Chapter 19.26
LEVEL III – LAND DIVISION REVIEW PROCEDURE
Sections:
19.26.030 Development authorization application – Level III.
19.26.050 Determination of completeness, resubmittal and expiration of application.
19.26.060 Review procedures – Level III.
19.26.010 Purpose.
The purpose of Level III procedure is to handle applications that are decided on the basis of compliance with policy standards that involve a high level of discretion or policy interpretation in the review process. Level III applications receive review and decision by the hearing examiner under procedures set forth in this chapter and in Chapter 2.26 SMC. (Ord. 1284-17 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 1144-12 § 2 (Exh. A))
19.26.020 When required.
Level III development authorization applications are required for the following actions processed under this title:
A. Large-scale binding site plans (Chapters 19.18 and 19.20 SMC).
B. Preliminary subdivision plat applications (Chapters 19.06 and 19.08 SMC).
C. All other land division proposals determined by the director to be most similar to Level III uses. (Ord. 1284-17 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 1144-12 § 2 (Exh. A))
19.26.030 Development authorization application – Level III.
Level III applications shall be made in writing to the director on forms supplied by the director. The application shall contain the information called for in the chapter that addresses administration of the type of application. The director or his designee may request any other information necessary to clarify the application or determine compliance with and provide for the enforcement of this code. (Ord. 1284-17 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 1144-12 § 2 (Exh. A))
19.26.040 Notice procedures.
Public notice of Level III land division applications shall be as provided in SMC 19.34.070. (Ord. 1284-17 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 1144-12 § 2 (Exh. A))
19.26.050 Determination of completeness, resubmittal and expiration of application.
A. The developer shall submit the application to the director along with the appropriate fees.
B. Within 28 working days of the date of receipt of either an application or resubmitted and/or additional information, the director shall determine if the application is complete and accurate for the purposes of vesting.
C. The city shall, within 28 working days of receiving an application, mail a written notice to the applicant providing one of the following:
1. A determination of completeness; or
2. A determination of incompleteness and a statement(s) regarding what is necessary to make the application complete.
D. The application shall not be accepted for formal filing and shall vest no rights until issuance of a formal determination of completeness by the director.
E. Resubmittal.
1. Resubmittals with the necessary information making the application complete within six months of original filing will not be subject to additional filing fees.
2. Resubmittals between six months and one year of notification to provide additional information that are returned with the information that makes the application complete will be charged additional fees as provided by the Sultan annual fee schedule.
F. Expiration of Application. Failure to resubmit a complete application responding to all requirements and standards of the determination of incompleteness or inaccuracy within one year of the notification of such determination shall result in expiration of the application. Any subsequent application for subdivision of the subject property shall be subject to a new application process and all fees applicable to a preliminary subdivision application. (Ord. 1284-17 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 1144-12 § 2 (Exh. A))
19.26.060 Review procedures – Level III.
A. Revision. A requirement for revision shall include:
1. A brief direction as to the code standards that are not met, but that could be met with appropriate revision.
2. Shall indicate the timelines for resubmittal as provided in SMC 19.26.050.
B. Rejection. Rejection of an application shall include:
1. A statement of the criteria/standards that are not met by the application;
2. A brief explanation as to why no reasonable revision of the proposal can be expected to rectify and why that is the case.
C. Development Review Committee. Proposals requiring review by the development review committee will be sent to the committee by the director no later than 14 days after the application has been determined to be complete.
D. Additional Agency Review. The director may also, but is not required to, solicit comments from other resource persons or public agencies he or she may determine may be affected by a proposal that is categorically exempt under SEPA.
E. SEPA Review. If SEPA review is required, such review will be conducted by the responsible official in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.04 SMC and Chapter 197-11 WAC. No approval or permit shall be issued on the proposal until SEPA review is complete.
F. Director’s Recommendation. The director or his/her designee shall complete review of a Level III application and construct a written report for submittal to the hearing examiner.
The report shall address all relevant criteria called for in this title for the type of application being reviewed, including input from city staff and other agencies involved in the review process and the SEPA determinations if applicable. (Ord. 1284-17 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 1144-12 § 2 (Exh. A))
19.26.070 Approval.
The director shall issue a development authorization when it is determined by the hearing examiner that the proposal complies with the provisions of this code and the comprehensive plan. (Ord. 1284-17 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 1144-12 § 2 (Exh. A))
19.26.080 Denial.
When an application is denied, the hearing examiner shall state the specific reasons and shall cite the specific chapters and sections of this code upon which the denial is based. (Ord. 1284-17 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 1144-12 § 2 (Exh. A))
19.26.090 Appeal.
Any decision by the hearing examiner to grant or deny issuance of a Level III development authorization use may be appealed to superior court as provided by state law.
Requests for additional or more detailed information and determinations that a higher review level is needed are not appealable. (Ord. 1284-17 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 1144-12 § 2 (Exh. A))