Council declines to approve Stuckey Farms PCD amendment as presented, asks developer to revise

The Washington City Council did not approve a proposed Planned Community Development (PCD) amendment for the Stuckey Farms project as it was presented on Jan. 8, 2025, and the council directed the applicant to return with revisions and clearer agreements addressing water responsibilities, a site for a municipal fire station, and other commitments.

Developers and consultants appeared for a lengthy agenda presentation and Q&A. McKay Christians (NLA Development Group) reviewed a revised land‑use plan that increased mixed‑use commercial and proposed a large resort component anchored by a surf‑wave recreational facility; Marcus Keller (Cruz & Associates) presented a short economic impact analysis emphasizing projected sales‑tax and transient‑room‑tax gains that would accompany a successful resort and commercial core. Brandy Walker (Civil Science) addressed engineering constraints tied to lake/pond design and explained that surf‑facility dimensions and some stormwater basins are engineered to specific sizes for safety and function.

Council concerns coalesced around three issues: (1) water availability and rights — several council members and staff pressed the applicant on whether canal/diversion shares and well sources could legally and practically supply the proposed lakes and irrigation, and consultants said the team could not confidently deed over canal shares at this time without legal and operational clarity; (2) the scale and optics of a major water‑intensive resort amenity when the city is asking residents to reduce culinary water use — some council members called the surf facility “offensive” given conservation expectations and asked whether the lakes truly used less water than alternatives such as turf/soccer fields or an 18‑hole golf course; and (3) public commitments and timing — council members sought a firmer, documented commitment on conveyance of land for a city fire station and wanted clearer, written terms for any transfer of water shares or impact‑fee credits.

Two procedural motions were attempted during the discussion. A motion to table the amendment for two weeks (to the Jan. 22 meeting) was moved but did not secure the necessary support. A subsequent motion that the council would not approve the PCD amendment “as presented” also passed procedural steps in the meeting record and the mayor summarized the outcome: “Item 7 a does not pass as it was presented. I guess we’re back to the drawing board.”

Council direction and next steps: Council asked the applicant to return with (a) clearer, written terms for any water‑share or funding commitments and legal analysis of transfer/commingling constraints under the State Engineer’s rules, (b) a firm proposal for land conveyance or terms for a municipal fire station site (the developer indicated willingness to work with staff on a favorable offer), and (c) a redesign or updated plan that responds to the council’s concerns about irrigation, water quality and quantity, and the mix of housing types. Multiple council members said they would consider a future proposal that addressed those items but were not prepared to approve the amendment in its current form.

Quotes: “We can appreciate that,” said McKay Christians, “but it is a lot to unpack.” Multiple councilmembers urged more explicit, written agreements before voting on changes that would increase density or rely on the developer transferring privately held water rights to public uses.

What this means: The developer retains existing entitlements pending a new or revised PCD amendment application; the council’s refusal to approve the amendment as presented preserves the status quo while signaling that future approvals will require clearer legal commitments and evidence that the project will not worsen citywide culinary water stress.