Council delays approval of surf-park buildings over water-treatment and disposal questions

Washington City Council on Aug. 27, 2025, voted to table consideration of conditional use permit CD-25-07 — a zoning approval for two commercial buildings linked to a proposed Zion Shores surf facility at Groves Parkway and Waters Edge Way — until the council can review technical engineering plans and hear from the project’s water-treatment engineers.

The item was continued after council members pressed staff and the applicant for more detail about how highly brackish lagoon water would be treated, where solids would go and how the city’s development agreement and building-permit process would be used to enforce conditions.

The project as presented to the council would occupy about 8.83 acres and includes a 6,000-square-foot retail building (board shop and check-in), a 32,568-square-foot wave-generator facility and ancillary structures such as cabanas and a jumping rock. Staff said the parcel is zoned planned commercial development (PCD) with a hospitality designation and that the city’s zoning code requires conditional use permits for new commercial buildings of 5,000 square feet or larger; Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval at its Aug. 20 meeting.

"Zoning regulations require new commercial buildings, 5,000 square feet in size and larger, to obtain conditional use permit approval," Community Development Director Eldon Gibb told the council. He and other staff reiterated that many technical elements — including any secondary water-treatment facility, evaporative ponds and related discharge plans — would be reviewed through building-permit and, where applicable, separate CUP processes for structures over 5,000 square feet.

Council members said the water-treatment and solids-disposal plans were the main outstanding issues. Councilman Coates and others asked whether the city should see and approve water-treatment designs now or wait until a later building-permit phase. Staff’s position was that several provisions in the existing development agreement (cited by staff) require water plans and limits on discharge, and that the technical plans should be attached to the pool/building permit for the structure that would actually hold and treat the secondary water.

The applicant, Cody Larkin of Zion Shores, said the project team engaged two specialist engineering firms in April: Cloward H2O (aquatics/water quality) and Westech (salt/brine treatment). Larkin said the project has spent about $1,000,000 on engineering so far and that equipment purchases total roughly $10,000,000. "We are only using 5% of the water on-site," he said, and described the process and byproduct this way: "That 500 pounds per hour once again is just at max, and it won't run all the time. It's just when we're running, and it comes out as pellets ... Our engineers say there's probably a secondary market to sell that gypsum." He added the project currently estimates pelletized solids removed at maximum could equal roughly one truckload per day in a worst‑case summer scenario.

Council members pressed for more precise data. The applicant described the solids as pelletized gypsum stored in bins and hauled to a local landfill or sold if a secondary market exists. Larkin said the team expects to reduce operational flows to near 10–12 gallons per minute and that the 500‑pounds‑per‑hour figure represents a design maximum.

Council members also raised parking and landscaping concerns: staff noted the application proposes 110 parking spaces and that the parcel will include a six‑foot masonry privacy wall with 15‑foot landscaping setbacks along Groves Parkway; several council members asked for clearer justification of the parking count and for the developer/master developer to complete promised roadway landscaping in the area.

Because council members said they had not seen full engineering submittals, Councilman Henderson moved — and Councilman Belson seconded — to table CD-25-07 for two weeks to allow the applicant’s engineers to present to the council and for staff and the applicant to provide more detailed plans in advance. The motion passed on a roll-call vote. The council asked staff to include the project engineers in a Sept. 10 meeting so council members could hear a technical briefing before voting.

Discussion vs. decision: Council discussion focused on water-treatment design, solids disposal, permitting sequence (zoning/CUP vs. building permit) and parking/landscaping. Council’s formal direction was to continue the item and request an engineering presentation; no zoning approvals were adopted on Aug. 27.

Next steps: The applicant indicated intent to submit building‑permit materials in the coming weeks; staff said any secondary‑water treatment facility, evaporative ponds or other new buildings over 5,000 square feet would require separate review and possibly a PCD amendment. The council scheduled further consideration for the Sept. 10 meeting after engineers present their technical plans.