Chapter 18.100
ADMINISTRATION OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.100.010 Purpose and applicability.
18.100.030 Application processes and classification.
18.100.040 Project permit application framework.
18.100.050 Joint public hearings – Director’s decision.
18.100.060 Applicant’s request for joint hearing.
18.100.070 Preapplication conference.
18.100.080 Submittal requirements.
18.100.090 Review for counter complete status.
18.100.100 Determination of technical completeness.
18.100.110 Procedure for corrections.
18.100.180 Public notice – Generally.
18.100.190 Notice of application.
18.100.200 Optional public notice.
18.100.210 Notice of public hearing for Process 3 and 4 applications.
18.100.220 Site Development Permit review.
18.100.230 Administrative appeals.
18.100.250 Procedures controlling.
18.100.010 Purpose and applicability.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a set of procedures and processes to be used for land use and development proposals subject to review under the Maple Valley Municipal Code. All project permit applications or related approvals are subject to this chapter except as specifically set forth below.
A. General Exemptions. The following permits or approvals are specifically excluded from the procedures set forth in this chapter:
1. Landmark designations.
2. Street vacations.
3. Street Use Permits.
B. Partial Exemptions. Applications for Process 1 permits and approvals, with the exception of final plat applications, shall not be subject to the requirements for public notice of application and notice of decision. See MVMC 18.90.050 for final plat procedures. Process 1 permits and approvals are subject to requirements for complete applications and 120-day timelines. A written staff report is seldom produced, although conditions of approval to ensure a project meets applicable codes may be written onto the plans or otherwise attached. These types of permits are technical, ministerial or minor approvals and typically do not require a full 120 calendar days to complete permit review.
C. Process 4 Applications. Process 4 applications are not considered project permits as defined in this chapter. Process 4 applications, therefore, are not subject to the 120-day timeline requirement. The Community Development Department shall, however, produce a timeline or schedule identifying target dates for completion of the review process and shall work with the applicant to ensure the review is completed in as timely a manner as possible.
D. Process 5 Applications. Process 5 applications are not considered project permits as defined in this chapter. Process 5 applications, therefore, are not subject to the requirements for complete applications, 120-day timelines, public notice, consolidated hearings or other requirements for project permit applications. Process 5 applications involve decisions that are legislative in nature, and made by the City Council following one or more public hearings before the Planning Commission. See MVMC 18.100.040(B) and 18.100.070 for process steps and other information regarding public notice, Planning Commission processes, environmental review and appeal opportunities for Process 5 legislative decisions.
E. Master Planned Community Approvals. A master planned community project approval is a Process 3 land use approval. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-11-443 § 1; Ord. O-10-419 § 1; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.020 Definitions.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
A. “Closed record appeals” are administrative appeals which are heard by the Hearing Examiner.
B. “Open record hearing” means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body or officer authorized by the City to conduct such hearings, that creates the City’s record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the hearing body or officer. An open record hearing may be held prior to a City’s decision on a project permit, to be known as an “open record predecision hearing.”
C. “Parties of record” means:
1. The applicant;
2. The Community Development Department;
3. Any person who testified at an open record public hearing on the application; and/or
4. Any person who submitted written comments during a published comment period or at an open record public hearing.
D. “Project permit” or “project permit application” means any land use or environmental permit or license required from the City, including but not limited to building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, multiple-use master plans, conditional use permits, variances, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, site development permit, design review, permits or approvals required by critical areas regulations, and site-specific rezones.
E. “Public meeting” means an informal meeting facilitated by the City. A public meeting is not an open record hearing as defined in subsection (B) of this section. The proceedings at a public meeting will not be recorded, nor will comments by the public at a public meeting be considered testimony or become part of the record for purposes of any appeal on the decision. Rather, a public meeting is an opportunity for an informal dialogue between the project applicant and members of the public. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-14-562 § 1; Ord. O-11-443 § 2; Ord. O-10-419 § 2; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.030 Application processes and classification.
A. Application Processes. Applications for review pursuant to this chapter shall be classified by type of process as a Process 1, Process 2, Process 3, Process 4, or Process 5 action. The application framework is presented in tables in MVMC 18.100.040(A) and (B), which show the type of process used for the various kinds of applications as well as the procedures or steps to be followed in each process type.
B. Determination of Process Type. The Director shall determine the proper procedure for all development applications. If there is a question as to the appropriate type of procedure, the Director shall resolve it in favor of the higher process type number. Process 1 is the lowest and Process 4 is the highest for project permit applications. Process 5 relates only to legislative actions.
C. Consolidated Permit Processing. Two or more land use applications relating to the same proposal will typically be processed collectively and a single consolidated report will be produced to address all land use issues. The Director shall determine whether to process land use applications separately (phased review) based on consideration of the type and complexity of the project and whether permit review can be accomplished more efficiently through phased review. Decisions regarding the order of permit processing shall be made to ensure timely and efficient permit processing, facilitate input from interested agencies and the public, and provide full consideration to the cumulative impacts of the entire proposal. Construction permits may be submitted only after the land use decisions have been made and all applicable appeal periods have passed.
D. Merger of Process 2 Application (Except SEPA) with Process 3 or 4 Application. When any Process 2 application, except for a SEPA threshold determination, is reviewed as a component of or in conjunction with a Process 3 or Process 4 proposal, the Process 2 application shall be merged with and treated the same as the Process 3 or 4 application. The decision maker for the Process 2 application that is merged with a Process 3 application shall be the Hearing Examiner. The decision maker for a Process 2 application that is merged with a Process 4 application shall be the City Council. An appeal of a Process 2 decision that is merged with a Process 3 or 4 decision shall be the same appeal process as for the Process 3 or 4 decision. SEPA threshold determinations are governed by Chapter 14.10 MVMC and do not merge into the higher processes. Appeal of a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is heard in a closed record appeal hearing and consolidated with the hearing for a Process 3 or 4 decision as set forth in MVMC 18.100.040(B). (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-10-419 § 3; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.040 Project permit application framework.
A. Process Types – Applications.
|
Process 1 |
Process 2 |
Process 3 |
Process 4 |
Process 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Building PermitNotes: 1. Building Permits, Clearing and Grading Permits, Site Development Permits, minor site plan review, and any other construction-related approvals that are subject to SEPA review or have required street improvements also require a use approval in conjunction with other SEPA or street improvement review.
2. Final plats are subject to the requirements of RCW 58.17.140 and MVMC 18.90.050. The final plat decision is made by the Director.
3. SEPA threshold determinations are governed by Chapter 14.10 MVMC.
4. A plat revocation is a civil enforcement action that may also involve criminal penalties pursuant to RCW 58.17.300.
5. Development code text amendments that only amend procedural requirements are not submitted to the Planning Commission for review.
B. Process Steps.
|
Process Step |
Process 11 |
Process 21 |
Process 31 |
Process 41 |
Process 51 Legislative Decisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preapplication Conference: |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Notice of Application: |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Development agreement: No Rezone: Yes |
Yes, in conjunction with SEPA review |
|
Public Meeting: |
No |
DCD may require8 |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Recommendation Made By: |
N/A |
N/A |
DCD |
Planning Commission |
Planning Commission9 |
|
Open Record Predecision Hearing: |
No |
No |
Yes |
Site specific rezone: Yes, by Planning Commission. Development Agreement: No |
No |
|
Public Hearing12: |
No |
No |
No |
Development Agreement: Yes, by City Council |
Yes |
|
Final Decision Made By: |
DCD (excluding final plats2) |
DCD |
Hearing Examiner |
City Council |
City Council |
|
Open Record Appeal to Hearing Examiner10: |
No, except for building permits3 |
Yes4 |
No, except for associated SEPA DNS |
No |
No |
|
Closed Record Appeal to Council11: |
No |
Maybe5 |
No |
No |
No |
|
Judicial Appeal: |
Yes |
Yes6 |
Yes6 |
Yes |
Yes7 |
Notes: 1. These process steps may be modified for projects with multiple land use approvals. See MVMC 18.100.030 and text describing each process.
2. Final plats are subject to the requirements of RCW 58.17.140 and MVMC 18.90.050. The final plat decision is made by the City Council.
3. Appeals of decisions and determinations based upon the adopted State building codes are appealed pursuant to MVMC 15.05.035.
4. SEPA appeals are governed by Chapter 14.10 MVMC.
5. If the appeal is of a DNS that is merged with a Process 3 application, the appeal is to the Hearing Examiner. If the appeal is of a DNS that is merged with a Process 4 application, the appeal is to the City Council.
6. If applicable, the appeal may be to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
7. If applicable, the appeal may be to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
8. Public meetings may be required by DCD when requested by citizens interested in the proposed project or when a project is expected to generate substantial community interest or controversy.
9. See MVMC 18.100.040(A). Development code text amendments that only amend procedural requirements may not be submitted to the Planning Commission for review.
10. The authority of the Hearing Examiner is set forth in Chapter 2.65 MVMC.
11. The conduct of an appeal is set forth in MVMC 2.65.120.
12. A public hearing is distinguished from an open record predecision hearing. See MVMC 18.100.020 definition of “open record hearing.”
(Ord. O-18-639 § 4; Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-14-562 § 1; Ord. O-12-514 § 1; Ord. O-11-443* § 3; Ord. O-11-455 § 1; Ord. O-10-419 § 4; Ord. O-09-394 § 2; Ord. O-03-223 §§ 1, 2; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
*Code reviser’s note: Ordinance O-11-443’s amendments to the table in subsection (A) of this section inadvertently omitted amendments from Ordinance O-11-455. The table in subsection (A) of this section reads as intended after the amendments of Ordinances O-11-443 and O-11-455.
18.100.050 Joint public hearings – Director’s decision.
The Director may combine any public hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that may be held by another local, State, regional, federal, or other agency on the proposed action, as long as:
A. The other agency consents to the joint hearing;
B. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;
C. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies’ adopted notice requirements as set forth in statute, ordinance, or rule;
D. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the local government hearing; and
E. The hearing is held within the City limits. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.060 Applicant’s request for joint hearing.
The applicant may request that the public hearing on a permit application be combined as long as the joint hearing can be held within the time periods set forth in this chapter. In the alternative, the applicant may agree to a particular schedule if additional time is needed in order to complete the hearings. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.070 Preapplication conference.
A. Applicability. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to acquaint City staff with a sufficient level of detail about the proposed development to enable staff to advise the applicant regarding requirements of the Maple Valley Municipal Code. A full preapplication conference involves the Development Review Committee members: Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Building Official, Fire Marshal, and Police Chief, or their designees. The following project permit applications require the applicant to attend a full preapplication conference: all Process 3 and all Process 4 actions. A limited preapplication conference with only a representative from DCD may be allowed by the Director for Process 2 applications that do not involve substantial review by other departments. Otherwise, a full preapplication conference is also required for Process 2 actions. See MVMC 18.100.140(B). The Director may waive in writing the requirement for a preapplication conference for projects that are determined to be of a size and complexity to not require the detailed analysis of a preapplication conference. Preapplication conferences for all other types of applications are not required, but may be considered by the Director upon request of the applicant.
B. Preapplication Conference Initiation. To initiate a preapplication conference, an applicant shall submit a completed preapplication request form with the information and numbers of copies as set forth by the Director. At a minimum, a preliminary site plan and any other information known to the applicant that may be useful in providing an overview of the proposed project are required. The conference will generally be held within two weeks of the date the request form and accompanying information are received. An applicant that desires to have an attorney present for the preapplication conference must provide notice to the Director of the attendance of the attorney in advance of the conference. If the City Attorney is unavailable to attend the preapplication conference, the conference must either be rescheduled to a time when the City Attorney is available to attend, or the applicant can choose to not have its attorney attend the conference. If an applicant attends the preapplication conference with an attorney without advance notice to the Director, the conference will be cancelled.
C. Written Summary of Preapplication Conference. The Department shall mail the applicant a written summary of the preapplication conference within approximately two weeks of the conference. The written summary shall include the following information to the extent possible given the material provided by the applicant:
1. A summary of the proposed action;
2. A list of the requirements for a completed project permit application;
3. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the project permit application; and
4. References to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to the approval of the project permit application.
A preapplication conference is not an exhaustive review of all potential issues and will typically not address federal or State jurisdictional issues. The discussions at a preapplication conference or the summary of the conference shall not bind or prohibit the City of Maple Valley’s future application or enforcement of all applicable codes and regulations.
D. Expiration of Preapplication. Project permit applications requiring a preapplication conference must be submitted to the City and accepted as counter complete pursuant to MVMC 18.100.090 within six months of a written summary of the preapplication conference. If an application is not submitted within six months, the proposal shall require another preapplication conference to take into account any new City policies and changes to the Maple Valley Municipal Code or comprehensive plan. The Director may grant in writing a single six-month extension for submittal of a project permit application. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-11-443 § 4; Ord. O-10-419 § 5; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.080 Submittal requirements.
A. Checklist. The Department shall establish and may revise at its discretion submittal requirements for each type of application. The requirements shall be made available to the public in a form that clearly explains what material must be submitted for an application to be considered complete, including type, size, detail, and number of copies for each item. The submittal requirements shall be in the form of a counter complete checklist. The City’s acceptance of documents from an applicant using a counter complete checklist is used only for purposes of documenting what was submitted by the applicant; it is not a technical review for completeness or compliance with State or local laws and regulations. See MVMC 18.100.090 for the counter complete review process. Requirements for related permits or environmental review under SEPA shall also be provided when applicable. Submittal requirements may be waived by the Director, in writing, only if the applicant can demonstrate that normally required information is not relevant to the proposed action and is not required to show that an application complies with applicable City codes and regulations.
B. Who May Apply. Application for the various types of permits and approvals covered by this code may be made by the following parties:
1. Subject to the requirements of this subsection, the property owner or any agent of the owner with proof of agency may apply for any type of Process 1, 2, 3, or 4 application. If the application is for revision to a preliminary plat, or alteration of a final plat, the application must be signed by a majority of those persons having an ownership interest in the lots, tracts, parcels, or portion thereof to be revised or altered. If a final plat is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the plat, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement, with notarized signatures signed by all persons subject to the covenants, providing that those persons agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration of the plat or portion thereof. An application for vacation of a final plat is subject to the requirements of RCW 58.17.212, as written or hereafter amended.
2. Any person may apply for an interpretation of the land use code pursuant to MVMC 18.10.020.
3. The City Council may direct staff to pursue the study of or amendment to the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission or the Community Development Director may recommend a comprehensive plan amendment, site-specific or area-wide rezone, or amendment to the text of the land use code to the City Council. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-10-419 § 6; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.090 Review for counter complete status.
A. All applications must include the counter complete checklist that accompanies the documents submitted pursuant to the submittal requirements for each type of application. The counter complete checklist shall be the basis for determining whether a project permit application (Process 1 – 4) will be accepted at the permit counter or returned to an applicant.
B. Applications may either be brought in person to the City or applications may be mailed to the City for counter complete review.
C. An application is counter complete if the Director or his/her designee finds that the application purports and appears to include the information required by the counter complete checklist; provided, no effort shall be made to evaluate the substantive adequacy of the information in the application in the counter complete review process. No effort shall be made to determine ownership of land as part of the counter complete checklist process.
D. If the Director or his/her designee decides the application is counter complete, then the application may be submitted and the appropriate fee shall be paid by the applicant.
E. If the Director or his/her designee decides the application is not counter complete, then the City shall reject and return the application and identify in writing what is needed to make the application counter complete.
F. The Director or his/her designee shall make a counter complete determination regarding an application brought in person to the City while the applicant is present. For applications mailed to the City, the counter complete determination shall be made within two business days from the date of receipt. If the City does not provide a counter complete determination for a mailed application, the application shall be deemed counter complete as of the third day from receipt. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-10-419 § 7; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.100 Determination of technical completeness.
A. Within 28 calendar days of accepting an application as “counter complete,” the Department shall determine whether an application is technically complete. If the Department does not provide written notification that an application is incomplete, the application shall be deemed complete for processing as of the twenty-ninth day following counter completeness.
B. A determination of technical completeness may be made even though additional information is later required or project modifications are subsequently undertaken. The determination of technical completeness shall not preclude the City from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice of completeness or at some later time. Such new information may be required to establish whether the proposal meets applicable City codes and regulations, whether additional environmental study is required, or, more generally, when there are substantial changes in the proposed action.
C. The City may determine that a “counter complete” application is not technically complete because the information submitted is not sufficient for further processing, is incomplete, or is factually incorrect. If the applicant receives a written determination from the City that an application is not technically complete, the applicant shall have up to 90 calendar days to submit the necessary information to the City. Within 14 calendar days after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the City shall determine whether the application is technically complete as set forth in subsection (A) of this section.
D. If an applicant either refuses in writing to submit additional information or does not submit the required information within 90 calendar days, the application shall be terminated. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-10-419 § 8; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.110 Procedure for corrections.
A. Following a determination of technical completeness and the commencement of project review, the City may make a determination in writing that some information is incorrect or that additional information is required. The applicant shall have up to 90 calendar days to submit corrected information.
B. Within 14 calendar days of receiving corrected information, the City shall determine whether the information, plans, or other review materials are now correct and sufficient for further review. If the corrections are incomplete or if additional information is required, the City shall so notify the applicant in writing.
C. If an applicant either refuses in writing to submit additional information or does not submit the required information within 90 calendar days, the application shall be canceled. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-10-419 § 9; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.120 Time limitations.
A. One-Hundred-Twenty-Day Time Peri-od. All decisions on project permit applications for Process 1, 2, and 3 applications shall be made within 120 calendar days of a determination of technical completeness, as limited by subsections (B) and (C) of this section.
B. Calculation of Time Periods for Issuance of Notice of Decision. In determining the number of days that have elapsed after the City has notified the applicant that the application is technically complete for processing, the following periods shall be excluded:
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the City to correct plans, perform required studies, provide additional required information, or otherwise requires the applicant to act. The period shall be calculated from the date the City notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the date the local government determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information or 14 calendar days after the date the information has been provided to the City;
2. Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW, if the City by ordinance has established time periods for completion of environmental impact statements, or if the City and the applicant in writing agree to a time period for completion of an environmental impact statement;
3. Any period for administrative appeals of Process 2 or 3 project permit applications, if an open record appeal hearing or a closed record appeal, or both, is allowed. The time period for consideration and decision on appeals shall not exceed 90 calendar days for an open record appeal hearing, or 60 calendar days for a closed record appeal, unless the applicant agrees to extend these time periods;
4. Any extension of time mutually agreed upon, in writing, by the applicant and the local government.
C. Time Limit Exceptions. The time limits established in this section do not apply if a project permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation;
2. Requires approval of the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or
3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be technically complete pursuant to MVMC 18.100.100.
D. Failure to Meet Time Limit. If the City is unable to issue its decision within the time limits provided in this chapter, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of a final decision. The City is not liable for damages due to the City’s failure to make a final decision within the time limits established in this chapter. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-11-443 § 5; Ord. O-10-419 § 10; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.130 Process 1.
A. General. Process 1 applications are defined in the framework pursuant to MVMC 18.100.040(A) and (B). All Process 1 applications must meet all the applicable requirements of the Maple Valley Municipal Code in addition to the requirements specified in this section.
B. Preapplication Conference. Process 1 applications do not require a preapplication conference.
C. Public Notice. Process 1 applications do not require public notice.
D. Review of Application. The Director shall determine which City departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application. Following a determination of technical completeness and satisfactory completion of any required correction cycles, the Director shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions all Process 1 applications. Conditions may be imposed directly on the plans (red-lining) or through other documentation reflected on the plans to ensure the requirements of City codes and regulations are met without going through another correction cycle before permit issuance.
E. Decision. Process 1 applications are subject to the maximum 120-day timeline described in MVMC 18.100.120, but in most cases review will be complete within a much shorter time period. If no correction cycles are required, review should be complete within approximately 35 calendar days from the date of technical completeness. Correction cycles will extend review time in proportion to the time the City must wait for an applicant to submit additional or corrected information. The decision of the Director may be reflected on the plans or permit itself or may be documented in a written report or letter of approval.
F. Notice of Decision. No public notice of a Process 1 decision is required. The applicant will be notified in writing, by fax, or by email that the permit is ready to issue or the application is approved.
G. Administrative Appeal. There is no administrative appeal of a Process 1 decision.
H. Judicial Appeal. A Process 1 decision may be appealed to King County Superior Court pursuant to MVMC 18.100.240. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-11-443 § 6; Ord. O-10-419 § 11; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.140 Process 2.
A. General. Process 2 applications are defined in the framework pursuant to MVMC 18.100.040(A) and (B). All Process 2 applications must meet all the applicable requirements of the Maple Valley Municipal Code in addition to the requirements specified below.
B. Preapplication Conference. Process 2 applications are required to have a preapplication conference. A limited preapplication conference may be allowed for projects that do not require substantial review by other departments such as variances and design review without SEPA or street improvement requirements.
C. Notice of Application. Process 2 applications require a Notice of Application. See MVMC 18.100.190. All Process 2 applications have a minimum 14-day public comment period, except Shoreline Substantial Development Permits and shoreline variances, which have a minimum 30-day comment period.
D. Review of Application. The Director shall determine which City departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application or appropriate parts of the application. Following a determination of technical completeness, satisfactory completion of any required correction cycles, and expiration of the minimum public comment period, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny all Process 2 applications. Conditions may be imposed directly on the plans (red-lining) or through other documentation reflected on the plans, or in a written staff report or other decision document to ensure the requirements of City codes and regulations are met without going through another correction cycle.
E. Decision. Process 2 decisions are subject to the maximum 120-day timeline requirement described in MVMC 18.100.120. A decision for a Process 2 action shall be made in writing by the Director and shall include the following information:
1. A description of the proposal and a listing of permits or approvals included in the application;
2. A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in this code and other applicable law;
3. A statement of background information and facts relied upon by the Department which show the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria;
4. A summary of public comment received and how the Department or applicant responded to the public comments or concerns; and
5. The decision to deny or approve the application and, if approved, any conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with applicable law.
F. Notice of Decision. Public notice of a Process 2 decision shall be provided to all parties of record and to the applicant. Notice of a short plat or binding site plan shall be provided in the same manner as Notice of Application as set forth in MVMC 18.100.190.
G. Administrative Appeal. A Process 2 decision, except for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits and shoreline variances, may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner within 14 calendar days of the Notice of Decision pursuant to MVMC 18.100.230. A decision on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or shoreline variance may be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to Chapter 14.05 MVMC. Shoreline appeal procedures and information are available from the Department or from the State Department of Ecology.
H. Judicial Appeal. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on a Process 2 appeal may be appealed to King County Superior Court pursuant to MVMC 18.100.240.
I. Merger of Process 2 Applications (Except SEPA) with Process 3 or 4 Applications. When any Process 2 application except for a SEPA threshold determination is reviewed concurrently with a Process 3 or Process 4 application, the procedures for notice, decision making, and appeal set forth in MVMC 18.100.150 or 18.100.160, respectively, shall apply to the Process 2 application. SEPA threshold determination decisions do not merge with the Process 3 or Process 4 decision procedures except that any appeal of a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance associated with a Process 3 or 4 application shall be integrated with the open record public hearing for the Process 3 or 4 action. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-10-419 § 12; Ord. O-10-415 § 6; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.150 Process 3.
A. General. Process 3 applications are defined in the framework set forth in MVMC 18.100.040(A) and (B). All Process 3 applications must meet all the applicable requirements of the Maple Valley Municipal Code in addition to the requirements specified below.
B. Preapplication Conference. Process 3 applications are required to have a preapplication conference.
C. Notice of Application. Process 3 applications require a Notice of Application. See MVMC 18.100.190. All Process 3 applications have a maximum 30-day public comment period pursuant to MVMC 18.100.020(E). In addition, a public meeting shall be scheduled and included in the Notice of Application for each Process 3 proposal. The public meeting shall be scheduled so as to allow at least seven calendar days beyond the date of the public meeting for comments to be submitted within the maximum 30-day comment period.
D. Review of Application. The Director shall determine which City departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application or appropriate parts of the application. Following a determination of technical completeness and satisfactory completion of any required correction cycles pursuant to this chapter, the Director shall prepare a written recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. The Director’s recommendation shall provide a description of the proposal, a listing of the permits or approvals included in the application, a statement of the criteria and standards applicable to the proposal, and a review of the background information and facts relied upon by the Department in its recommendation. The recommendation shall enumerate any conditions needed to ensure the application meets each of the applicable decision criteria. If a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for the proposal, the DNS will be issued in conjunction with the Director’s recommendation to the Hearing Examiner.
E. Open Record Predecision Hearing. A Process 3 action requires an open record predecision hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
1. At least 15 calendar days before the date of the hearing, public notice of the hearing shall be provided consistent with the requirements of MVMC 18.100.210.
2. The Director’s recommendation shall be made available on the date the hearing notice is issued. When the Director’s recommendation includes a SEPA threshold Determination of Nonsignificance, the hearing notice shall inform the public that a SEPA appeal may be filed and that any SEPA appeal will be consolidated with the Process 3 open record hearing, but the SEPA appeal will be heard as a closed record appeal.
3. The burden of proof shall be on the proponent to demonstrate that the proposal conforms to applicable codes and standards, except that for any SEPA DNS appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant.
4. Consistent with the adopted Hearing Examiner rules, the Hearing Examiner shall explain the format and rules of procedure for the hearing to the public before opening the public hearing record.
5. The public hearing shall be recorded on audio or audiovisual tape.
F. Decision. A written decision for a Process 3 action shall be issued by the Hearing Examiner within 10 working days after the date the record closes, unless the applicant has consented, in writing, to an extension of this time period. The Hearing Examiner’s decision shall include the following information:
1. A description of the proposal and a listing of permits or approvals included in the application;
2. A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in the municipal code and other applicable law;
3. A statement of background information and facts relied upon by the Hearing Examiner which show the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria and standards;
4. A summary of public testimony and public comment received and how the Department or the applicant responded to the public testimony and public comments; and
5. The decision to deny or approve the application and, if approved, any conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with applicable law.
G. Notice of Decision. Public notice of a Process 3 decision shall be provided to all parties of record and to the applicant according to the same requirements as for Notice of Application set forth in MVMC 18.100.190.
H. Reconsideration. The Hearing Examiner may reconsider a Process 3 decision if a written request is filed by a party of record within 10 calendar days of the date of the initial decision. Grounds for requesting reconsideration shall be limited to the following: (1) the decision or conditions of approval are not supported by facts in the record, (2) the decision contains an error of law, (3) there is newly discovered evidence potentially material to the decision which could not reasonably have been produced prior to the open record pre-decision hearing, or (4) the applicant proposes changes to the proposal in response to deficiencies identified in the decision. Any request for reconsideration shall be mailed to all parties of record on the same day as the request is mailed or delivered to the Hearing Examiner. A request for reconsideration shall stop the running of the appeal period on a Process 3 decision for five business days. During this time period, the Examiner shall decide whether reconsideration is appropriate. If the Examiner decides to reconsider the decision, the appeal period will be placed on hold until the reconsideration process is complete and a new decision is issued. If the Examiner decides to reconsider a decision, all parties of record shall be notified. The Examiner shall, by order, set a schedule for other parties of record to respond in writing to the reconsideration request and shall issue a decision no later than 10 business days following the due date for submittal of written responses. A new appeal period shall commence from the date of the Hearing Examiner’s decision on reconsideration.
I. Judicial and Administrative Appeal. Process 3 decisions, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits and any associated shoreline permits, may be appealed to Superior Court pursuant to MVMC 18.100.240. Shoreline decisions are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board. See Chapter 14.05 MVMC. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-10-419 § 13; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.160 Process 4.
A. General. Process 4 applications for a development agreement are governed by MVMC 18.100.040(B) and State law as set forth in RCW 36.70B.170, 36.70B.180, 36.70B.190, 36.70B.200, and 36.70B.210, as written or hereafter amended.
B. City Council Decision. Following receipt of a recommendation from the Planning Commission for a site-specific rezone, the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Process 4 application by motion. An ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney to reflect the City Council decision and shall be presented for City Council approval as soon as practicable following the approved motion. The date of the Council decision for purposes of commencement of any relevant appeal periods shall be the date of Council approval of the ordinance.
C. Judicial Appeal. A Process 4 decision may be appealed to the King County Superior Court pursuant to MVMC 18.100.240. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-12-514 § 2; Ord. O-10-419 § 14; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.170 Process 5.
A. General. Process 5 actions are defined in the framework pursuant to MVMC 18.100.040(A) and (B). All Process 5 proposals are legislative actions, but not all legislative actions are Process 5 decisions. Process 5 is specifically limited to actions affecting the City’s Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and development regulations.
B. Hearings. A Process 5 action may require one or more hearings before the Planning Commission to formulate a recommendation and may require one or more hearings before the City Council for a final decision. The City Council may hold its own hearings or may delegate all hearings to the Planning Commission.
C. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be provided to the public by publishing in the City’s official newspaper.
D. Implementation. The City Council’s decision shall become effective by passage of an ordinance, pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130.
E. Legislative Enactments Not Restricted. Nothing in this section or the permit processing procedures shall limit the authority of the City Council to make changes to the City’s comprehensive plan, as part of a regular revision process, or to make changes to the City’s municipal code.
F. Appeal to Growth Management Hearings Board. A Process 5 decision may be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board pursuant to the regulations set forth in RCW 36.70A.290. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-10-419 § 15; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.180 Public notice – Generally.
The records of the King County Assessor’s office shall be used for determining the property owner of record. Addresses for mailed notices shall be obtained from the County’s real property tax records. The applicant shall issue a declaration of mailing to the Director. All public notices shall be deemed to have been provided or received on the date the notice is deposited in the mail or personally delivered, whichever occurs first. Failure to receive public notice when provided as described in this chapter shall not be grounds for invalidation of any permit decision. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.190 Notice of Application.
A. Notice of Application. The Notice of Application shall be mailed, published and posted for Process 2 and 3 applications within 14 calendar days of a determination of completeness.
B. Mailed Notice – Contents. Mailed Notice of Application shall include:
1. The project file number(s), the date of application, the date of the determination of technical completeness for the application and the date of the Notice of Application;
2. A description of the proposed project action, the site address or a description of the site’s location, and a list of the permits or approvals included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested by the City;
3. The identification of other permits not included in the application, to the extent known by the City;
4. The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing Notice of Application, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed;
5. A statement of the minimum public comment period (see MVMC 18.100.140(C), 18.100.150(C) and 18.100.160(C) for Process 2, 3, and 4 applications), and statements of the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any public meetings or hearings, and request a copy of the decision once made;
6. The date, time, and place of any public meeting scheduled for the proposal;
7. A statement of a preliminary determination of consistency, if one has been made at the time of notice, and of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation, if known;
8. A statement whether the optional DNS process allowed by WAC 197-11-355 will be used if a SEPA threshold determination is required;
9. The name and telephone number of the City planner assigned to the project;
10. The name of the applicant or applicant’s representative and the name, address and telephone number of a contact person for the applicant, if any; and
11. Any other information determined appropriate by the City.
C. Mailed Notice – Distribution. Mailed notice shall be provided as follows:
1. To all owners of real property, as shown by the records of the County Assessor, located within 500 feet of any portion of the property on which the proposed project is located. If the owner of the property which is the subject of the application owns other real property adjacent to and abutting the subject property, then the 500-foot measurement shall be taken from the boundary of any such adjacently located parcels;
2. To any city or town located adjacent to or within one mile of the project site;
3. To the Washington State Department of Transportation, if the project site is located adjacent to a State highway;
4. To any agency with jurisdiction over the proposal and to any school or utility district that includes the subject site; and
5. To any other interested party, agency, tribe, or jurisdiction known to the Department.
D. Published Notice – Content. Published notice in the City’s official newspaper shall include at least the following information:
1. The project location or address;
2. A description of the proposal and the types of City permits or approvals required;
3. The minimum comment period dates and the date, time and place of any public meeting that has been scheduled for the proposal;
4. Whether the optional DNS process allowed by WAC 197-11-355 will be used if a SEPA threshold determination is required;
5. The name and telephone number of the City planner assigned to the project; and
6. The location where a complete Notice of Application and the project file may be reviewed.
E. Posted Notice. The Director shall establish standards for the size, color, layout, design, wording, placement, and removal of signs or placards for posted notice. Posted notice shall be visible and accessible for inspection by members of the public from each street abutting the property. If the property does not abut a public street, the Director shall determine where to post the required signs or placards. Posted notice shall remain in place until a final administrative decision is made by the City on the proposal and shall be removed within seven calendar days of the final City decision.
F. Public Comment. Public comments should be submitted as early in the review process as possible and should include sufficient detail to allow for specific responses from the City or a project applicant. No decision will be made, and no recommendation from the Director will be completed, until the close of the comment period. Comments will be accepted until the time a decision on a Process 2 application is made and until the close of the public hearing record for a Process 3 or Process 4 decision. Comments from the public must be in writing and must contain the name and address of the person sending the comment. Comments may be delivered by mail, fax (limit of 10 pages), email, or by personal delivery. Comments provided for a Process 3 application must be submitted prior to the close of the open record predecision hearing. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-10-419 § 16; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.200 Optional public notice.
A. Optional Public Notice. As optional methods of providing public Notice of Application or notice of a decision or recommendation, the City may require the applicant to provide, or may itself provide, the following types of notice:
1. Notify the public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered;
2. Notify the news media;
3. Place notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade journals;
4. Publish notices in agency newsletters or send notices to agency mailing lists, either general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and
5. Mail to neighboring property owners outside the required mailing areas as determined by the Director.
B. The Director shall make the sole determination if optional public notice is necessary in addition to the required notice requirements of this code. The Director shall consider the scale, impact, location, and other pertinent features of the proposal that may warrant additional public notice to ensure that the public is notified of proposed land use actions.
C. The City’s decision not to require additional, optional notice as described in this section shall not be grounds for invalidation of any permit decision. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.210 Notice of public hearing for Process 3 and 4 applications.
A. Timing and Distribution of Notice. Notice of an open record predecision public hearing on a Process 3 or Process 4 application shall be published in the legal City newspaper at least 15 calendar days before the hearing. The notice shall also be mailed to each party of record who submitted written comments on the proposal or asked to be added to the mailing list. For any preliminary plat application, the notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to the same parties who received notice of the application. See MVMC 18.100.190(C). A copy of the notice of hearing shall be added or attached to the public notice sign(s) or placard(s) at the site within two working days of publication.
B. Availability of Director’s Recommendation and SEPA Decisions. The Director’s recommendation on a Process 3 or Process 4 application shall be available to the public and the applicant on or before the day the notice of hearing is issued. If a Determination of Significance (DS) was issued earlier in the review process, the notice of hearing shall state whether an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared or whether existing environmental documents were adopted. If a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued, the DNS may be issued in conjunction with the Director’s recommendation.
C. Content of Notice of Hearing. Notice of a predecision public hearing shall include:
1. The name of the applicant or the applicant’s representative;
2. The address or location of the affected property;
3. The date, time, and place of the hearing;
4. The nature of the proposed use or development;
5. A statement that all interested persons may appear and provide testimony;
6. The type of permits or approvals requested;
7. When and where information may be examined, and when and how written comments may be submitted;
8. The name of a City representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information may be obtained;
9. That a copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at the cost of reproduction; and
10. That a copy of the staff report and Director’s recommendation is available for inspection at no cost and copies will be provided at the cost of reproduction. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-99-109 § 1).
18.100.220 Site Development Permit review.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish procedures for reviewing civil engineering or construction drawings for site improvements. Construction drawings are detailed engineering documents that are required for improvements to a particular site. Engineering or construction drawings are reviewed using a Process 1 Site Development Permit.
B. Applicability. Civil construction drawing review shall be required for all proposals that require construction or modification of streets, sidewalks, storm drainage, utilities, or any other surface or subsurface improvements that may be required.
C. Procedures.
1. After approval of the land use permit, civil construction drawings, if required, shall be submitted for review and approval, prior to issuance of a building permit or clearing and grading permit. Site Development Permit civil construction drawings may be submitted prior to approval of the land use permit, subject to approval by the Community Development Director.
2. The submittal requirements for Site Development Permits are available at the City of Maple Valley, as well as on the City’s website.
3. Site Development Permit shall be approved only after review and approval of a land use permit application has been issued by the appropriate decision making body. Civil construction drawings shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the approved land use permit. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B)).
18.100.230 Administrative appeals.
A. Appeals of Decisions. This section allows for administrative appeals as provided in the framework described in MVMC 18.100.040(B). Administrative appeals are heard by the Hearing Examiner, the Shorelines Hearings Board, or the Growth Management Hearings Board, as applicable.
B. Consolidated Appeals. Except as provided in subsection (C) of this section, appeals of environmental determinations shall be consolidated with the project permit decision in a consolidated permit review and decision making process. When a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is appealed in conjunction with a Process 3 or Process 4 application, the closed record appeal on the DNS shall be consolidated with the open record predecision hearing on the Process 3 decision, or with the public hearing on the Process 4 decision. Only parties of record will be entitled to participate in the closed record appeal on the DNS.
C. When a SEPA Determination of Significance (DS) is appealed, the SEPA appeal hearing shall be held prior to the public hearing or decision on the proposal.
D. Administrative Appeals – Standing. Only parties of record have standing to initiate an administrative appeal of a Process 2 or 3 decision on a project permit application.
E. Time to File. An administrative appeal of the decision must be filed within 14 calendar days following issuance of the Notice of Decision. The time to file an appeal of the environmental determination associated with a Process 2, 3 or 4 decision is governed by MVMC 14.10.170. Appeals must be delivered to and received by the Community Development Department by mail, personal delivery or by fax before 5:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period.
F. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the hearing body’s Notice of Decision is rendered shall not be included. The last day of the appeal period shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which case it also is excluded and the filing must be completed on the next calendar day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.
G. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by an appeal fee, and contain the following information:
1. Appellant’s name, address and phone number;
2. Appellant’s statement describing his or her standing to appeal;
3. Identity of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
4. Appellant’s statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based and must include a reference or citation to any testimony or comments provided to the City in regards to the application which is the subject of the appeal; and
5. The relief sought, including the specific nature and extent of the request.
H. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the decision until such time as the appeal is decided or is withdrawn.
I. Notice of Administrative Appeal. The Director shall provide public notice of the appeal and of the date, time, and place for the appeal hearing as follows:
1. For Process 2 decisions, notice shall be mailed to all parties of record;
2. For an appeal of a SEPA DNS associated with a Process 3 or Process 4 application, the Director shall provide notice of the closed record appeal to parties of record and shall provide public notice of the open record predecision hearing on the application. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-10-419 § 17; Ord. O-99-109 § 1. Formerly 18.100.220).
18.100.240 Judicial appeals.
The City’s decision on a Process 1 application, or a final decision after exhaustion of all administrative appeals on a Process 2, 3, or 4 application, may be appealed by a party of record with standing to file a land use petition in King County Superior Court. The provisions of the State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW, apply and should be consulted for specific rules and requirements, including filing deadlines. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-10-419 § 18; Ord. O-99-109 § 1. Formerly 18.100.230).
18.100.250 Procedures controlling.
The procedures set forth in this chapter shall be deemed additional to any other procedures set forth in City ordinances applicable to land use decisions, and in the event of any conflict, the procedures in this chapter shall be controlling. (Ord. O-16-598 § 1(B) (Exh. B); Ord. O-99-109 § 1. Formerly 18.100.240).