinance's proof of "need" for more Central Business District land was, "The existing Office designation is no longer needed, because it provides for a limited number of uses." It is very, very troubling to me that three Councilmembers dismissed these legal requirements with statements to the effect that if we allow the rezone, we might get a hotel. This is not the kind of record that's going to convince a savvy County Council that Woodinville would be a good caretaker for county land.
Jane Millar December 07, 2012 at 03:18 PM
I don't understand why SR202 from Columbia Winery to the Hooterville Corner, which appears to have ample available property, doesn't satisfy the "need" for more commercial opportunities.
Jodi Getz December 07, 2012 at 04:58 PM
This City Council agreed to a development agreement for the Wine Village that centered around a Hotel Developement. Now they are walking away from the Wine Village agreement to satisfy one family's private request to put a hotel in for them before the wine village can be developed. Political contributions seem to take precedent in Woodinville. Now just wait to see what they have to do to renegotiate new uses for the Wine Village since the hotel option will be gone. I'm sure the HHA will not be happy with this. Woodinville - Potterville - DeYoungville? Do things ever change?
Bob Martinek December 07, 2012 at 07:09 PM
Jane, My understanding is that the "development" along 202 is grandfathered in and no matter how the valley progresses or continues token farms, the Athletic club, the giant white/green plastic quanset hut, bakery outlet, trailer sales, church are farms.
Ron Olson December 07, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Why would two NON-Woodinville residents, Lucy DeYoung and realtor John Corrado, be so interested in building a hotel to compete with the Woodinville Wine Village? Why would the Woodinville city manager put rezoning on the table at the request of non-residents? Why would the city manager allow his employees to file unauthorized docket requests? Why would the city manager allow his employees to improperly remove legally installed neighborhood signs and then fail to answer to citizen complaints about the lack of training and supervision of his staff? Why would the city manager prevent the public from attending the “Open” meetings between Woodinville and King County? Why would the city manager refer to the citizen that was kicked out of the Woodinville/King County joint meeting saying the man was a NON-RESIDENT when the man was a King County resident that had every reason to be concerned about how his neighborhood would be developed? Woodinville has a city manager that dances to the beat of his own drummer while stepping on Woodinville tax paying citizens. We need a new city manager.
Dale Knapinski December 07, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Lisa: The title of your story indicates that this is an annexation-related joint study. Please show me where you got that information because the outline says nothing of the kind, and King County specifically eliminated UGB adjustments (And resulting annexation) from their offer to study valley development.
Lisa Baumann (Editor) December 07, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Hi Dale, I put that in the headline because the joint study was born out of the annexation proposals, not that they will tackle those specific proposals in the study.
Saira V. December 08, 2012 at 04:12 AM
Good questions. Perhaps you could add more because I don't see the connection to wrong doings within in the current city staff. Are they being manipulated and coerced by strongarm council politicians and their purse strings? I've had suspicions and read many innuendos. Perhaps you may connect the dots a bit.
STOP Larry's 3rd Attempt December 09, 2012 at 02:12 PM
DEMOCRATS BREAK PROMISES USED TO INCENTIVIZE ANNEXATIONS BEWARE!!! Deal "sweeteners" are often offered to entice "consolidations" or "annexations." A couple cities that only entered into consolidation based on promises made are now fighting their 3rd fight in 9 months to have the legal contracts upheld. Funny how the representative from the 45th district was the one who originally passed the bill to allow the "prenupital" agreement between the cities. Now the representative from the 45th district (years later) single handedly wants to break the contract. This is without any request from citizens at large or either of the cities involved!!! BEWARE!!! Don't be enticed or tricked into consolidation or annexation based on promises that will later be broken!!!
STOP Larry's 3rd Attempt December 09, 2012 at 02:50 PM
DEMOCRATS BREAK ANNEXATION PROMISES - SEE VIDEO @ 1:08:00 http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2012121001


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »