Upload
kerry-montgomery
View
218
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Speakers
• TBD: moderator• TBD: Canterbury Homeowners Association• Mike Tanksley: Hollywood Hill Association• Brad Rich: Concerned Neighbors of Wellington• Claire Thomas: Sammamish Valley Grange
The big picture:UGB amendment is unneeded and
unwarranted.
• Inconsistent with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
• Inconsistent with Woodinville’s Comp Plan• Eliminates Sammamish Valley Agricultural land• Directly competes with planned projects inside
the Woodinville city limits
“Need”• CPP: “sufficiency of vacant, developable land and
redevelopable land to meet projected needs.”
Woodinville Village: 20 acres vacant land with development agreement in place,
and $8M road improvements completed
Woodinville’s overall inventory of commercial land
• 2002 Comprehensive Plan:
“After deducting constraints, Woodinville has nearly 174 net acres of vacant and redevelopable commercial and industrial land.”
Changes since 2002 are negligible.
Land swaps
• APD land: “removal . . . only . . . if . . . addition of agricultural land abutting the APD of equal acreage and of equal or greater soils and agriculture value.”
• Zoned rural in APD: “removal . . . will not diminish the productivity of prime agricultural soils or the effectiveness of farming within the APD.”
Infrastructure140th is an unsafe, overburdened 2-lane county road
that is proposed to remain in county ownership.
Uses
CPP:
“Development on the land added to the Urban Growth Area under this policy shall be limited to residential development . . .”
Proposal to King County is “medical gateway.”Proposal to Woodinville City Council has been agritourism.
There is no applicant
Woodinville letters to King County, April 11 andApril 18, 2012:
“The Woodinville City Council did not approve the submittal of a docket request regarding this item. Any docket application received by the County from the City of Woodinville was not authorized.”