Chapter 16.40 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES

Chapter 16.40
APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES

Sections:

16.40.030 Administrative interpretations.

16.40.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish the procedures and the decision criteria for each development application or approval. (Ord. 2050 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021).

16.40.020 Determination of consistency.

The decision criteria set forth below shall apply to all administrative, combination, and quasi-judicial applications:

A. Consistency. The applications are reviewed by the city to determine consistency between the proposed project and the applicable regulations and comprehensive plan provisions.

1. A proposed project’s consistency with the city’s development regulations shall be determined by consideration of:

a. The type of land use;

b. The level of development, such as units per acre, or other measures of density;

c. Availability of infrastructure, including public facilities, and services needed to serve the development; and

d. The character of the development, such as development standards.

2. Upon review of an application, the decision maker shall determine whether the building and/or site design complies with the following provisions:

a. The city’s comprehensive plan;

b. The provisions of PMC Title 17 (Buildings and Construction) and provisions that affect building location and general site design;

c. The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), if not otherwise satisfied; and

d. The city’s design standards.

3. Limitations on Review. During project review, the city shall not reexamine alternatives to or hear appeals on the items in subsection (A)(1) of this section except for issues of code interpretation.

4. Additional Review Criteria. Additional review criteria appear in each chapter or section relating to the development regulations for an individual project permit application or other approval. All of the criteria in this chapter and the criteria relating to the individual application(s) must be satisfied in order for the city to issue an approval.

5. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof for demonstrating that the application is consistent with the applicable regulations is on the proponent. The project application must be supported by proof that it conforms to the applicable elements of the city’s development regulations and the comprehensive plan, and that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately addressed. (Ord. 2050 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021).

16.40.030 Administrative interpretations.

A. Purpose. The primary objective of administrative interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the code provision at issue and to give effect to that intent.

Administrative interpretation shall not be used to amend or change the code. The city’s development regulations (the zoning code and subdivision code) shall be interpreted whenever any of its provisions, or the application of such provisions to any specific set of circumstances, is ambiguous, i.e., where the code is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations.

B. Administration. The director is authorized and directed to administer the provisions of this section and shall have the authority to approve or deny administrative interpretations without a hearing in accordance with this section.

C. Procedure. The following steps shall be followed in the processing of an administrative interpretation:

1. PMC 16.20.040, determination of complete application;

2. PMC 16.40.020, determination of consistency; and

3. PMC 16.50.100, notice of decision; and

4. Chapter 16.60 PMC, administrative appeal (if any).

D. Requirements for a Complete Application. The following materials shall be submitted to the city in order to constitute a complete application for an administrative interpretation:

1. The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the applicant, the completed application form with the date of submission to the city, and the applicable fee;

2. An identification of the code provision that is the subject of the applicant’s administrative interpretation, and a description of the applicant’s perception of the ambiguity in the code;

3. A description of the set of circumstances, the address of the property or identification of the development that the applicant believes has created the ambiguity or two or more reasonable interpretations of the code provision identified in subsection (D)(2) of this section; and

4. If the applicant is requesting an administrative interpretation relating to the applicability of a code provision to a particular piece of property, the applicant shall submit a verified statement that this property is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has submitted the request for the interpretation with the consent of all owners of the affected property.

E. Criteria for Approval. Administrative interpretation shall utilize generally recognized principles of statutory and ordinance interpretation adopted by the courts of this state. In addition:

1. The provisions of the zoning and subdivision codes shall be considered to include the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion and protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, and all administrative interpretations shall be made in this context.

2. The provisions of the zoning and subdivision codes are not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any easements, covenants, or other agreements between parties, except where the agreements may conflict with the enforcement of the zoning and subdivision codes.

3. In the case of conflicts between the portions of the zoning and subdivision codes and other rules, regulations, resolutions, ordinances, or statutes lawfully adopted by other authority having jurisdiction within the city, the most restrictive shall govern. In the case of conflicts between the text, maps, and charts of the zoning and subdivision codes, the text shall govern unless otherwise stated.

4. Zoning Map Interpretation. Where uncertainty exists as to the location of any boundaries of the zones shown on the city’s official zoning map, the following shall apply:

a. Where more than one of the following provisions is applicable in any given situation, the first stated and applicable provision shall prevail over all other provisions:

i. Where a zone district boundary line is given a position within or abutting a highway, road, street, or alley, which does not appear to be located in any zone district (other than an overlay zone district), the zone district boundary shall be deemed to be the center of such right-of-way.

ii. Where a zone district boundary line is shown as closely and approximately following subdivision plat lot lines, municipal boundary, or county boundary lines, the zone district boundary line shall be deemed to coincide with such known lot lines or boundaries.

iii. Where a parcel within a zone district has a boundary line shown by a specific dimension, that dimension shall control.

iv. Where a zone district boundary line is located with a reference to a fixture, monument, or natural feature, the location of the boundary line with respect to the attribute shall control.

v. In all other circumstances, the location of the zone district boundary line shall be determined by scaling from the official zoning map.

F. No Limitation for Final Decision. An administrative interpretation is not a project permit application, and is not subject to a deadline for issuance of a final decision. (Ord. 2050 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021).

16.40.040 Review of applications.

Within 10 days of accepting a complete application, the director shall:

A. Transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected government agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for determining compliance with state and federal requirements. The affected agencies and city departments shall have 15 days to comment on the application. The agency or city department is presumed to have no comment if comments are not received within this 15-day period. The director shall grant an extension of time only if the application involves unusual circumstances.

B. The director shall provide for public notice of application, as set forth in PMC 16.30.010.

C. Project review by the director and appropriate city staff shall identify specific project design and conditions relating to the character of the development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal’s probable adverse environmental impacts. (Ord. 2050 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021).

16.40.050 Initial SEPA analysis.

A. In addition to the review for consistency with development regulations, the director shall review the project permit application for consistency with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC and the city’s environmental policy ordinance) and shall:

1. Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately analyze all of the proposed project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts;

2. Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to adequately address identified environmental impacts; and

3. Provide prompt and coordinated review by other governmental agencies and the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level.

B. In the review of a project permit application, the director shall determine whether the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan, and/or in other applicable local, state, or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the proposal.

C. If the director bases his/her approval of the project permit application on compliance with the requirements or mitigation measures described in subsection A of this section, the city shall not impose additional mitigation under SEPA during project review for the same adverse environmental impacts.

D. A comprehensive plan, development regulation, or other applicable local, state, or federal law provides adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, the specific adverse environmental impacts of a proposal when:

1. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or

2. The city has designated in the plan, regulation, or law that certain levels of service, land use designations, development standards, or other land use conditions allowed by Chapter 36.70A RCW are acceptable.

E. In determining whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been addressed by an existing city comprehensive plan or development regulation, or by the regulations or laws of another government agency, the director shall consult verbally or in writing with that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the director shall base or condition any project approval on compliance with these other regulations.

F. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the director in reviewing or mitigating the impacts of a proposed project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided in Chapter 43.21C RCW. (Ord. 2050 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021).