Sammamish council opens hearing on amended Brownstones West agreement, focuses on road realignment and stormwater

The Sammamish City Council on Tuesday opened a public hearing on the second amended and restated development agreement for the Brownstones West project, focusing on a proposed realignment of Southeast Sixth Street, a consolidated stormwater facility, added sidewalks and angled parking intended to improve park access and reduce impervious surface.

City Development Review Manager Joseph C., joined by Matt (Deputy Director, Community Development), and applicants Peter Brennan (vice president of land development, Innovation Realty Partners) and Matt Samwick (CEO, Innovation Realty Partners), outlined the proposal. Under the amendment, the applicant would construct the northern half of Southeast Sixth Street on its property; the city plans to design and build the southern half later under the adopted six‑year Transportation Improvement Plan. Joseph said the applicant’s portion is anticipated to be complete by Jan. 1, 2026, unless the city agrees to a later date.

The amendment is presented as a more “holistic” approach to the roadway near the Lower Commons Park. City staff said consolidating the roadway and park access would reduce duplicate impervious areas, simplify intersections and create additional nonmotorized connections by providing sidewalks along the park edge. Peter Brennan and staff said the proposal also makes room for angled on‑street parking and better circulation between town center and the park.

Residents and advocates spoke during the hearing. Mary Wictor, a longtime Sammamish resident, said she supports the consolidated stormwater approach, noting she understood the packet’s claim that the design would reduce about 10,000 square feet of impervious surface and roughly 13,500 square feet of pollution‑generating impervious area (a combined reduction she described as roughly 0.54 acre). She called the consolidated stormwater facility and the added pedestrian connections “a great idea.”

Council members asked for more data and follow up. Rosheen O’Farrell asked whether on‑street parking added near the park could be reserved or signed for park users; staff replied the spaces would be public but could be signed and that the net effect would create more parking availability for park visitors. Deputy Mayor Amy Lam and Council Member Pamela Stewart requested clearer graphics comparing the approved plan to the proposed configuration and asked for numeric details on parking counts, construction and maintenance costs, and the difference in stormwater and long‑term operations costs between the two layouts.

Council Member Kaylee Clark questioned whether the interim one‑way configuration for the applicant’s half‑street would be long lasting; staff said the applicant’s north half will be one way while the city completes its south half, and phasing of home construction means that one‑way operation would be temporary. Council members also pressed the applicants on housing details. When asked about affordable units, staff said Brownstones West and East each include a small number of affordable units; applicants and staff indicated three affordable units per development but provided that figure as tentative and said they would provide exact numbers in follow up.

Applicants and staff also discussed lot and unit configurations: the road shift alters lot lines so some lots on the south edge would be larger, creating larger side yards; staff said Brownstones West homes will not increase in building footprint compared with prior approvals, while Brownstones East lot and unit configurations may be adjusted and could increase unit square footage slightly. Council members requested written square‑footage comparisons and confirmation of unit counts.

The council voted to keep the public hearing open and accepted public comment through the Feb. 4 council meeting; staff said they would return with a recommended motion and additional materials, including detailed parking counts, cost comparisons (short‑term capital and long‑term maintenance/savings), and maps showing the 10,000 and 13,500 square‑foot reductions in impervious and pollution‑generating surfaces used in the packet.

The hearing record will remain open until Feb. 4 to allow more written and oral comment; staff said a recommended motion would be scheduled at a future meeting after the hearing closes and after Ecology and other technical reviews where applicable.

• Votes at a glance: Public hearing opened and continued through Feb. 4 (no final action taken).