Council tables Stuckey Farms PCD site-plan amendment after lengthy water, density and parkland debate

Washington City Council on March 26 tabled consideration of a modified preliminary site plan and a site-plan agreement addendum for the Stuckey Farms Planned Community Development (PCD), citing outstanding questions about water, park and fire-station dedications, density and the proposed "Hospitality Village."

City Attorney Thad Sigmiller and Community Development Director Drew Elamin presented the mediated draft agreement the city and the developer negotiated during prior sessions. Key elements discussed at length included:

- Lakes and water: The developer proposed reducing vested lake acreage from 25.4 acres to approximately 18.7 acres. The draft agreement defined "lakes" as stormwater or recreational lagoons or ponds, including wave- or surf-generating installations. The council requested explicit terms that the city will not supply culinary (drinking) water to those lakes; the draft contains language saying all lake water must come from developer-supplied secondary water sources or other non-culinary sources. The agreement also requires the developer to submit plans for water treatment and reverse-osmosis byproducts; state agencies would oversee water-quality monitoring if the lagoons are used for recreation.

- Park and fire-station land: The draft proposes the developer dedicate a 10-acre regional ball-field parcel and a 2-acre fire-station parcel to the city. Dedication would be triggered when preliminary plats affecting those parcels are recorded or when development reaches adjacent areas; the city and developer agreed the parkland would be conveyed in fee, but the developer would not receive impact-fee credits for that acreage. Council members pressed staff to clarify who would pay for roads and park construction and what the timing would be for public access.

- Secondary water, canal shares and credits: The agreement contemplates that the developer might transfer canal-company water shares to the city in exchange for secondary-water service when a city system becomes available; negotiation of any future credits or exchange amounts would be part of a later written agreement. Council members asked whether such future credits should be secured by contract or other instruments; city staff said details would be worked out later and that the agreement uses the term "contemplate" to signal further negotiation.

- Hospitality village and density: The developer proposed a new "Hospitality Village" of about 46.1 acres that could contain hotel, motel, condo-hotel or similar hospitality uses. The mediated agreement proposes raising the transferable residential density to 2,334 ERUs (an increase from previously vested 1,884 units). Council members repeatedly asked for more detail about how many hotel rooms, nightly-rental units or residential units the hospitality area would contain and how those uses would be counted toward density; staff and the applicant said those specifics would come with subsequent zone-change and site applications.

- PID (public improvement district) discussion: The applicant offered that a PID could be used as a financing tool in future phases; staff and council clarified that a PID requires a separate statutory legislative process and that nothing in the current agreement guarantees PID approval.

Applicant representative Brandy Walker said, based on early thinking about hotel density, the hospitality area was likely to result in no more than about 10 units per acre (roughly under 500 hospitality units on 46 acres) but emphasized the concepts were preliminary and subject to later applications.

After extended questioning by several council members on water rights, what would and would not be allowed with culinary water, the timing and funding of infrastructure, and precise counts for hospitality units, Councilman Coates moved to table the item for two weeks (April 9) to tighten language and resolve specified points, including future-technology language for water treatment, clerical corrections, and rewording or removing PID language. The motion was seconded by Councilman Troy Belson and passed unanimously.

Why it matters: The Stuckey Farms PCD is a large, long-standing vested project whose amendment could change the city's future water use, parkland inventory, public-facility obligations and residential density. Council members said they needed more precise, enforceable language before taking final action.

Vote record: Motion to table the modified site plan and site-plan agreement addendum for Stuckey Farms PCD to April 9, 2025; mover: Councilman Coates; second: Councilman Troy Belson; outcome: tabled unanimously.