A divided Lake Stevens City Council on Dec. 16 approved a development‑agreement framework for two linked properties — identified in staff materials as the KNA (''Ripperager'') parcel on 99th Avenue Southeast and a receiving site on South Lake Stevens Road — while emphasizing that the vote does not itself rezone the land or approve any project. The motion directed staff to adopt findings in the staff report, approve land‑use application LUA2025‑0090 and authorize the mayor to sign the agreement.

Principal planner David Levitan told the council the agreement would require separate rezone applications for each parcel and that project‑level SEPA review and hearing‑examiner review would follow if rezones are filed. The agreement, Levitan said, is intended to provide a clear framework for a transfer of density from the 99th Avenue site to the South Lake Stevens Road site, and to obligate the applicant to perform initial intersection survey and intersection control evaluation (ICE) work for the intersection of South Lake Stevens Road and South Davies Road.

Applicant representative Ryan Larson said he reviewed and supported the staff report and the draft agreement, noting the applicant already has installed a sewer lift station at the receiving site and is prepared to fund the preliminary traffic work so the city can pursue future grant funding for any intersection improvements.

During public comment, nearby residents and commenters raised multiple concerns. Sally Jo Sebring disputed a staff slide that described the receiving site as ‘‘walkable to transit,’’ noting the nearest transit is at 99th and 20th and estimating a 0.6‑mile walk; she also drew council attention to net‑acreage and density calculations that she said could meaningfully change the comp‑plan capacity. Neighbors living on South Lake Stevens Road warned of increased traffic, potential impacts to wetlands and a creek that feeds local habitat and asked the council to leave current zoning in place.

Levitan responded that critical‑areas regulations and established wetland buffers would be applied at project review and that SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) would apply at the project stage. He also explained that rezones are quasi‑judicial (hearing examiner followed by a closed‑record council decision) and that the city sends notice to property owners within 300 feet, posts on the website and in the newspaper.

Council discussion focused on whether the city would be better served by letting rezones proceed independently or by accepting the development agreement to secure the applicant‑funded traffic analysis and other potential benefits. City attorney Greg (last name in staff record) emphasized approving the agreement would not itself approve any rezones.

After deliberation, the council approved the motion to adopt the findings, approve LUA2025‑0090 and authorize the mayor to sign the development agreement; one council member was recorded as opposed. Council members and staff repeatedly noted that any rezone and subsequent development would undergo separate public notice, hearing‑examiner review and SEPA evaluation before final land‑use approvals.

The hearing record for the rezone (if filed) will include public comment opportunities before the hearing examiner; any closed‑record council hearing on the hearing‑examiner recommendation would be limited to the record presented to the examiner.

What happens next: the development agreement establishes the framework for how the applicant may pursue two rezone applications and requires applicant‑paid preliminary traffic analysis (ICE) and conceptual design work that the city says could support future grant applications for intersection improvements. Any rezones and site development applications will return for separate review and vote.