Chapter 14.10 CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT

The transportation element of the city of Mount Vernon comprehensive plan must be consistent with the goals of the 1990 Washington State Growth Management Act. The Act reads:

Local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the Level of Service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development.

(Ord. 2839 § 1, 1997).

14.10.020 Definitions generally.

Words used in the present tense shall include the future tense; the future tense shall include the present tense. The singular number shall include the plural number; the plural number shall include the singular number. The word “may” is permissive; “shall” is mandatory. “Lot” includes the words “plot,” parcel,” “tract,” and “site,” and “building” includes the word “structure.” “City” shall mean the city of Mount Vernon, Washington, and “county” shall mean Skagit County, Washington.

A. “Adjacent street system” includes streets and intersections that are adjacent to the project, and may include multiple corridors and intersections.

B. “City engineer” means the duly appointed engineer for the city.

C. “Comprehensive plan” means the coordinated plan which has been prepared for the physical development of the municipality; or any plan included in the comprehensive plan which has been prepared for the physical development of such municipality, and which designates among other things, plans and programs to encourage the most appropriate use of land and to lessen congestion throughout the municipality in the interest of public health, safety and welfare.

D. “Corridor” means a length of a specific street; possibly encompassing intersections.

E. “Council” means the city council.

F. “Developer” means a person, individual, corporation, or partnership proposing, constructing, or causing to construct improvements within the city limits. Such improvements include, but are not limited to, homes, buildings, subdivisions, streets, and utilities.

G. Director. Unless another department head is specifically referenced, the director shall mean the community and economic development department director.

H. “Existing pavement” means a presently traveled street surface consisting of either portland cement, asphalt concrete, bituminous chip seal, or crushed stone as a wearing surface.

I. “Level of service” (hereafter referred to as LOS) means a minimum standard established by the city of Mount Vernon to ensure the adequacy and safety of the various facilities and infrastructure, to accommodate anticipated utilization.

J. “Pavement width” means the actual paved surface measured between faces of curbs of streets or from edge to edge of paved road surface, excluding paved shoulders of inadequate cross-sections.

K. “Peak hour vehicle trip” means the volume of development generated traffic in the arterial street system during the most critical or highest volume hours of the day.

L. “Right-of-way” means a strip of land dedicated to the public for street and/or utility purposes.

M. “Segment” means that portion of the street lying between intersections.

N. “Sequential development” means development of a single parcel or of multiple adjoining parcels that involve multiple development permits, or multiple phases of a single development permit, regardless of ownership.

O. Street.

1. “Street” means a dedicated and accepted public right-of-way for vehicular traffic. The word “street” includes the words “road,” “drive,” “boulevard,” and “way.”

2. “Arterial street” means an existing or proposed roadway designated an arterial by resolution of the city, and as further defined in the comprehensive plan.

P. “Street frontage” includes all streets that are directly abutting the project boundaries, and may include all or a portion of streets abutting the projected or extended boundaries of the development. (Ord. 3389 § 3, 2008).

14.10.030 Concurrency monitoring.

The city shall develop and maintain a concurrency monitoring system based upon a computer traffic forecasting model to monitor the level of service of classified arterial streets and the level of service of signalized and unsignalized intersections of classified streets. The monitoring system shall consider existing and proposed capacities of arterial streets and intersections. Development proposals shall be evaluated on a case by case basis and the cumulative impact on level of service shall be monitored for every development activity subject to concurrency. The cost of developing and maintaining the concurrency monitoring system shall be funded through development review fees based upon the trip generation of the development activity. The concurrency monitoring system may be administered by city staff or a consultant. (Ord. 3389 § 4, 2008).

14.10.040 State highway system.

The state highway system is an integral part of the city’s arterial street system and will be monitored to determine conformance with standards. Concurrency requirements shall apply to this system and required improvements coordinated with WSDOT. The interstate highway system (I-5) is an exception to the concurrency requirements. Capacity improvements to interstate highway (I-5) that meet city standards will be accomplished by WSDOT based on their priority program. The city will work closely with WSDOT to encourage timely completion of needed capacity improvements to I-5. Capacity or operational improvements at interstate highway ramp terminals connecting to arterial streets may be required to meet concurrency requirements. (Ord. 2839 § 4, 1997).

14.10.050 Land use actions subject to concurrency review.

Developments generating the minimum threshold vehicle peak hour counts as specified herein or requiring pedestrian safety are subject to concurrency review, including but in no way limited to the following, and subject to the provisions of MVMC 14.10.150:

A. Building permits;

B. Binding site plans;

C. Conditional or special use permits;

D. Preliminary plats;

E. Short plats, unless improvements are deferred by applicable authority;

F. Planned unit developments;

G. All developments requiring an environmental impact statement;

H. Other developments or activities determined by the city engineer or city council requiring transportation concurrency to mitigate transportation impacts. (Ord. 3389 § 5, 2008).

14.10.060 Exemptions and existing approved developments.

A. Land use actions not requiring concurrency review are as follows:

1. Those for which transportation related impacts have been previously reviewed and have received project approval; provided, that if such approvals expire, concurrency review shall be required;

2. Accessory dwelling units;

3. Rezones;

4. Boundary line adjustments;

5. Any rehabilitation, renovation, replacement of an existing structure or redevelopment of a site with no change of use or increase in occupiable floor area or number of dwelling units;

6. Interior renovations with no change of use or increase in occupiable floor area or number of dwelling units;

7. Other development permits that are determined by the city council to have insignificant impact on the transportation facilities or services.

B. The city council may grant a development an exemption from all or any portions of the concurrency LOS requirements upon adopting a finding that the development proposal provides overriding public benefits.

C. Modified Level of Service Standards. The following intersections, street segments, and interstate highway ramp terminals may operate below adopted LOS standards:

1. SR 536 Skagit River Bridge and approaches;

2. McLean Road/Wall Street/Memorial Highway/West Division intersection;

3. 2nd Street/Montgomery Street intersection;

4. Kincaid Street/I-5 freeway ramps;

5. College Way/I-5 freeway ramps;

6. Kincaid Street from I-5 to S. 3rd;

7. College Way/Riverside Drive intersection;

8. Freeway Drive/Cameron Way intersection;

9. Riverside Drive Bridge and approaches;

10. 4th Street/Fulton Street intersection.

Improvements to these facilities that improve LOS, even if the LOS remains below the city’s adopted standards shall be eligible for inclusion in the city’s impact fee program, if the improvement increases the traffic capacity of the facility and the facility is impacted by growth related traffic.

D. New development, business, or tenant that occupies all, or a portion, of an existing building can utilize the traffic from that existing building as part of their new traffic concurrency review so long as the existing building had its traffic trips included in the city’s traffic forecasting model that is referenced within MVMC 14.10.030. Should a new development generate more traffic trips than that which the original development did only the net new trips will be added into the traffic forecasting model to evaluate potential concurrency requirements for the new project. (Ord. 3610 § 2, 2013).

14.10.070 Level of service categories.

There are hereby established the following LOS categories:

A. Pedestrian Safety LOS.

1. Ultimate LOS;

2. Minimum LOS.

B. Traffic Capacity LOS.

C. Street Design Standard LOS.

1. Ultimate LOS;

2. Three-Quarter Street LOS;

3. Minimum Street LOS.

D. On-Site LOS.

E. Transit LOS.

F. Nonmotorized Transportation LOS.

G. Pavement Condition LOS. (Ord. 2839 § 7, 1997).

14.10.080 Level of service standards.*

The standards for determining compliance with concurrency requirements within each LOS category shall be as follows:

A. Pedestrian Safety LOS. Developments will provide for pedestrian safety, including adequate connections to existing pedestrian facilities. Proximity to pedestrian oriented establishments, such as, but not limited to, schools, parks, and commercial establishments shall be considered when evaluating pedestrian safety. Particular attention shall be given to school walk routes.

1. Ultimate Pedestrian LOS. The ultimate pedestrian facility design includes a sidewalk, curb and gutter section or other approved nonmotorized vehicle facility. Specific requirements may identify the need for additional safety precautions.

2. Minimum Pedestrian LOS. A minimum pedestrian facility shall include one of the following:

a. A six-foot wide paved path separated from the paved roadway surface by either an unpaved ditch or swale, three feet wide;

b. An eight-foot wide paved path constructed integral with paved roadway surface and including adequate delineation for safety;

c. Other conditions may be considered equivalent to the minimum pedestrian safety facility at the sole discretion of the city engineer.

B. Traffic Capacity LOS. Capacity LOS is defined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual or latest edition and is based on peak hour traffic during the most critical or highest volume times of the day.

1. The arterial street system, including segments and intersections, shall meet the following standards for LOS:

a. Principal arterials – LOS D;

b. Minor arterials – LOS D;

c. Collector arterials – LOS C.

2. Exemptions to Capacity LOS. The city council upon recommendation of the city engineer may determine as follows:

a. That it is not practical to improve specific intersections to achieve higher LOS standards;

b. That other improvements may be considered as equivalent mitigation in lieu of achieving the capacity LOS standard stated in this section;

c. Exempt specific intersections or street segments from the LOS standards set forth in this section for a specific period of time.

C. Street Design Standard LOS.

1. Ultimate Design LOS. The street system will meet the geometric, right-of-way width, and street section standards for the classification defined in the arterial street plan, the subdivision code, the comprehensive plan, the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual or latest edition, or other site specific project requirements. This will include, but not be limited to, traffic control, drainage, other utilities, pedestrian facilities, transportation facility design, construction, right-of-way, and easement dedications, for all transportation facilities, including frontage improvements and arterial connections in conformance with criteria set forth in the ultimate design LOS. Other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans, concurrent with the street construction. The city engineer shall evaluate the pavement condition LOS when recommending requirements for development.

2. Three-Quarter Street LOS. The street system shall consist of sidewalk, curb, gutter, all utilities, and appurtenances, and one-half of the ultimate pavement width on the development side of the right-of-way, plus a minimum 14-foot pavement width on the opposite side of the street. The total width shall not exceed the ultimate design width. This will include, but not be limited to, traffic control, drainage and other utilities, pedestrian facilities, transportation facility design, construction, right-of-way, and easement dedications, for all transportation facilities, including frontage improvements and arterial connections in conformance with criteria set forth in the ultimate design LOS. Other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans concurrent with the street construction as stated in project requirements. The city engineer shall evaluate the pavement condition LOS when recommending requirements for development.

3. Minimum Street LOS. A minimum 30-foot wide paved street section centered on ultimate design cross section with sufficient traffic capacity to serve existing and project generated traffic. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk will not be required; however, pedestrian safety facilities would normally be required. Drainage may be in surface ditches or a subsurface conveyance. This will include, but not be limited to, traffic control, drainage and other utilities, pedestrian facilities, transportation facility design, construction, right-of-way, and easement dedications, for all transportation facilities, including frontage improvements and arterial connections in conformance with criteria set forth in the ultimate design LOS. Other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans, concurrent with street construction, as stated in project requirements. The city engineer shall evaluate the pavement condition LOS when recommending requirements for development.

D. On-Site LOS. Within the boundaries of the proposed development, the development shall include mitigation for all on-site transportation impacts. Mitigation shall be based on compliance with city regulations, comprehensive plans, design standards, and all other project requirements. This mitigation shall include, but not be limited to, transportation facility design and construction, right-of-way, and easement dedications for all transportation facilities, including frontage improvements and arterial connections through the site, as well as improvements to the interior of the site.

E. Transit LOS. All transit routes are monitored and reviewed monthly by SKAT for ridership and productivity. Action to delete service or significantly alter routes and schedules are approved on a case by case basis by the SKAT board after input from the community and citizen advisory committee. New service requests and changes within the community are regularly assessed based on new housing developments and/or citizen petition or requests.

F. Nonmotorized Transportation LOS. Development proposals shall be evaluated for compliance with a comprehensive trail plan. Development proposals shall be evaluated for continuity with the system and may be required to provide off-site improvements. Development proposals may be required to expand the plan in some locations to provide for nonmotorized circulation to neighboring properties or areas. The emphasis shall be on off-street paths, but shall also include selected arterials and collectors and school walk routes which may require separated bike/pedestrian paths, lanes, or other improvements to ensure access continuity and safety for trips generated in the development.

G. Pavement Condition LOS. The city engineer shall evaluate the existing pavement condition when recommending requirements for development. Pavement overlays and/or pavement reconstruction may be required to provide an adequate pavement condition LOS. (Ord. 2950, 1999; Ord. 2839 § 8, 1997).

* Code reviser’s note: Details A and B containing LOS design standards are part of Ordinance 2839, available in the office of the city finance director.

14.10.090 Concurrency requirements.

All developments shall meet development standards for on-site LOS, transit LOS, nonmotorized transportation LOS and pavement condition LOS. The criteria for determining the applicable standard for determining compliance with pedestrian safety LOS, traffic capacity LOS and street design standard LOS concurrency requirements shall include, but not be limited to, the volume of traffic generated or to be generated on the arterial street system from a development at full build-out during the most critical or highest volume hour of the day hereafter referred to as the peak hour. The peak hour volume shall be determined by a traffic impact analysis. Compliance with the concurrency LOS standards will be based on the following criteria:

A. Less Than 10 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates less than 10 peak hour vehicle trips, the city engineer shall determine the necessity of the project to meet all or a portion of the concurrency LOS requirements.

The city engineer shall consider the following when making this determination:

1. Proposed developments in the area;

2. Proximity of adjacent ultimate, three-quarter street, and/or minimum LOS improvements;

3. Adequacy and condition of street frontage improvements;

4. Proximity to pedestrian oriented establishments such as, but not limited to, schools, parks, commercial businesses;

5. Anticipated impacts of project;

6. Capacity of the affected arterial street system.

B. Ten to 29 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates 10 to 29 peak hour trips, the following LOS standards are necessary to achieve concurrency:

1. Street Frontage. Three-quarter street LOS improvements must be in place on the project street frontage.

2. Adjacent Street System.

a. Minimum Street LOS Improvements. Minimum street LOS improvements must be in place on the adjacent street system to the point where they connect to an arterial street that meets the three-quarter street LOS on the same side of the street as the development.

b. Minimum Pedestrian Safety LOS. Minimum pedestrian safety LOS improvements must be in place on the adjacent street system to the point where they connect to or intersect with an arterial street that meets the three-quarter street LOS on the same side of the street as the development. Improvements may be considered connected to adjacent improvements on the opposite side of the street, if the connection is made with an approved pedestrian crossing facility at a controlled intersection, providing protection to the pedestrians with a stop sign or traffic signal, at the discretion of the city engineer.

3. Capacity LOS. Intersections and segments impacted by traffic from the development as identified in the project traffic impact analysis shall be evaluated for traffic capacity LOS and street design standards and requirements. Intersections and segments on the arterial street system that are impacted by peak hour traffic generated by the development shall be required to meet capacity LOS standards and street design standards. All or a portion of the development shall be denied or delayed until deficient intersections meet traffic capacity LOS standards and/or street design standards.

C. Thirty to 75 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates 30 to 75 peak hour trips the following LOS standards are necessary to achieve concurrency:

1. Street Frontage. Three-quarter street LOS improvements must be in place on the project street frontage.

2. Adjacent Street System. Three-quarter street LOS improvements must be in place on the adjacent street system to the point where they connect to an arterial street that meets the three-quarter street LOS on the same side of the street as the development.

D. More Than 75 Peak Hour Trips. If a project or any phase of a project generates more than 75 peak hour trips, concurrency impacts and mitigation will be determined by the city council based on recommendation by the planning commission and/or hearing examiner following a recommendation by the city engineer. If the underlying permit provides for an appeal to the city council, the city council will determine the concurrency impacts and mitigation at a single consolidated open record hearing on any appeal of the underlying permit approval and/or SEPA determination. (Ord. 3236 § 1, 2005; Ord. 2950, 1999; Ord. 2839 § 9, 1997).

14.10.100 Traffic impact analysis.

The applicant is not required to submit a traffic impact analysis from an independent traffic engineer. Instead, those applicants shall instead pay to the city a deposit equal to the estimated fee for the city’s preparation of a traffic report. The amount of the fee shall be determined by city resolution and paid at the time of transportation concurrency application submittal. The fee shall vary based on the number of new p.m. peak hour trips produced by the development. The applicant shall be subject to payment of additional fees for any subsequent revisions to the original traffic report. Fees for revisions may be an additional proportion of the original fee depending on the effort involved to revise the traffic report. Even if the traffic report is based on an estimate of impact, the applicant will still be bound by its estimate of impact, and any upward deviation from the estimated traffic impact shall require at least one of the following: a finding that the additional concurrency sought by the developer through a revised application is available to be reserved by the project; mitigation of the additional impact under SEPA; revocation of the concurrency approval.

Concurrency evaluations will be prepared by the city or its traffic engineering consultant to ensure consistency with previously approved and pending developments. The concurrency evaluation will include the following adopted LOS requirements for the development:

A. Pedestrian Safety LOS. The report will identify pedestrian safety impacts and required mitigation.

B. Traffic Capacity LOS. Capacity LOS is defined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Traffic capacity LOS for all development applications shall utilize a city-wide traffic model that includes a cumulative traffic forecast of all approved concurrency applications. This forecast shall be the basis for the analysis with each subsequent development application being added to the previously traffic forecast to determine traffic capacity LOS for roadways and intersections. The report will identify if traffic impacts of the proposed development are consistent with the currently adopted and funded TIP, CFP and impact fee programs. Additional mitigation to maintain capacity LOS will be identified if required, as will the required traffic impact fee.

C. Street Design Standard LOS. The report will identify required frontage and off-site street design LOS requirements, and will identify any off-site street improvements eligible for impact fee credits.

D. On-Site LOS. The report will identify any deficiencies in the proposed on-site design.

E. Transit LOS. The report will identify any transit LOS deficiencies or required mitigation.

F. Nonmotorized Transportation LOS. The report will identify required internal and off-site street nonmotorized LOS requirements.

G. Pavement Condition LOS. The report will identify pavement conditions deficiencies and required mitigation. (Ord. 3389 § 7, 2008).

14.10.110 Short plats.

Short plats will be subject to the applicable subdivision codes. Currently they are required to construct street improvements unless the city engineer recommends and the city council approves a waiver or deferral of the requirement. Subsequent building permits and sequential building permit approvals within the short plat would be subject to concurrency requirements.

Statements shall be placed on the face of the short plat regarding future concurrency requirements. (Ord. 2839 § 11, 1997).

14.10.120 Sequential development.

Sequential development will not be allowed to avoid concurrency requirements. The cumulative effect of traffic generated by previous or subsequent phases of a development shall be evaluated when determining concurrency requirements. Every development permit shall be evaluated for concurrency based on previous development permits granted within the overall development. The city engineer shall monitor and evaluate the cumulative effect of peak hour traffic generated by sequential development permits when updating the traffic model information. The following shall be included in the evaluation of sequential development:

A. Multiple development permits on one parcel;

B. Development permits on adjoining lots within short plats, long plats, planned unit developments, binding site plans;

C. Development permits on contiguous parcels under same ownership;

D. Multiple phases within a development. (Ord. 2839 § 12, 1997).

14.10.130 Off-peak transportation impacts.

Transportation impacts that do not occur during the typical p.m. peak hour may create additional impacts to the transportation system including traffic that conflicts with school walking routes or truck oriented developments that could impact pavements on a daily basis, but not during the peak hour. The city engineer may require additional concurrency analyses for development proposals with significant off-peak trip generation or truck generation greater than 30 trucks per day. (Ord. 3389 § 8, 2008).

14.10.140 Impact fee credit.

A. A fee payer can request that a credit or credits for impact fees be awarded to the fee payer for the total value of dedicated land, improvements, or construction provided by the fee payer. Credits will be given only if the land, improvements, and/or the facility constructed are:

1. For one or more of the system improvements identified in the capital facilities plan, which are included in the street impact fee analysis as the basis of the impact fee, and that are required by the city as a condition of approving the development activity; and

2. At suitable sites and constructed at acceptable quality as determined by the city.

B. The director shall determine if requests for credits meet the criteria in subsection A of this section.

C. The value of a credit for structures, facilities or other improvements shall be established by original receipts provided by the applicant for one or more of the same system improvements for which the impact fee is being charged.

D. The value of a credit for land, including right-of-way and easements, shall be established on a case-by-case basis by an appraiser selected by or acceptable to the director. The appraiser must be licensed in good standing by the state of Washington for the category of the property appraised. The appraiser must possess an MAI or other equivalent certification and shall not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. A description of the appraiser’s certification shall be included with the appraisal, and the appraiser shall certify that he/she does not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. The appraisal shall be in accord with the most recent version of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and shall be subject to review and acceptance by the director.

E. The fee payer shall pay for the cost of the appraisal or request that the cost of the appraisal be deducted from the credit which the city may be providing to the fee payer, in the event that a credit is awarded.

F. If a credit is due, after receiving the appraisal the director shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, the legal description of the site donated where applicable, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the director before the impact fee credit will be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 calendar days shall nullify the credit.

G. No credit shall be given for project improvements as defined in the Growth Management Act. (Ord. 3389 § 9, 2008).

14.10.150 Determination of concurrency.

A determination of concurrency shall be made at the time of development approval. In the event any development will require more than a single development approval which would subject the development to concurrency requirements, then the requirements shall be applicable to the last such approval. Development approval by the applicable authority shall include a determination of concurrency. A concurrency approval shall be subject to the same expiration time frame as the associated development approval.

A determination of concurrency shall be granted if any one of the following criteria is fulfilled:

A. Improvements and infrastructure required to provide the necessary LOS in conformance with the requirements of this chapter are in place or are identified in the city’s six-year capital facilities plan as being fully funded;

B. The preliminary development approval is conditioned on the necessary facilities being in place prior to the final approval of the development;

C. The necessary facilities and services are guaranteed to be in place when the development impacts occur by a bonded and enforceable development order; provided, that bonding is recommended by the city engineer and approved by the city council in accordance with applicable ordinances. (Ord. 2839 § 15, 1997).

14.10.160 South Mount Vernon concurrency subarea.

There is hereby established the south Mount Vernon concurrency subarea, which shall be comprised of the geographical area described as follows:

Lying East of the Burlington Northern mainline railroad tracks, located in Section 31 and Section 30, Township 34 North, Range 4 East, W.M.

Lying West of the East line of Section 33 and Section 28, Township 34 North, Range 4 East, W.M.

Lying South of but not including Blackburn Road

Lying North of and including Hickox Road on the South line of Section 32, Township 34 North, Range 4 East, W.M.

(See Figure No. 1)*

Development within the south Mount Vernon concurrency subarea shall be subject to the city of Mount Vernon concurrency LOS requirements, except as specifically revised in MVMC 14.10.170 and 14.10.180. (Ord. 2839 § 16, 1997).

* Code reviser’s note: Figure 1 is attached to Ordinance 2839, available in the office of the city finance director.

14.10.170 South Mount Vernon concurrency subarea – LOS standards.

The standards for determining compliance with concurrency requirements within each LOS category within the south Mount Vernon concurrency subarea shall be as set forth in MVMC 14.10.080 except as follows:

A. Street Design Standard LOS.

1. Minimum Street LOS in the South Mount Vernon Concurrency Subarea. The street system in the south Mount Vernon concurrency subarea shall consist of all utilities and appurtenances, and one-half of the ultimate design pavement width plus a four foot paved shoulder on the development side of the right-of-way, plus a minimum 14-foot pavement width on the opposite side of the street. All other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans concurrent with the street construction as stated in project requirements. The city engineer shall evaluate the pavement condition LOS when recommending requirements for development. (Ord. 2839 § 17, 1997).

14.10.180 South Mount Vernon concurrency subarea – Concurrency requirements.

The criteria for determining the applicable standard for determining compliance with concurrency requirements in the south Mount Vernon subarea shall be as set forth in MVMC 14.10.090, except as follows:

Compliance with the LOS standards will be based on the following criteria in the categories indicated:

A. Ten to 75 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates 10 to 75 peak hour trips and has frontage on any of the below streets the following LOS standards shall apply:

1. Old 99 South.

a. Blackburn to Anderson Road: three-quarter street LOS;

b. Anderson to Hickox Road: minimum street LOS.

2. Henson Road.

a. Blackburn to Anderson Road: minimum street LOS.

3. Cedardale Road.

a. Blackburn to Hickox Road: minimum street LOS.

4. Blodgett Road: three-quarter street LOS.

5. Anderson Road: three-quarter street LOS.

6. Hickox Road: three-quarter street LOS.

All other project street frontages not listed shall be built to three-quarter street LOS.

In the south Mount Vernon subarea the adjacent street system shall not be evaluated for concurrency for projects that generate 10 to 75 peak hour trips.

B. More Than 75 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates more than 75 peak hour trips, concurrency impacts and mitigation will be determined by the city council based on recommendation by the planning commission and or hearing examiner following a recommendation by the city engineer. Concurrency mitigation may be phased as approved by city council. In no case shall it be less than that set forth in subsection (A) (10 to 75 peak hour trips), of this section. The city council may require a concurrency evaluation and compliance on the adjacent street system. (Ord. 2839 § 180, 1997).

14.10.190 West Mount Vernon concurrency subarea.

There is hereby established the west Mount Vernon concurrency subarea, which shall be comprised of the geographical area located within the urban growth area located in portions of Section 19, Township 34 North, Range 4 East, W.M. and portions of Section 24, Township 34 North, Range 3 East, W.M. (See Figure No. 2)*

Development within the west Mount Vernon concurrency subarea shall be subject to the city of Mount Vernon concurrency LOS requirements except as specifically revised in MVMC 14.10.200 and 14.10.210. (Ord. 2839 § 19, 1997).

* Code reviser’s note: Figure 2 is attached to Ordinance 2839, available in the office of the city finance director.

14.10.200 West Mount Vernon concurrency subarea – LOS standards.

The standards for determining compliance with concurrency requirements within each LOS category within the west Mount Vernon concurrency subarea shall be as set forth in MVMC 14.10.080, except as follows:

A. Street design standard LOS;

B. Minimum street LOS in the west Mount Vernon concurrency subarea.

The street system in the west Mount Vernon concurrency subarea shall consist of all utilities and appurtenances and one-half of the ultimate design pavement width, plus a four-foot paved shoulder on the development side of the right-of-way, plus a minimum 14-foot pavement width on the opposite side of the street. All other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans concurrent with the street construction as stated in project requirements. The city engineer shall evaluate the pavement condition LOS when recommending requirements for development. (Ord. 2839 § 20, 1997).

14.10.210 West Mount Vernon concurrency subarea – Concurrency requirements.

The criteria for determining the applicable standard for determining compliance with concurrency requirements in the west Mount Vernon concurrency subarea shall be as set forth in MVMC 14.10.090, except as follows:

Compliance with the LOS standards will be based on the following criteria in the categories indicated:

A. Ten to 75 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates 10 to 75 peak hour trips and has frontage on the below listed streets the following LOS standards shall be in place for the project frontage:

1. McLean Road.

a. South side: minimum street LOS.

b. North side: three-quarter street LOS.

2. Memorial Highway.

a. Either side: three-quarter street LOS.

All other project street frontages not listed shall be built to three-quarter street LOS. In the west Mount Vernon subarea the adjacent street system shall not be evaluated for concurrency for projects that generate 10 to 75 peak hour trips unless the proposed project directly abuts an existing residential use in which case the adjacent street system across the residential use, to the nearest street intersection shall meet three-quarter street LOS.

B. More Than 75 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates more than 75 peak hour trips, concurrency impacts and mitigation will be determined by the city council based on recommendation by the planning commission and/or hearing examiner following a recommendation by the city engineer. Concurrency mitigation may be phased as approved by city council. In no case shall it be less than that set forth in subsection A (10 to 75 peak hour trips), of this section. The city council may require the project to complete improvements to ultimate design LOS on project frontage and adjacent streets. (Ord. 2839 § 21, 1997).

14.10.220 Freeway Drive concurrency subarea.

There is hereby established the Freeway Drive concurrency subarea which shall comprise an area lying within the existing city limits and urban growth area, located in Section 18, Township 34N, Range 4E W.M. (See Figure No. 3)*

Described as follows:

A. Lying north of College Way, but not including College Way;

B. Lying south of the Skagit River;

C. Lying west of I-5.

Development within the Freeway Drive concurrency subarea shall be subject to the city of Mount Vernon concurrency LOS requirements except as specifically revised in MVMC 14.10.230 and 14.10.240. (Ord. 2839 § 22, 1997).

* Code reviser’s note: Figure 3 is attached to Ordinance 2839, available in the office of the city finance director.

14.10.230 Freeway Drive concurrency subarea – LOS standards.

The standards for determining compliance with concurrency requirements within each LOS category within the Freeway Drive concurrency subarea shall be as set forth in MVMC 14.10.080, except as follows:

A. Street design standard LOS;

B. Minimum street LOS in the Freeway Drive concurrency subarea.

The street system in the Freeway Drive concurrency subarea shall consist of all utilities and appurtenances, and one-half of the ultimate design pavement width plus a four-foot paved shoulder on the development side of the right-of-way, plus a minimum 14-foot pavement width on the opposite side of the street. All other utilities and appurtenances shall be constructed to meet city standards and comprehensive plans concurrent with the street construction as stated in project requirements. The city engineer shall evaluate the pavement condition LOS when recommending requirements for development. (Ord. 2839 § 23, 1997).

14.10.240 Freeway Drive concurrency subarea – Concurrency requirements.

The criteria for determining the applicable standard for determining compliance with concurrency requirements in the Freeway Drive concurrency subarea shall be as set forth in MVMC 14.10.090, except as follows:

Compliance with the LOS standards will be based on the following criteria in the categories indicated:

A. Ten to 75 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates 10 to 75 peak hour trips and has frontage on the below listed streets the following LOS standards shall be in place for the project frontage:

1. Freeway Drive: three-quarter street LOS;

2. Stewart Road: three-quarter street LOS.

All other project street frontages not listed shall be built to three-quarter street LOS.

In the Freeway Drive subarea the adjacent street system shall not be evaluated for concurrency.

B. More Than 75 Peak Hour Trips. If a project generates more than 75 peak hour trips, concurrency impacts and mitigation will be determined by the city council based on recommendation by the planning commission and/or hearing examiner following a recommendation by the city engineer. Concurrency mitigation may be phased as approved by city council. In no case shall it be less than that set forth in subsection A (10 to 75 peak hour trips), of this section. The city council may require the project to complete improvements to ultimate design LOS on project frontage and adjacent streets. (Ord. 2839 § 24, 1997).

14.10.250 Appeals.

A. Basis of Appeal. Any aggrieved party may appeal a concurrency decision based on the grounds of a technical error.

B. Procedures. Concurrency determinations are made as a part of the development approval process on the underlying application. They are to be considered as part of the underlying approval process and may only be appealed as a part of and subject to the same procedures as such underlying development application. However, if the underlying approval process provides for an appeal to the city council, and the concurrency determination is required to be made by the city council, the city council will make the concurrency determination at a single consolidated open record hearing on any appeal of the underlying permit approval and/or SEPA determination. (Ord. 3236 § 2, 2005; Ord. 2839 § 25, 1997).