July 29, 2002
Zoning-use changes at Hollywood Intersection
(Copy of letter sent to Woodinville City Council)
I hope I can convey the shock those Tourist District Overlay landowners who were involved in the original planning for that district felt when told that you recently passed major changes to land use zoning at the Hollywood intersection neighborhood business area.
Changing the zoning's land uses to prohibit not just appartments, as publicized, but also to prohibit professional offices, which was not publicized, was not just shocking for what it did, but equally shocking for how it was accomplished.
The state's growth management act, in RCW section 36.70A.140, requires "early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion,. . . and consideration of and response to public comments."
I would appreciate being informed of how and where the "effective notice" of the prohibition of professional offices at the Hollywood intersection took place, and which public meeting took place after that effective public notice.
(While existing professional offices would be grandfathered, will they be allowed to rebuild if destroyed by fire? Will they be allowed to expand?)
Such cavalier disregard of growth management rule by Woodinville's city government bodes ill for other city residents and landowners who later may find themselves in a position of significant distrust of that government. Zoning changes have far-reaching consequences and should not be adopted upon impulse, which seems to have occurred here.
At the onset of the tourist district overlay, at a time when district landowners agreed to give up some allowed impervious surface coverage in order to provide more open space, the landowners were told that except for inappropriate uses such as those requiring unsightly outside storage, they were entitled to all other uses in their underlying zone, plus optional tourist uses. (In hard times a doctor is a more dependable tenant than an arts-and-crafter, and that choice of tenants was not to be prohibited.)
I look forward to hearing from you.
Maxine Keesling, Woodinville