Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission pauses traffic‑impact fee package after technical critiques, carries hearing to Dec. 3
Summary
After public testimony criticizing the Transpo methodology and residents warning of heavy local traffic in TIZ 1, the Planning Commission kept the public hearing open on concurrency and traffic‑impact‑fee materials and requested revised methodology and clearer implementation documents for the Dec. 3 meeting.
The Lake Stevens Planning Commission held a lengthy public hearing on updates to the city’s concurrency management system and traffic impact mitigation fees on Nov. 19, and elected to carry the hearing to Dec. 3 after technical objections and community concerns.
Planning Manager Christy Schmidt presented code revisions intended to align the city’s concurrency standards and traffic‑impact fees with the 2024 comprehensive plan and state rules. Staff said the city contracted Transpo to prepare technical methodology documents, including a cost‑basis report, a developer worksheet and a concurrency handbook used by developers and engineers.
Tom Hanson, a retired civil engineer, told the commission he supports impact fees in principle but called the Transpo report “significantly deficient,” saying the analysis lacks an engineering stamp, the authors are not identified, and the appendix appears to prioritize active‑transportation projects over intersection and road capacity work. Hanson urged the commission not to forward the package to council until Transpo’s technical work is revised.
"This traffic impact fee should not be called a traffic impact fee... it should be called a transportation facilities impact fee," Hanson said, arguing the appendix lists more active‑transportation projects than intersection improvements.
TIZ 1 residents also spoke. Laura (Leah) Yidis said she lives on 20th Street in TIZ 1 and urged higher fees for that zone because local streets funnel traffic to limited access points (Highway 9 and US‑2), and existing bus stops and sidewalks are inadequate. Staff acknowledged TIZ 1 produces a higher fee under current CIP assumptions (staff said the original calculation was around $11,000) and told the commission council had asked staff to explore ways to make fees comparable to neighboring cities.
Commissioners raised specific technical questions: staff said the city currently does not track cumulative project impacts project‑by‑project but proposed implementing a tracking matrix and would flag intersections that reach 75% of a capacity threshold so they can be scheduled for improvements via the 6‑year CIP. Commissioners also requested clearer language for the single‑family exemption and definitions of fee‑in‑lieu accounting.
After public comment and discussion, the commission voted to keep the public hearing open and continue the matter to the Dec. 3 meeting so staff can return with clarified code text and additional methodology validation and implementation documents. Staff said the implementation documents can be updated separately and that city council has requested validation of the fee methodology before adoption.
The continuance preserves the record and gives staff time to respond to both technical critiques and neighborhood concerns before a formal recommendation to council.
