City Council approves paired rezonings tied to development agreement after local objections

The Lake Stevens City Council voted May 19 to adopt two site‑specific rezonings tied to a developer agreement and a density‑transfer arrangement that reassigns future housing capacity between two parcels.

Staff described the proposals: the Ripper property (six parcels totaling roughly 9.2 acres) would be rezoned from multifamily residential (MFR) to an R8/12 single‑family implementing zone; the Dawson property (about 2.84 acres on South Lake Stevens Road) would move from R8/12 to MFR. The hearing examiner’s written recommendation, which staff summarized for the council, found both rezonings consistent with the comprehensive plan, municipal‑code criteria and the adopted sub‑area planned action. The development agreement — approved earlier by council and referenced repeatedly in the hearing record — ties the two applications and proposes a transfer of density between the properties as a precondition for later development approvals.

Applicant representatives from LandPro Group stated they supported the examiner’s findings and urged council to approve the ordinances as consistent with the development agreement and code. Neighbors offered mixed testimony: parties of record argued both that the development agreement should not be used as the sole basis for a rezoning and that returning the larger parcel to single‑family zoning would better match neighboring neighborhoods. Speakers included an HOA representative who said his 122‑house community supported the Ripper site returning to single‑family zoning and multiple residents who raised concerns about traffic, walkability and recent break‑ins near an old service access.

Council discussion focused on tradeoffs created by the density transfer: converting the larger parcel to fewer single‑family units would shift higher density to the smaller Dawson site. Several councilors pressed staff on whether adequate infrastructure and transit service were nearby and were reminded that project‑specific technical reviews (SEPA, traffic, stormwater) would occur at later permitting stages. One councilor framed the choice as fewer single‑family units versus a higher concentration in a multifamily development.

Council then moved and seconded the ordinances. Ordinance 1218 (Ripper reszone) was adopted after voice vote with one recorded opposition; ordinance 1217 (Dawson reszone) passed on a subsequent voice vote without recorded opposition. The council and staff emphasized that future development proposals would still require detailed site development review, including traffic and environmental analyses, before construction permits could be issued.

Vote tallies recorded in the meeting were not attributed to named members in the audio record; staff confirmed the board followed the required closed‑record procedure for quasi‑judicial decisions and relied on the hearing record in making the determinations.