Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Concurrency Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff outlines proposed concurrency updates to LSMS 14.110; Transpo to help develop annual reporting and methodologies
Summary
City staff presented recommendations and next steps to revise concurrency procedures in LSMS 14.110, including an annual concurrency report, updated traffic-analysis thresholds, and a concurrency certification process; Transpo (transportation consultant) will assist with methodology and updated developer guidance.
Lake Stevens staff presented proposed revisions to LSMS 14.110 (concurrency) on March 5 and summarized technical recommendations from the consultant Transpo.
A staff presenter said Transpo provided an eight-item recommendation set that includes creating an annual concurrency report, reconsidering thresholds and traffic-analysis methodology, using concurrency trips per person rather than per vehicle to reflect multimodal planning, and developing a formal concurrency certification document rather than relying on standalone staff reports.
Staff summarized a six-item to-do list drawn from Transpo's memo: develop an annual concurrency report tied to the city's capital improvement program; adjust traffic impact zones and methodology; produce a concurrency tracking matrix for the Lake Stevens Industrial Center subarea after that subarea plan is completed; update the city's traffic-analysis guidance and mitigation worksheets for developers; and align concurrency tracking with the multimodal standards adopted earlier in the year.
The presenter said Transpo will assist in adjusting the city's developer handouts (overview of traffic study requirements and the developer impact mitigation worksheet) to match the updated comprehensive plan and multimodal standards. Staff noted one subarea (industrial) is not yet tracked for concurrency and the tracking matrix will be expanded after that subarea plan is advanced; that task could slip into 2026 depending on workloads.
Staff described the code changes under consideration as relatively technical and not extensive, and said the work will include public-facing materials to help developers understand updated requirements.
No formal action was taken; staff will bring revised code language, the proposed annual reporting format and updated guidance materials back to the planning commission for review.
