Source: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/issaquah/html/Issaquah18/Issaquah1804.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 18:03:04
Document Index: 19076376

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 23', '§ 3', '§ 5', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 15', '§ 23', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 6', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 10', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 7', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 9', '§ 6', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 6', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 7', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 8', '§ 9', '§ 10', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 6', '§ 3', '§ 11', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 8', '§ 5', '§ 3', '§ 13', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 9', '§ 7', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 7', '§ 6', '§ 10', '§ 7', '§ 5', '§ 3', '§ 7', '§ 4', '§ 12', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 11', '§ 7', '§ 5', '§ 7', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 13', '§ 3', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 6', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 4', '§ 7', '§ 4', '§ 8', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 9', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 15', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 12', '§ 9', '§ 5', '§ 13', '§ 9', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 4', '§ 14', '§ 22', '§ 3', '§ 14', '§ 3', '§ 14', '§ 3', '§ 14', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 5', '§ 6', '§ 14', '§ 5', '§ 14', '§ 4']

Chapter 18.04 PROCEDURES
Chapter 18.04PROCEDURES
Procedures: Development Review Process – Levels of Review
18.04.040 Intent.
18.04.050 Application requirements.
18.04.060 Single contact designated and signature required.
18.04.070 Official filing of application.
18.04.080 Fees.
18.04.090 Concurrent Building Permit review option.
18.04.100 Levels of Review Matrix.
18.04.105 Statement of restrictions applicable to real property.
Level 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Review Process – Elements of Development Review Process
18.04.110 Exemptions from certain development review elements.
18.04.120 Feasibility meeting.
18.04.130 Pre-application meeting.
18.04.140 Community Conference.
18.04.150 Complete application – Sufficiency review.
18.04.160 Consolidated permit review process.
18.04.170 Notice of application.
18.04.180 Public notification.
18.04.190 Project assessment.
18.04.200 Staff report and recommendations.
18.04.210 Public hearing and/or public meeting.
18.04.220 Decision.
18.04.230 Assurance devices.
18.04.240 Notice of decision.
18.04.250 Administrative appeals.
18.04.252 Appeals to impact fees.
18.04.254 Shoreline appeals.
18.04.255 Historic property appeals.
18.04.256 SEPA determinations.
18.04.258 Judicial and/or Growth Management Hearings Board appeals.
18.04.260 Permit issuance prior to expiration of the appeal period.
18.04.270 Development Review Flow Charts – Levels 0 through 6.
Land Use Actions and Project Permits (Permits, Reclassifications/Rezones, Appeals, etc.)
18.04.280 Administrative land use actions.
Level 0 Review
18.04.290 Purpose.
18.04.300 Process and decision.
18.04.310 Approval criteria.
18.04.320 Thresholds – Level 0.
18.04.330 Purpose.
18.04.340 Process and decision.
18.04.350 Approval criteria.
18.04.360 Thresholds – Level 1.
18.04.370 Purpose.
18.04.380 Process and decision.
18.04.390 Approval criteria.
18.04.400 Thresholds – Level 2.
18.04.410 Quasi-judicial land use actions.
18.04.420 Purpose.
18.04.430 Process and decision.
18.04.440 Approval criteria.
18.04.450 Thresholds – Level 3.
Level 4 Review – Appeals, Variances, Preliminary and Final Plats
18.04.460 Purpose.
18.04.470 Process and decision.
18.04.480 Approval criteria.
18.04.490 Thresholds – Level 4.
Level 5 Review – Master Site Plans
18.04.500 Purpose.
18.04.510 Process.
18.04.520 Subsequent plat and permitting.
18.04.530 Amendments.
18.04.540 Termination of approval.
18.04.550 Extension of time limit.
18.04.560 –
18.04.620 Repealed.
Level 6 Review – Rezones, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Land Use Code Amendments, andAnnexations
18.04.630 Rezones, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Land Use Code amendments, and annexations.
18.04.632 Rezones.
18.04.635 Docket of Proposed Amendments (DPA).
18.04.640 Repealed.
18.04.650 Repealed.
18.04.660 Comprehensive Plan amendments.
18.04.670 Land Use Code amendments.
18.04.680 Annexations.
Flow Charts for Levels of Review 0 – 6.
The purpose of the development review procedures is to provide a predictable method to ensure that all land use actions are consistent with City codes, ordinances, state statutes and other applicable adopted regulations. (Ord. 2108 § 4.1.1, 1996).
The intent of the application and review procedures is to:
A. Establish a process which allows a complete review of each proposal; provide sufficient information to make an informed decision; establish a consistent review process for all projects; and provide notification to adjacent property owners for projects which may impact them, and give those property owners the opportunity for review and public comment; and
B. Encourage development and/or redevelopment that recognizes the attributes of the property being developed; and incorporates these attributes into the design process; and
C. Recognize and protect, preserve and enhance the social, cultural, economic, environmental and aesthetic standards that establish the desirable quality and unique character of Issaquah; and
D. Enhance construction, development and maintenance practices which promote visual quality throughout Issaquah; and
E. Recognize environmental and aesthetic design and energy efficiency as integral parts of the planning process; and
F. Provide equitable and timely review of development proposals; and
G. Provide certainty of project review and Code implementation; and
H. Provide consistency with applicable development regulations, or in the absence of applicable regulations, the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and provide consistency with the purpose and intent of this Code, and RCW 36.70B.040 (Determination of Consistency). (Ord. 2108 § 4.1.2, 1996).
The purpose of this section is to specify the general procedures to be followed when processing and reviewing applications for all land use actions. The intent of these procedures is to provide consistent and efficient review within the scheduled time frames set forth in this chapter. Additional procedures for particular types of development review are contained in specific sections of this chapter.
The development review process has been divided into seven (7) levels of review (Level 0-6) for the purpose of clarifying the procedures for the review and decision-making of land development proposals. All development proposals will be reviewed through one (1) or more of the levels prior to final decision-making. The optional consolidated permit review process provides a means by which a development proposal can satisfy the requirements of one (1) or more levels of review concurrently while maintaining consistency and streamlining the review process. (Ord. 2108 § 4.2.1, 1996).
The intent of the levels of review is to provide appropriate degrees of review with appropriate decision-making bodies for various land use actions and permits. Generally the development proposals with the least potential for impacts are reviewed through a Level 0 Review and the decision is made administratively. The development proposals with the greatest potential for impacts are reviewed through a Level 6 Review and are decided by the City Council. (Ord. 2108 § 4.2.2, 1996).
The purpose of a development proposal application is to provide a method to monitor and organize proposals for development review, to provide complete information to project reviewers and decision-makers, and to ensure that a predictable review process will occur within a reasonable or specified time frame. All applications for land use actions including permits, reclassifications/rezones, amendments, or other approvals or action required or authorized under this Code shall be filed with the Permit Center, unless otherwise required (Note: Some applications may require filing with other City departments such as the City Clerk’s office). The Permit Center will coordinate the review of each application with all appropriate City departments, boards and commissions and external agencies with regulatory authority over the proposal. The applications shall comply with the applicable elements of the development review process listed below. (Ord. 2108 § 4.2.3, 1996).
The City may require the applicant to designate a single person or entity to receive determinations and notices required by this chapter. All applications shall be signed by the property owner and/or applicant or his agent, who is authorized in writing to be the agent for the applicant/property owner, or, if the applicant is a department within the City, that Department Head or his/her appointee shall be the agent. (Ord. 2108 § 4.2.4, 1996).
No application shall be considered officially filed until determined as complete by the Permit Center. (Ord. 2108 § 4.2.5, 1996).
The appropriate fees for all permits shall be charged to the applicant per the Fee Schedule. Fees may be refunded in accordance with IMC 3.64.040, Refund of fees. (Ord. 2648 § 3 (Exh. A2b), 2012; Ord. 2108 § 4.2.6, 1996).
All development proposals, including the optional Consolidated Permit Review Process, are subject to Project Permit approval prior to Building Permit application unless otherwise allowed by the Building Official. (Ord. 2108 § 4.2.7, 1996).
A. The Levels of Review Matrix (Table 18.04.100-1) on the following pages lists the levels of review that are required for each land use and/or related decision.
B. The matrix is intended to provide predictability to project applicants in anticipating the required level of review; however, in order to ensure adequate review and appropriate public notification/participation, the Planning Director/Manager may forward the project to a higher level of review if the proposal is determined to merit increased review based upon one (1) or more of the following criteria:
1. The proposal is in close proximity to and/or appears to present potential for significant impacts to a critical area or other prominent natural feature.
2. The proposal is in close proximity to and/or appears to present potential for significant impacts to any public/quasi-public facility, historic site, or residential area.
3. The proposal represents a significant, though permitted, change in comparison to surrounding properties either by introduction of a different type of land use or by being more than twice the height and/or square footage of surrounding structures.
4. The proposal appears to present characteristics not anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and/or the Land Use Code and/or the Olde Town Design Standards.
5. Community concern is documented that: involves potential environmental, land use, or transportation impacts not anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan and/or Land Use Code; is received in a timely manner; and is determined to warrant additional review.
C. No additional fee is required from the applicant if a higher level review is determined to be necessary. (Ord. 2543 § 2, 2008; Ord. 2462 § 3, 2006; Ord. 2447 § 23, 2005; Ord. 2388 §§ 3, 10, 2004; Ord. 2383 § 5, 2004; Ord. 2345 § 2, 2002; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2164 §§ 2, 4, 13, 1997; Ord. 2108 § 4.2.8, 1996).
A. A property owner may make a request, upon a form provided by the Permit Center, for a statement of restrictions applicable to real property located in the City. The request shall be filed with the Permit Center.
B. Within thirty (30) days of the filing of a completed request form with the filing fee required by subsection (A) of this section, the Planning Director or his/her designee shall mail to the owner, at the address specified on the request form, a statement of restrictions as described in subsection (C) of this section.
C. The statement of restrictions shall include the following:
1. The zoning currently applicable to the real property;
2. Pending zoning changes currently advertised for public hearing that would be applicable to the real property; and
3. Any designations made by the City of the real property or a portion of the real property as agricultural land, forest land, mineral resource land, or a critical area, pursuant to Chapter 18.10 IMC.
1. “Owner” means any vested owner or any person holding the buyer’s interest under a recorded real estate contract in which the seller is the vested owner; and
2. “Real property” means a parcel, tract, lot or block:
a. Containing a single family residence that is occupied by the owner or a member of his or her family, or rented to another by the owner; or
b. Five (5) acres or less in size. (Ord. 2164 § 15, 1997).
Table 18.04.100-1: Levels of Review*
1Permit Examples4
Decision made by one person depending on the permit type including, but not limited to: Planning Director/Manager, Building Official, Public Works Director, or Designee
Level 0 Permits as listed in Table of Permitted Land Uses
Minor Amendments to Approved Proposal (including ASDP) (including the CBD and adjacent CF zones) – Consistent w/design guidelines and Subarea Plans
Minor Clearing, Grading, Filling Actions, Minor Paving and Tree Removal
Nonhabitable or Accessory Structures
Unclassified Use Interpretation
Signs (refacing, approved sign packages, other minor signs)
Signs (new, remodel, or expansion of business)2
Business Licenses and Special Events Permits
Conversion of Property from Forestry Practice
Others as determined by Planning Director/Manager
Planning Director/Manager or Designee
Level 1 Administrative Site Development Permits (ASDP) < 3 acres and off major streets
Painting and minor exterior construction in the CBD and adjacent CF zones – Not consistent w/design guidelines and Subarea Plans
Clearing, Grading or Filling Actions w/critical areas and buffers
Shoreline Exemption Permits and Shoreline Revision Permits
Level 2 Administrative Site Development Permits (ASDP) < 3 acres and off major streets
Minor Utility Facilities
Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Shoreline Variances, Shoreline Conditional Use Permits
Minor Amendments to Master Site Plans and Project Rezones
Level 3 Site Development Permits (SDP)
Level 1 and 2 Administrative Site Development Permits (ASDP) ≥ 3 acres and/or on major streets
Major Amendments to approved Site Development Permits
Appeals to Level 0, 1, 2, and 3 Decisions
(Modified Level 4) Preliminary Plats and Final Plats
City Council (with recommendation from Development Commission)
Major Amendments to Master Site Plans
Cluster Housing Development Agreements
Transfer of Development Rights Development Agreements
Major Amendments to Cluster Housing Development Agreements
Major Amendments to Transfer of Development Rights Agreements
City Council (with recommendation from Planning Policy Commission)
Type A and Type B Rezones
Annexations3
Urban Village Development Agreements and Urban Village Rezones are processed through the Type A or Type B rezone process
1 Permits for any development in a UV zone are processed through process described in the adopted development agreement for said UV zone in accordance with Ordinance No. 2103 as amended.
2 Decision made by Development Commission at public meeting.
3 Annexations require PPC review only when proposal does not meet the Comprehensive Plan Potential Annexation Area (PAA) vision.
4 Change of Use applications, see Table 18.04.100-3: Change of Use – Levels of Review. * Code reviser’s note: Ord. 2447 § 23 deletes Table 18.04.100-1 and renumbers Table 18.04.100-2 to be Table 18.04.100-1. Ord. 2624 adds a new Table 18.04.100-2.
Table 18.04.100-2: Amendments – Levels of Review1
Minor Exterior Construction and Minor Amendments to Approved Proposal or Site Development Permit
IMC 18.04.320(C)
Structural addition of window or door
Adding street furniture to a site
Improvements to comply with ADA requirements
Changing the pitch or style of the roof
Changing loading facilities and/or modifying parking areas
Minor modification of facades
Constructing a minor building addition
Minor modification to the site layout
Minor Exterior Construction and Minor Amendments to Approved Proposal or Site Development Permit inside the CBD
IMC 18.04.360(C)(2)
Construction of a building addition
Modifying the site layout
Does not meet criteria in IMC 18.04.320(C)
Minor Exterior Construction and Minor Amendments to Approved Proposal or Site Development Permit outside the CBD
IMC 18.04.360(D)
Minor Amendments to Master Site Plan, Cluster Housing Development Agreement and/or Transfer of Development Rights Development Agreement
IMC 18.04.400(H) and IMC 18.04.530(A)
Adding portions of adjacent parcels (such as through lot line adjustments)
Extension of time limit for three (3) years or less Minor Amendments to an Approved Preliminary Plat2
IMC 18.13.160(B)
Amendment that maintains the design intent or purpose of the original approval
Amendment that does not cause a significant environmental or land use impact
Modification or deletion of a subject condition which is unfeasible or detrimental to the public interest due to circumstances
Major Amendments to Approved Site Development Permit
IMC 18.04.450(B)
Substantially modifying parking areas
Substantially modifying facades
Constructing a substantial building addition
Substantially modifying the site layout
Changes that are inconsistent with the approved development, applicable design guidelines or subarea plans
Major Amendments to an Approved Preliminary Plat2
Level 4 (modified)3
IMC 18.13.160
Any modification which does not meet the criteria in IMC 18.13.160(A) or (B)
Major Amendments to a Master Site Plan, Cluster Housing Development Agreement and/or Transfer of Development Rights Development Agreement
IMC 18.04.530(B)
Extension of time limit for more than three (3) years
Any amendment which does not meet the criteria in IMC 18.04.400(H) or 18.04.530(A)
1 This table is a summary of existing codes. The examples listed are not comprehensive. Refer to the appropriate section for specific language.
2 Minor amendments to approved preliminary plats are specified as “Administrative Amendments.” Major amendments to approved preliminary plats are specified as “Modifications.” See Chapter 18.13 IMC, Subdivisions.
3 Modified Level 4 Review as provided in IMC 18.04.490(C), Thresholds – Level 4, and Chapter 18.13 IMC, Subdivisions.
Table 18.04.100-3: Change of Use – Levels of Review1
Previous Use – Level of Review
Proposed Use – Level of Review from Table of Permitted Land Uses
Change of Use: The intent of the review process for a Change of Use is to: 1) recognize that there is typically a lesser impact in a Change of Use than in new construction; and 2) require a higher Level of Review, as permitted in IMC 18.04.220(F), Option for Review Level Changes, in the individual cases where this is not the case.
Specified Uses: Changes of Use for a collective garden, adult entertainment facility, or secure community transition facility are reviewed as listed in IMC 18.06.130, Table of Permitted Land Uses, regardless of the previous use.
1 a) Community Facilities Zone: Changes of Use in the Community Facilities zones are reviewed as listed in IMC 18.06.130, Table of Permitted Land Uses, regardless of the previous use.
b) Changes of Use shall be processed through the Level of Review listed in this table, regardless of the parcel size or street frontage.
Table 18.04.100-4 Zoning Intensity Matrix to Determine Site Posting Requirement*
This table delineates Issaquah’s Zoning Districts in a spectrum of least intensive to most intensive. Posting of a site for purposes of notification will be required for proposed rezones to more intensive zoning districts, but is not required for proposed rezones to less intensive districts. (For example: A rezone from SF-E Single Family Estates to SF-D Single Family Duplex would require posting whereas a rezone from R Retail to PO Professional Office would not.)
Related IMC zoning district(s)
Less Intensive Districts
• TP-NRCA Tradition Plateau-Natural Resource Conservation Area
• C-Rec – Conservancy Recreation
• CF-OS Community Facilities – Open Space
• CF-R Community Facilities – Recreation
• CF-F Community Facilities – Facilities
• C-Res Conservancy Residential (1 du/5 acres)
Office/Low Density Residential or Low Density Residential
• SF-E Single Family Estates (1.24 du/acre)
• SF-S Single Family Suburban (4.5 du/acre)
• SF-D Single Family Duplex (SF: 7.26 du/acre; Duplex: 14.52 du/acre) • SF-SL Single Family Small Lot (7.26 du/acre)
• MF-M Multifamily Medium (14.52 du/acre)
• MUR Mixed Use Residential (14.52 du/acre)
• MF-H Multifamily High (29 du/acre)
Office/Low Density Residential or Retail
• PO Professional Office
• CBD Cultural and Business District
• R Retail
• IC Intensive Commercial
• M Mineral Resources
More Intensive Districts
Low Density Residential/Urban Village
• C-Res Conservancy Residential (1 du/5 acres) • SF-SL Single Family Small Lot (7.26 du/acre)
• UV Urban Village: The UV designation recognizes that master planning of larger parcels provides the opportunity for mixed use development, clustering, phasing of infrastructure, and protection of critical areas. The UV designation is implemented by the adoption of an UV development agreement and UV zoning by City Council. An UV development agreement has been adopted for Issaquah Highlands and Talus.
(Ord. 2633 § 6, 2011; Ord. 2624 § 6 (Exh. A5b), 2011; Ord. 2596 § 3 (Exh. B2), 2010; Ord. 2546 § 2, 2008; Ord. 2525 § 6, 2008; Ord. 2462 §§ 4, 5, 2006; Ord. 2388 § 4, 2004).
*Code reviser’s note: Ord. 2388, Section 4 added the Zoning Intensity Matrix to Determine Site Posting Requirement table as Table 18.04.100-3. The table has been editorially renumbered to prevent duplication of numbering.
Level 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Review Process – Elements of Development Review Process*
*Note: Not all elements discussed below are applicable to each review level.
A. Landmark designations, street vacations, and other approvals relating to the use of public areas or facilities including but not limited to Street Use Permits, or other Project Permits, whether administrative or quasi-judicial that the City determines by ordinance or resolution has determined present special circumstances that warrant a review process different from that provided in RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.090 (Required elements; Determination of Completeness; Development Regulation Requirements; Time Limits) and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130 (Notice of Application – Administrative Appeals; Permit Review Process; Notice of Decision) are exempt from the elements of the Development Review Process.
B. Lot line adjustments, Building and other Construction Permits or similar Level 0 or Level 1 permits that are categorically exempt under Chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA) and Issaquah SEPA (Chapter 18.10 IMC) requirements, or permits/approvals for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other Project Permits, are exempt from RCW 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130 (see titles listed in subsection A of this section) including these elements of the Development Review Process: 1. Determination of complete application;
2. Notice of application;
3. Consolidated Permit Review Process;
4. Joint public hearings;
5. Single Staff Report and Recommendation stating all the decisions and recommendations made as of the date of the report that do not require an open record hearing;
6. Notice of decision;
7. Completion of project review within applicable time periods (including a one hundred twenty (120) day time limit).
C. The actions listed below are not subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.130 but are subject to the Level 6 Review process and other regulations that may apply: legislative rezones require full public hearing notice; legislative actions including Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation amendments, and annexations do not require public hearing notice (notice to parties of record, adjacent property owners, posting of site) except for public hearing legal notice in the newspaper, subject to any other applicable local, regional, and state regulations.
D. Development applications in the Urban Village (UV) zone may be reviewed separately from this chapter. Permits in the UV zone follow a specific process as set forth in Ordinance No. 2103 as amended. (Ord. 2108 § 4.3.1, 1996).
A potential applicant may request to meet with a staff member (planner), informally, to discuss general aspects about a proposed project and gather information regarding zoning, critical area mapping and other pertinent rules and regulations which relate to the anticipated development proposal. All feasibility meetings are optional and initiated at the request of the potential applicant. (Ord. 2108 § 4.3.2, 1996).
Prior to submitting an application, the applicant shall schedule a conference with City staff representatives from all departments involved with development review. The pre-application meeting is optional for some levels of review and required for others (see Chapter 18.10 IMC, Appendix, Flow Charts for Levels of Review 0 – 6).
A. Purpose: The purpose of the pre-application meeting is for the applicant to become familiar with the policies, plans and development requirements of the City; for staff and the applicant to review the general characteristics of the site and the concepts for a proposed project; and to discuss the coordination of all necessary permits and procedures. The intent of the pre-application conference is to save the applicant time and resources in the preparation of the application.
B. Required Meetings: All projects requiring a Development Permit and located on land zoned Community Facilities shall be reviewed by affected City departments through a project review meeting.
C. Application: The request for the pre-application meeting shall be submitted to the Permit Center on an application form provided by the Permit Center. The information requested on the form must be completed and all information submitted prior to the Permit Center scheduling a meeting.
D. Meeting Scheduling: After the complete form for the pre-application meeting has been received by the Permit Center, a meeting will be scheduled at which the applicant and representatives of other pertinent City departments shall discuss the elements of the proposal.
E. Expectations: The applicant can expect the following results from the meeting:
1. The more information an applicant can provide for a pre-application meeting, the more complete the staff’s review and input will be for the proposal;
2. Any information or opinions expressed by the staff shall not be binding on the final decision or constitute approval or denial of the proposed project;
3. Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, this Code and other applicable policies and regulations will be discussed;
4. Staff and applicant should discuss creative approaches to address challenging site constraints or potential mitigations;
5. Recommended revisions or modifications to the proposal will be discussed; and
6. The applicant should be aware that additional modifications will most likely be required before the project review is final and a decision has been made. F. Preliminary Plat Neighborhood Meeting: The neighborhood meeting for a preliminary plat (see IMC 18.13.070, Neighborhood meeting) is part of the pre-application process. (Ord. 2596 § 3 (Exh. B2), 2010; Ord. 2501 § 4, 2007; Ord. 2388 § 10, 2004; Ord. 2108 § 4.3.3, 1996).
A. Purpose: The Community Conference is an informal public meeting hosted by the Development Commission. The purpose of the meeting is to generate discussion, raise issues, and propose creative options relative to the proposed project. It is intended to provide a means by which the applicant, staff, the Development Commission, and the public are able to work together in a productive and creative manner. However, options and issues raised may not be all inclusive and no guarantees on the project outcome are made at this stage.
B. Expectations: The applicant can expect the following results from the Community Conference:
1. The more information an applicant can provide for a Community Conference, the more complete the staff’s review and input will be for the proposal;
2. Any information or opinions expressed by the Development Commission or the staff shall not be binding on the final decision or constitute approval or denial of the proposed project;
4. Development Commission, staff and applicant should discuss creative approaches to address challenging site constraints or potential mitigations;
6. The applicant should be aware that additional modifications will most likely be required before the project review is final and a decision has been made.
C. Process: The Community Conference shall be held in a place that is readily available to the public and large enough to accommodate the anticipated number of people who may be present at the meeting. Notice shall be provided as set forth under Public Notification. (Ord. 2108 § 4.3.4, 1996).
A. Purpose: The purpose of requiring a complete application and sufficiency review is to provide the Permit Center, staff, boards, commissions, and decision-making bodies with the appropriate level and degree of information regarding a proposed development in order to facilitate the review and decision-making. By requiring this step early in the process, the applicant is made aware of City requirements and the proposed application is reviewed and processed in a timely and efficient manner.
B. Process: Application for development proposals, including project certification, shall be made in writing to the Permit Center. The appropriate forms are provided by the Permit Center and all applications must be completed in full and must provide all the information required.
1. Written Determination: Within twenty-eight (28) days after receiving a Project Permit application, the City shall mail or provide in person a written determination to the applicant, stating either:
a. That the application is complete; or
b. That the application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete. To the extent known by the City, the City shall identify other agencies of local, state, or federal governments that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the application.
2. Determination of Completeness Criteria: A Project Permit application is complete for purposes of this section when it meets the procedural submission requirements of the City and is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the City from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice of completeness or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur.
a. An application shall be deemed complete under this section if the City does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete as provided in subsection (B)(1)(b) of this section.
b. Within fourteen (14) days after an applicant has submitted to the City additional information identified as being necessary for a complete application, the City shall notify the applicant whether the application is complete or what additional information is necessary.
3. Optional Criteria: The determination of completeness may include the following as optional information:
a. A preliminary determination of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation;
b. A preliminary determination of consistency, which may include consideration of the type of land use, the level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density, infrastructure including public facilities and services needed to serve the development, and the character of the development, such as development standards; c. Other information the City chooses to include.
4. Concurrency: When applicable, a determination of completeness shall include approved concurrency certificates for transportation consistent with Chapter 18.15 IMC, Transportation Concurrency Management, and for water consistent with Chapter 13.100 IMC, Water Supply Availability Management.
5. Nothing in this section requires documentation, dictates the City’s procedures for considering consistency, or limits the City from requesting additional information with respect to a complete application. (Ord. 2405 § 7, 2004; Ord. 2108 § 4.3.5, 1996).
A. The applicant may request an integrated and consolidated review and decision of two (2) or more Project Permits relating to a proposed action, including:
1. A single application review and approval process covering all Project Permits requested by an applicant for all or part of a project action, and 2. A designated permit coordinator. If an applicant elects this process, the determination of completeness, notice of application and notice of final decision must include all Project Permits being reviewed in this process. Consolidated review may provide different procedures for different categories of Project Permits, but if a project action requires Project Permits from more than one (1) category, the City shall provide for consolidated permit review with a single open record hearing and no more than one (1) closed record appeal as provided in this chapter. The decision of all permits shall be made by the decision-maker of the highest level of review. The consolidated permit review may combine an open record predecision hearing on one (1) or more permits with an open record appeal hearing on other permits. In such cases a closed record appeal shall be subject to permits that previously had an open record hearing.
B. Joint Public Hearings: The City and all agencies of the State of Washington, including municipal corporations and counties participating in a combined hearing, may issue joint hearing notices and develop a joint format, select a mutually acceptable hearing body or officer, and take such other actions as may be necessary to hold joint hearings consistent with each of their respective statutory obligations.
1. Decision to Hold Joint Hearing: The City may combine any hearing on a Project Permit with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, provided:
a. The hearing is held within the City limits;
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; and
d. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant to hold its hearing at the same time as the City hearing.
2. Applicant’s Request for a 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 required time periods set forth in this chapter, or the applicant agrees to the schedule in the event that additional time is needed in order to combine the hearings. (Ord. 2108 § 4.3.6, 1996).
The City shall provide a written notice of application to the public and the departments and agencies with jurisdiction as provided in this section. If the City has made a determination of significance under Chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA) concurrently with the notice of application, the notice of application shall be combined with the determination of significance and scoping notice. Nothing in this section prevents a determination of significance and scoping notice from being issued prior to the notice of application.
A. Notice of Application Timeline and Contents: The notice of application shall be provided within fourteen (14) days after the determination of completeness and include the following:
2. A description of the proposed project action and a list of the Project Permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under RCW 36.70A.440 (recodified as RCW 36.70B.070), (Project Permit Application – Determination of Completeness – Notice to Applicant);
3. The identification of other permits not included in the application to the extent known by the City;
5. A statement of the public comment period, which shall be not less than fourteen (14) days following the date of notice of application, and statements of the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the Project Permit. The applicant for a Project Permit is deemed to be a participant in any comment period, open record hearing, or closed record appeal;
6. The date, time, place, and type of hearing, if applicable, and scheduled at the date of notice of application;
7. A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of notice, of:
a. Those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation; and
b. Consistency with permitted land use, density, infrastructure availability, and character;
B. If an open record predecision hearing is required for the requested Project Permits, the notice of application shall be provided at least fifteen (15) days prior to the open record hearing.
C. The City shall use reasonable methods, as listed in the public notification section of this chapter, to give the notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction.
D. A notice of application shall not be required for Project Permits that are categorically exempt under Chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), unless a public comment period or an open record predecision hearing is required.
E. The City shall integrate the permit procedures in this section with environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA) as follows:
1. Except for a determination of significance, the City may not issue its threshold determination, or issue a decision or a recommendation on a Project Permit until the expiration of the public comment period on the notice of application.
2. If an open record predecision hearing is required and the City’s threshold determination requires public notice under Chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), the City shall issue its threshold determination at least fifteen (15) days prior to the open record predecision hearing.
F. The applicant for a Project Permit is deemed to be a participant in any comment period, open record hearing, or closed record appeal. (Ord. 2108 § 4.3.7, 1996).
A. Purpose: The purpose of public notification is to provide opportunity for public participation in the development review process for those projects requiring notification by state law and which may have impacts on the adjacent property owners or the surrounding community.
B. Public Notice Requirements: The following notice types shall be provided for the different land use actions and levels of review listed below (unless otherwise specified in this chapter):
1. Notice of Community Conference Public Meeting: Parties of record, notification to adjacent property owners (applies to Levels 3, 4 and 5) (Preliminary and Final Plats are a Modified Level 4 and do not require a Community Conference Public Meeting);
2. Notice of Application: Parties of record, and notification to adjacent property owners (applies to Levels 2, 3, 4, Modified Level 4 and 5);
3. Public Hearing: Parties of record, local newspaper, notification to adjacent property owners, and property posting with a four (4) foot by four (4) foot board (applies to Levels 3, 4, Modified 4 and 5. A Level 6 public hearing requires only notice in local newspaper. Rezones and redesignations also require notification to parties of record and notification to adjacent property owners);
4. Notice of Shoreline Substantial Development, Variance or Conditional Use Public Meeting: Local newspaper, parties of record, notification to adjacent property owners providing a thirty (30) day comment period (applies to Level 2);
5. Notice of Decision: Parties of record (applies to Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, Modified 4, 5 and 6);
6. Public Meeting: Parties of record (applies to Levels 2, 4 and Modified 4);
7. Open Record Appeal Hearing: Parties of record (see IMC 18.04.250-1: Table of Administrative Decisions, Code Enforcement Decisions and SEPA Determinations Appeals for applicability);
8. Closed Record Appeal Hearing: Parties of record (see IMC 18.04.250-1: Table of Administrative Decisions, Code Enforcement Decisions and SEPA Determinations Appeals for applicability);
9. Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant shall notify all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property boundaries of the place, time and date of the meeting.
C. Types of Public Notice: The following actions are required or optional types of public notice that may be used in noticing of Project Review Permits. Unless otherwise stated, notice shall be provided at least ten (10) days in advance of the public hearing or meeting.
1. Parties of Record: When notification to parties of record is required, notice shall be provided in writing either by mail or personally delivered.
2. Local Newspaper: When notice in the local newspaper is required, notice shall be given by at least one (1) publication in the local newspaper.
3. Notification to Adjacent Property Owners: When notification to adjacent property owners is required, notice shall be forwarded to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the site of the proposal, together with a copy of the preliminary site plan. If required, as a part of the complete application, the applicant shall provide a signed certification that all of the property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of the subject property are within the address listing provided to the Permit Center.
4. Property Posting: When notification through property posting is required, notice shall be provided by posting the property using the following notice method:
Four (4) Foot by Four (4) Foot Board: The responsibility for posting the sign rests with the project applicant. If the proper signage is not posted to the following specifications, the public hearing will be canceled and rescheduled for the next available hearing date once the proper signage has been posted. The sign shall be designed as follows:
a. Size: Four (4) by four (4) foot constructed of wood;
b. Color: White background, black lettering;
c. Lettering Style: Helvetica or similar style; signs shall be prepared using templates or attachable letters. Hand-lettered signs are not acceptable;
d. Content of Sign/Notice: The title shall be in three (3) inch capital letters, and the remaining sign contents shall be in one and one-half (1.5) inch upper and lower case (see Permit Center for diagram).
(1) The title “NOTICE OF PROPOSED LAND USE ACTION”;
(2) “City of Issaquah”;
(3) “Project Description” (for example, “Master Site Plan” or “Site Development Permit”);
(4) “Project Location”;
(5) “Public Hearing” and the date(s) of the hearing(s);
(6) The name, address and telephone number of the Planning Department;
(7) Other information as the Planning Director/Manager may determine to be necessary to adequately notify the public of the pending land use application;
e. Location: The sign shall be installed:
(1) Midpoint on the street frontage from which the site is addressed or as otherwise directed by the Planning Director/Manager;
(2) At either a location ten (10) feet back in from the property line or signs which are structurally attached to an existing building shall be exempt from the setback provision; provided, that no sign is located more than ten (10) feet back from the property line without approval from the Planning Director/Manager; and
(3) The sign must be easily read from the surrounding vicinity and must not be visually obstructed in any way, including, but not limited to, obstruction by vegetation or any other obstruction;
f. Installation: The sign must be secured to a four (4) inch by four (4) inch wood post, long enough to set the post thirty-six (36) inches below grade and back fill with dirt (see Permit Center for diagram);
g. Certification of Installation: The project applicant must notify the Permit Center that the sign has been posted to proper specifications by submitting a signed “Notification of Sign Installation” to the Permit Center within twenty-eight (28) calendar days of a complete application determination (obtain such forms from the Permit Center);
h. Maintenance and Signage Removal: The project applicant shall be required to maintain the sign and surrounding area in good condition until fourteen (14) days after the Notice of Decision has been issued by the City. Removal of the sign prior to the fourteen (14) day appeal period following issuance of the Notice of Decision may invalidate or postpone any other decision-making or permit process. The sign must be removed by the project applicant no later than thirty (30) days after the fourteen (14) day appeal period for the Notice of Decision has been issued, and the post holes must be filled to prevent public injury unless the applicant proceeds with construction activity upon land use approval. If actual construction will not occur within sixty (60) days following the end of the appeal period of the land use decision, the applicant shall remove the sign.
5. Optional Public Notice Methods: Optional methods of providing public notice of any Project Permits may include:
a. Notifying the public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered;
b. Notifying the news media;
c. Placing notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade journals;
d. Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, either general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject area.
D. Public Notice Contents for Notice of Application: See “Notice of Application Timeline and Contents,” IMC 18.04.170(B).
E. Public Notice Contents for Public Hearings or Meetings: Unless otherwise stated, the contents of the public notice shall include the following:
1. Indicate that the attached site plan is preliminary and subject to change as a condition of approval;
2. Solicit written comment on the proposal and specify a time period not less than ten (10) days from the date of mailing;
3. State that input from the adjacent property owners and any additional public input will be documented in the file at the Permit Center, and forwarded to the Planning Department and any other reviewing and/or decision-making body;
4. Indicate when and where the public meeting and/or hearing addressing this proposal will be held if applicable;
5. State that the final decision regarding the proposal is appealable; and
6. Other information as the Planning Director/Manager may determine to be necessary to adequately notify the public of the pending land use application.
F. Public Notice Contents for Notice of Decisions: Unless otherwise stated, the contents of the public notice for Notice of Decisions shall include the following:
1. A summary of the final decision;
2. A statement of any SEPA threshold determinations;
3. Any procedures for administrative appeal;
4. Other information as the Planning Director/Manager may determine to be necessary to adequately notify the public of the land use decision.
G. Notification Failure: Failure, through inadvertence, to notify all owners of property located within three hundred (300) feet by mail will not render the public hearing or decision void. (Ord. 2596 § 3 (Exh. B2), 2010; Ord. 2553 § 4 (Exh. B3), 2009; Ord. 2501 § 5, 2007; Ord. 2491 § 9, 2007; Ord. 2462 § 6, 2006; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2164 § 5, 1997; Ord. 2108 § 4.3.8, 1996).
A. Purpose: The purpose of project assessment is to review the complete application, site plan, project proposal and special studies for compliance with the adopted City rules and regulations which govern development. The review should be unbiased and should take place in a predictable, efficient and timely manner.
B. Process: A completed development application, once deemed complete, shall be circulated by the Permit Center to pertinent City departments. Each department shall carefully consider whether or not the specific governing policies, rules and regulations relative to their specific areas of responsibility have been met and shall carefully consider the specific guidelines or standards for approval, where applicable. Each department shall forward written comments and/or compliance concerns to the Permit Center, and shall include the reasoning behind their compliance concerns. C. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): The State Environmental Policy Act may apply to any development application. See this chapter and Chapter 18.10 IMC (SEPA) for additional information regarding additional notice provisions, decision authority and other review requirements for SEPA. Applicants are encouraged to contact the Planning Department for additional information. (Ord. 2108 § 4.3.9, 1996).
A. Purpose: The purpose of preparing a staff report and making recommendations to the decision-making body is to facilitate the review and decision-making process by providing the information and analysis in a concise and clear format. The staff report will provide the factual and logical information from which the Administration’s recommendation is derived. B. Process: Based on the information provided by the applicant and the technical and design analysis of the development proposal provided by the pertinent City departments, and state and federal agencies, where applicable, a staff report and recommendations shall be compiled by the Planning Department and presented to the recommendation-making or decision-making bodies. This report shall address all technical and design issues of the project and shall include the comments and recommendations of the City staff, relevant boards and commissions, and the general public. The staff report will be used as background information for recommendation-making or decision-making. The staff report shall also state all the decisions or recommendations made as of the date of the report on all Project Permits included in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record predecision hearing and any recommendations on Project Permits that do require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the agency’s authority under RCW 43.21C.060 (SEPA). If a threshold determination, other than a determination of significance, has not been issued previously by the City, the report shall include or append this determination. (Ord. 2108 § 4.3.10, 1996).
A. Purpose: The purpose of a public hearing or public meeting is to facilitate the review and discussion of the proposed project by the staff, commission, board, Hearing Examiner or City Council and to further solicit public comment relevant to the specific proposal.
B. Process: The public hearing and/or public meeting shall be required as set forth in this chapter and other applicable codes. (Ord. 2501 § 6, 2007; Ord. 2108 § 4.3.11, 1996).
The final decision shall be made by the decision-making authority as set forth in this chapter for each Development Permit or request. The decision shall be made using applicable approval criteria in accordance with the purpose and intent of this chapter. In the case of more than one (1) permit for a project, the decision of all permits shall be made by the decision-maker of the highest level of review. The decision shall be made after the development proposal has been reviewed through the appropriate review process and shall be approval, approval with conditions, or denial:
A. Approval or Approval with Conditions: A decision of approval or approval with conditions shall be granted only if:
2. The development proposal meets all applicable codes, rules, regulations and policies; and
3. The development proposal satisfies the elements of the Design Criteria Checklist (see Chapter 18.07 IMC, Appendix 2).
B. Denial: A Development Permit or application may be denied only if:
1. The development proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The development proposal does not comply with all applicable codes, rules and regulations; or
3. The development proposal does not satisfy the elements of the Design Criteria Checklist (see Chapter 18.07 IMC, Appendix 2).
C. Time Limit:
1. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the City shall issue its Notice of Decision on a Project Permit application within one hundred twenty (120) days after the local government notifies the applicant that the application is complete; provided, that project applications for: (a) public elementary, middle and high schools; (b) City projects; (c) affordable housing, low and moderate income; and (d) essential public facilities, public facilities and utility facilities, preliminary and final plats shall be reviewed in accordance with the timelines below:
Table 18.04.220 C(1) Table of Priority Review for Public Benefit Projects
1. Level 1 and Level 2 Review
2. Level 3 Review
3. Level 4 and Level 5 Review
4. Modified Level 4 Preliminary Plat Review
5. Modified Level 4 Final Plat Review
2. In determining the number of days that have elapsed after the City has notified the applicant that the application is complete, the following periods shall be excluded:
a. (1)	Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the City to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the City notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of:
(A) The date the City determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information; or
(B) Fourteen (14) days after the date the information has been provided to the City;
(2) If the City determines that the information submitted by the applicant under subsection (C)(2)(a)(1) of this section is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the time calculation under subsection (C)(2)(a)(1) of this section shall apply as if a new request for studies had been made;
b. Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), if the City by ordinance or resolution has established time periods for completion of environmental impact statements, or if the City and the applicant agree, in writing, to a time period for completion of an environmental impact statement;
c. Any period for administrative appeals of Project Permits, if an open record appeal hearing or a closed record appeal, or both, are allowed; and
3. The time limits established by subsection (C)(1) of this section do not apply if a Project Permit application:
b. Requires approval of a new fully contained community as provided in RCW 36.70A.350 (New fully contained communities), a master planned resort as provided in RCW 36.70A.360 (Master planned resorts), or the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200 (Siting of essential public facilities); or
c. 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 complete.
4. If the City is unable to issue its final decision within the time limits provided for in this section, the City 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 the Notice of Decision.
D. Expiration:
1. Expiration of Approved Development Permit: Final decisions approving applications shall be valid for three (3) years from the date of application approval as specified in the Notice of Decision for the project except where a longer time period is adopted per this chapter. Preliminary plats shall be valid for a period of seven (7) years. Determination by the City of a Complete Application for subsequent Construction Permit will extend the validity of said land use permit as long as the Construction Permit is active. The Planning Director/Manager shall extend the approval of a Development Permit for one (1) year, when all of the following criteria are met:
a. The proposed use remains a permitted use in the zoning district; and
b. The proposed Development Permit remains in compliance with tree protection, impervious surface ratio, and critical area regulations; and
c. The proposed Development Permit remains substantially in compliance with the land use regulations in place at the time the extension is requested, including but not limited to: parking, setbacks, signs, landscape, and building height; or
d. As an alternative, the applicant may propose modifications to the Development Permit in accordance with the appropriate land use review process in order to comply with the criteria above.
2. Expiration of Inactive Applications: Application files shall be closed by the Permit Center and deemed “inactive” if there has been no applicant activity for a six (6) month period from the date the application is deemed sufficient or within a specified time which has been mutually approved in writing by the applicant and the Permit Center. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Permit Center, in writing, if delays or unforeseen circumstances are impacting the completion of the application and review process. If an application file has been closed by the Permit Center, the applicant must submit a new application and fee based on the rules and regulations of the currently adopted Code in order to begin the review process of that proposed development.
E. Revocation or Modification: The City may revoke or modify any land use approval, upon finding that the use for which the approval was granted or the conditions of approval have been intensified, changed or modified without City approval and have, or potentially could have, significant impacts to surrounding land uses or the environment.
1. Land use approval may be revoked by the Planning Director/Manager.
2. Land use approval may be revoked for any of the following reasons:
a. Violations of or failure to meet any of the conditions of approval;
b. Fraud or material misrepresentation made in connection with the application, review or approval of the land use proposal;
c. Violations of any pertinent state law or City ordinance in connection with the proposal.
3. Prior to revoking the land use approval, the Planning Director/Manager shall give the applicant written notice of the date, time and place where the revocation will be considered as well as the particular grounds for revocation. At the conclusion of the revocation proceedings, written findings and conclusions shall be made. Appeal of the decision shall be through a Level 4 process as provided in this chapter.
F. Option for Changes to Level of Review: See IMC 18.04.100, Levels of Review Matrix. (Ord. 2596 § 3 (Exh. B2), 2010; Ord. 2552 § 4, 2009; Ord. 2491 § 7, 2007; Ord. 2462 § 7, 2006; Ord. 2388 § 5, 2004; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2108 § 1.3.12, 1996; Ord. 2030 § 2, 1994; Ord. 1761 § 3, 1987).
The City departments may require the posting of a performance, maintenance, or other bond to ensure that the approval conditions are met to the satisfaction of the City. The Planning Director/Manager may, upon request, allow or require the applicant to provide other suitable security, including but not limited to cash deposits, letters of credit and assignment of banking accounts. The Planning Director/Manager is authorized to impose a reasonable administrative fee to cover City costs of administering a bond or other security requested by the applicant. This fee shall not be imposed when the City requires the provision of a particular form of bond or suitable security. Administrative fees shall be graduated to increase with the total dollars of the bond or other suitable security. (Ord. 2108 § 4.3.13, 1996; Ord. 2030 § 3, 1994; Ord. 1761 § 4, 1987).
The Planning Director/Manager shall be responsible for mailing the Notice of Decision to the applicant and to any person who, prior to the rendering of the decision, requested notice of the decision or submitted substantive comments on the application; provided, that the filing of an appeal in accordance with this section shall suspend any action to be taken in accordance with this chapter. See Public Notice Contents for Notice of Decisions in “Public Notification” section above. The Planning Director/Manager shall send a copy of the Notice of Decision to the King County Assessor’s Office. (Ord. 2164 § 5, 1997; Ord. 2108 § 4.3.14, 1996).
18.04.250 Administrative appeals.*
A. Table of Appeal Review: The appeal process for land use decisions is summarized in the Table of Administrative Decisions, Code Enforcement Decisions and SEPA Determinations Appeals (Table 18.04.250-1) and Table of Level 0 through 6 Review Appeals (Table 18.04.250-2).
B. Notice of Appeal: Notice of the opportunity to appeal, and the appeal period for the decision being made, shall be included in any Notice of Decision issued by the City.
C. Consideration: The decision by the City’s responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any SEPA appeal proceeding.
D. Open Record Appeals: The City shall provide for no more than one (1) consolidated open record appeal hearing, except pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075(3)(b) in four (4) cases which may be heard by the City Council: a) appeal of a DS; b) appeal of a procedural determination (MDNS, DNS or adequacy of EIS) for a project where the City is the proponent or is funding the project and chooses to conduct SEPA review prior to applying for project permits; c) appeal of a procedural determination of a nonproject action; and d) appeals to the City Council per RCW 43.21C.060, State environmental policy – Conditioning or denial of governmental action.
E. Closed Record Appeals: Any appeal provided after the open record hearing shall be a closed record appeal. The appellant and the property owner may present oral argument based on the record. City staff may provide facts related to the case.
F. Appeal Record: The appeal record shall include written findings and conclusions; a taped or written transcript; and all exhibits entered into the record. (Ord. 2501 § 7, 2007; Ord. 2383 § 5, 2004; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2108 § 4.3.15, 1996).
*Code reviser’s note: Ordinance 2301, Section 5 sets out appeals provisions in Sections 18.04.250 through 18.04.300. The provisions of Ordinance 2301 have been editorially renumbered to prevent duplication of numbering.
Table 18.04.250-1: Table of Administrative Decisions, Code Enforcement Decisions and SEPA Determinations Appeals
Code Enforcement Decisions
SEPA Determinations1
Example of Type of Decision That May Be Appealed
Transportation Concurrency Decisions, Impact Fees
Actions without a Permit, Violations of Conditions of Approval, Other Land Use Code Violations
DNS; MDNS; DS; EIS Adequacy; Imposition of Mitigation Measures; Denial under SEPA
Fourteen Days after Building Permit Issuance2
Fourteen Days after the Notice of Decision3
Fourteen Days after Determination Is Issued4
Appeal Filed With
Appeal Decision Maker
City Hearing Examiner
Required Appeal Notice
Mailed to Parties of Record
Per Issaquah Municipal Court Rules
Type of Appeal5
Open Record Consolidated with Permit Decision6
Time Limit to Consider and Decide Appeal
Ninety Days7
Judicial Appeal (Appeal of Appeal)8
King County Superior Court (See Chapter 36.70C RCW)
1Any agency or person may appeal the City’s procedural compliance with Chapter 197-11 WAC for issuance of determinations. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075(3)(b), SEPA appeals (procedural and/or substantive) must be consolidated with appeal of the underlying permit, except in four (4) cases which may be heard by the City Council: a) appeal of a DS; b) appeal of a procedural determination (MDNS, DNS or adequacy of EIS) for a project where the City is the proponent or is funding the project and chooses to conduct SEPA review prior to applying for project permits; c) appeal of a procedural determination of a nonproject action; and d) appeals to the City Council per RCW 43.21C.060, State environmental policy – Conditioning or denying the action. The Hearing Examiner shall be the responsible authority for both the SEPA appeal decision and the Project Permit decision. Both decisions shall be made after one (1) consolidated open record appeal hearing. This includes Project Permits that would otherwise be heard by another decision-maker, such as Planning Director/Manager or Development Commission.
2Impact fees must be paid prior to issuance of Building Permit and prior to submittal of an impact fee appeal. Impact fees may be paid under protest to obtain a Building Permit.
3The City shall extend the appeal period for an additional seven (7) days to allow public comment on a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) issued as part of the appealable Project Permit decision.
4A determination of nonsignificance shall have a seven (7) day comment period followed by a fourteen (14) day appeal period.
5Open/closed record appeals are defined in IMC 18.02.030, Definitions, and discussed in IMC 18.04.250, Administrative appeals.
6 For exceptions to the consolidation requirement, see footnote 1. If the permit review process does not include a public hearing (for example, Level 1 or 2 Review) then the SEPA appeal must also include an appeal of the underlying permit.
7 For open record appeals and SEPA appeals, the parties to an appeal may agree to extend the time period beyond ninety (90) days, unless combined with appeal of an FEIS.
8Appeals of administrative appeals (appeal decisions on Level 0 – 4 and SEPA decisions), and initial appeals of Level 5 and 6 decisions are heard as judicial appeals. After exhaustion of any available administrative appeal, the City’s final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record with standing to file a land use petition in King County Superior Court under Chapter 36.70C RCW (Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions).
(Ord. 2501 § 8, 2007).
Table 18.04.250-2: Table of Level 0 through 6 Review Appeals
Level 0, 1 and 2 Review1
Home Occupations; Signs; Accessory and Temporary Uses; Administrative Adjustment of Standards; Short Plats; and Shoreline Exemptions: a) Substantial Development Permits, b) Variances, and c) Conditional Uses
Level 3 Site Development Permits; Level 1 and 2 Review Site Development Permits on Major Streets
Variances; Preliminary and Final Plats
Master Site Plans; Development Agreements (for Cluster Housing or TDRs)
Comprehensive Plan Amendments; Land Use Designation Map; Land Use Code Amendments; Rezones
Fourteen Days after the Notice of Decision (Level 0 – 4) or Notice of Action (Level 5 and 6)2
King County Superior Court (See Chapter 36.70C RCW)3
Ninety Days4
Sixty Days4
Judicial Appeal (Appeal of Appeal)5
1Shoreline Regulations: Any person with standing, having exhausted appeal remedies provided by the City, may seek review by the State Shorelines Hearing Board by filing a request for the same within twenty-one (21) days of the notice of decision. See also IMC 18.04.270, Development Review Flow Charts – Levels 0 through 6.
2The City shall extend the appeal period for an additional seven (7) days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA) allow public comment on a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) issued as part of the appealable Project Permit decision.
3Level 6 Review applications involving legislative decisions may direct appeals to the Growth Management Hearings Board subject to the provisions of RCW 36.70A.280.
4For closed record appeals, the parties to an appeal may agree to extend the time period beyond sixty (60) days. For open record appeals and SEPA appeals, the parties to an appeal may agree to extend the time period beyond ninety (90) days, unless combined with appeal of an FEIS.
5Appeals of administrative appeals (appeal decisions on Level 0 – 4 and SEPA decisions), and initial appeals of Level 5 and 6 Review decisions are heard as judicial appeals. After exhaustion of any available appeal, the City’s final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record with standing to file a land use petition in King County Superior Court under Chapter 36.70C RCW (Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions).
(Ord. 2501 § 9, 2007).
The City’s Transportation Impact Fee, Reciprocal Transportation Impact Fee, Parks Impact Fee, and Fire Protection Fee may be appealed in accordance with the Table of Administrative Decisions, Code Enforcement Decisions and SEPA Determinations Appeals (Table 18.04.250-1) and the following provisions:
A. These appeals shall be held by the Hearing Examiner;
B. Any appeal of the decision of the City with regard to impact fees must be received by the Permit Center no later than 5:00 p.m. on the fourteenth day following the date of issuance of the building permit as set forth in the Table of Administrative Decisions, Code Enforcement Decisions and SEPA Determinations Appeals (Table 18.04.250-1). (Ord. 2501 § 10, 2007; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001).
Any person with standing, having exhausted appeal remedies provided by the City, may seek review of the City’s Shoreline Permit decision by the State Shorelines Hearing Board. An appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board shall be filed within the established appeal period with: 1) the Department of Ecology; 2) the Attorney General of the State of Washington; and 3) the City’s Permit Center. (Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001).
18.04.255 Historic property appeals. A. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission designating or rejecting a nomination for designation of a landmark or issuing or denying a Certificate of Appropriateness may, within thirty-five (35) calendar days of mailing of notice of such designation or rejection of nomination, or of such issuance or denial or approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, appeal such decision in writing to the Issaquah Hearing Examiner. The written notice of appeal shall be filed with the Permit Center and a copy sent to the Historic Preservation Officer and shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal, supporting documents, and argument. B. If, after examination of the written appeal and the record, the Hearing Examiner determines that:
1. An error in fact may exist in the record, it shall remand the proceeding to the Commission for reconsideration or, if the Hearing Examiner determines that:
2. The decision of the Commission is based on an error in judgment or conclusion; it may modify or reverse the decision of the Commission. (Ord. 2388 § 6, 2004; Ord. 2319 § 3, 2001).
Appeals of environmental determinations made (or lacking) shall be made within the established appeal period, as set forth in IMC Table 18.04.250-1, Table of Administrative Decisions, Code Enforcement Decisions and SEPA Determinations Appeals. There may be only one (1) administrative appeal on the adequacy of a determination of significance (DS)/nonsignificance (DNS) or of a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The City shall consolidate an appeal of a SEPA determination with an open record hearing or appeal on the underlying governmental action by providing for a single simultaneous hearing before the City Hearing Examiner, except as set forth in IMC 18.04.250(D), Open Record Appeals. The City Hearing Examiner shall consider the City’s decision on the proposal and any associated environmental issues or determinations. (Ord. 2501 § 11, 2007; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001).
Any person with standing, having exhausted appeal remedies provided by the City, may seek judicial review of the City’s decision by filing an appeal with the King County Superior Court or Growth Management Hearings Board within the established appeal period and jurisdiction of each body. (Ord. 2383 § 5, 2004; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001).
The City may issue a permit to begin demolition, grading, construction or other direct modification of the physical environment prior to the expiration of the appeal period only when all of the following criteria are met:
A. The approved actions will not impact any critical area;
B. The project for which the action is being taken did not require a Shoreline Permit;
C. For projects requiring Level 2 Review or higher, no negative comments were received during the public comment period or public hearing;
D. Demolition does not include a building on the Historic Register or of City Landmark Status;
E. The Planning Director has determined that there are not irreversible actions if the permit is issued;
F. The applicant agrees to the following in writing:
1. The actions done before the expiration of the appeal period are at the applicant’s own risk;
2. If an appeal should occur the applicant shall “Stop Work” immediately; and
3. The applicant may be required to restore the site to pre-construction status at the applicant’s own cost.
If one or more of the criteria above are not met, then no permit shall be issued which would allow demolition, grading, construction or any other direct modification of the physical environment until the appeal period has expired and any appeal has been decided. (Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001).
The Development Review Flow Charts for Levels 0 through 6 provide diagrams of the process elements which are required for each level of review in a chronological manner. Please refer to the Chapter 18.04 IMC, Appendix, for the Flow Charts. (Ord. 2108 § 4.3.17, 1996).
Land Use Actions and Project Permits (Permits, Reclassifications/Rezones, Appeals, etc.) 18.04.280 Administrative land use actions.
The following Level 0, 1, and 2 land use actions and Project Permits are reviewed and the decision-making authority occurs at the administrative level: Administrative Site Development Permits, Administrative Adjustment of Standards, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, shoreline variances, shoreline exemptions, lot line adjustments, short subdivisions, Building Permits, Clearing/Grading Permits, Special Events Permits, Street Use Permits, minor amendments to Master Site Plans, nonconforming situations, Business Licenses, and other permits. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4, 1996).
Level 0 projects shall be reviewed through the Building, Clearing/Grading Permit process or a similar administrative review which ensures review by the Planning Department for consistency with the Building Permit, Clearing/Grading or Site Modification Design Checklist (see Chapter 18.07 IMC, Appendix 2). (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.1.1, 1996).
Level 0 permits are reviewed and decided administratively without solicited public input. Applications are routed to relevant/applicable City departments, including SEPA, for review and comment. Comments of the staff are addressed by the applicant prior to a decision by the appropriate decision-maker, such as the Planning Director/Manager, Building Official, Public Works Director, City Clerk, City Administrator, or their designee. Public and Development Commission input is not required to be solicited (unless required by other regulations), however the Planning Director/Manager may forward the project to a higher level of review as permitted by this chapter. Building Permits, Clearing/Grading Permits, other permits, or site modifications are reviewed through the Level 0 process. (Ord. 2388 § 3, 2004; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.1.2, 1996).
Level 0 permits are decided in accordance with the purpose and intent of this chapter, using approval criteria found in Chapter 18.07 IMC including, if applicable, development regulations, the Design Criteria Checklist, and/or the Building Permit, Clearing/Grading or Site Modification Design Checklist, and other applicable approval criteria. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.1.3, 1996).
Level 0 Review is required of the following development proposals or uses:
A. Development Proposals: Land uses which have been designated as Level 0 on the Table of Permitted Land Uses (Chapter 18.06 IMC) regardless of street frontage or size.
B. Home Occupations: Level 0 Review is required for permitted home occupations which are listed as Level 0 Review in the Permitted Home Occupations Table (Chapter 18.07 IMC) regardless of street frontage or parcel size.
C. Minor Exterior Construction and Minor Amendments to Approved Proposal or Site Development Permit (including the CBD and Adjacent CF Zoned Areas): Any amendment to the approved building or site or minor exterior construction requiring a Building Permit, or other City permit and which, in the sole determination of the Planning Director/Manager:
1. Remains substantially similar to the existing or proposed development including but not limited to minor changes to impervious surfaces, uses, densities, buffers or setbacks, height, size or location of buildings, or other improvements to the property; and/or 2. Is consistent with applicable design guidelines, subarea plans, or the Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Will not substantially impact parking, City services or infrastructure; and
4. Is identified in and/or consistent with the following types of minor exterior construction or site modifications:
a. Structurally adding a new window or door;
b. Adding street furniture to a site;
c. Improvements to comply with ADA requirements;
d. Changing the pitch or style of the roof;
e. Changing loading facilities and/or modifying parking areas;
f. Modifying facades;
g. Constructing a minor building addition; or
h. Minor modification to the site layout (excluding Master Site Plans – See Level 2).
D. Changes in Use: See Table 18.04.100-3.
E. Mechanical Permits: All mechanical equipment which requires installation on the rooftop or other external location is screened according to Code provisions.
F. Minor Clearing/Grading, Filling Actions or Minor Paving:
1. Landscape installation where fill or cut is confined to less than one (1) foot of topsoil or landscape berms not exceeding four (4) feet in height and fifty (50) cubic yards in volume with side slopes flatter than three (3) horizontal to one (1) foot vertical (thirty-three (33) percent); 2. Minor clearing, grading or filling actions and minor paving associated with a project requiring a Building Permit;
3. Any clearing, grading or filling actions involving critical areas or their buffers are considered “major” and require Level 1 Review.
G. Nonhabitable or Accessory Structure: Nonhabitable or accessory structures shall also be reviewed for design consideration through the Building Permit, Clearing/Grading or Site Modifications Design Checklist (See Chapter 18.07 IMC, Appendix 2) to ensure compatibility with the character of the adjacent area.
H. Fences: Level 0 Review is required for fence construction in multifamily, commercial, mixed use or industrial use areas, regardless of street frontage or parcel size, or fences over six (6) feet in height in single family or duplex areas.
I. Signs: A Sign Permit shall be reviewed through the Level 0 Review process as determined by the review provisions of Chapter 18.11 IMC (Sign Code). Sign Permit decisions for new, remodel and expansion of business, as described in Chapter 18.11 IMC, shall be made by the Development Commission at a public meeting.
J. Nonconforming Situations: Nonconforming situations shall be reviewed through the Level 0 Review as determined by Chapter 18.08 IMC (Nonconforming Situations).
K. Building Permits: Building Permits are reviewed by the Planning Department through the Level 0 Review process.
L. Business Licenses: Business Licenses are reviewed by the Planning Department through the Level 0 Review process unless otherwise requiring a higher level of review, such as for a Home Occupation.
M. Reasonable Accommodation: Level 0 is required to review and approve dwelling units occupied by populations included in the Federal Fair Housing Act and their providers that may not otherwise fit the definition of a “single household” or other circumstances.
N. Unclassified Uses: Level 0 Review is required to determine the review process and parking requirements for uses which are not listed on either the Table of Permitted Land Uses, or the Table of Off-Street Parking Standards, or the Table of Permitted Home Occupations regardless of street frontage or parcel size.
O. Community Facilities Zone: Level 0 Review is required for those development proposals or uses located within a Community Facilities zone which have been designated as Level 0 on the Table of Permitted Land Uses (Chapter 18.06 IMC). All projects within the Community Facilities zone require a project review meeting with notification to all City departments.
P. Other Activities: Other activities as determined by this chapter or the Planning Director/Manager. Q. Conversion of Property from Forestry Practice: Level 0 Review is required for the review and determination of whether a six (6) year development moratorium on property will apply to nonforestry permits or approvals when forest landowners do not state their intent to convert the property at the time of Forest Practice Application, or who do not harvest the site according to the City’s regulations relating to its clearing and grading standards (Chapter 16.26 IMC).
R. Tree Removal Permit: Removal of trees in accordance with Chapter 18.12 IMC, Landscaping and Tree Preservation. (Ord. 2546 § 2, 2008; Ord. 2462 § 8, 2006; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2274 § 3, 2000; Ord. 2164 § 13, 1997; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.1.4, 1996).
The following land use actions are reviewed through the Level 1 process which ensures review by the Planning Department and other departments for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, development regulations, Design Criteria Checklist (see Chapter 18.07 IMC, Appendix 2) and other approval criteria. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.2.1, 1996).
Level 1 permits are reviewed and decided administratively without solicited public input. Applications are routed to applicable/relevant City departments, including SEPA, for review and comment. Comments of the staff are addressed by the applicant prior to a written decision by the Planning Director/Manager, or their designee. Public and Development Commission input is not required to be solicited, unless required by other regulations. The Planning Director/Manager may forward a Level 1 Review to a higher level of review as permitted by this chapter. (Ord. 2388 § 3, 2004; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.2.2, 1996).
Level 1 permits are decided in accordance with the purpose and intent of this chapter, using approval criteria found in Chapter 18.07 IMC including, if applicable, development regulations, the Design Criteria Checklist, and/or the Building Permit, Clearing/Grading or Site Modification Design Checklist, and other applicable approval criteria. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.2.3, 1996).
Level 1 Review is required of the following development proposals or uses:
A. Administrative Site Development Permit (ASDP) Proposals: Level 1 Review is required of those development proposals or uses which have been designated as Level 1 on the Table of Permitted Land Uses (Chapter 18.06 IMC) and that meet the following criteria:
1. The site is less than three (3) gross acres; and
2. The site’s primary access and/or street frontage are not located on and/or the site does not abut Gilman Boulevard east of SR 900, Front Street, Newport Way, Sunset Way, SR 900, NW Sammamish Road, NW Maple Street, East Lake Sammamish Parkway (ELSP), SE 56th Street to one thousand two hundred (1,200) feet east of ELSP, Issaquah-Fall City Road, Issaquah-Pine Lake Road SE, 228th Avenue SE, SE 43rd Way, West Lake Sammamish Parkway (WLSP) or any street or street segment that abuts and is generally parallel to Interstate 90 (I-90); and
3. The site does not abut I-90.
B. Home Occupations: Level 1 Review is required for permitted home occupations which are listed as Level 1 Review in the Permitted Home Occupations Table (Chapter 18.07 IMC) regardless of street frontage or parcel size.
C. Cultural and Business District (CBD):
1. Painting: Level 1 Review is required for exterior paint proposals in the CBD zone which are not within the color system (see Chapter 18.19 IMC, Olde Town Design Standards) for multifamily, commercial, mixed use or industrial uses regardless of street frontage or parcel size. However, an exterior painting proposal does not require review by all departments; therefore, the application shall be reviewed by the Planning Department for the color’s consistency with the color system and by the Public Works Department to ensure that any required scaffolding shall not interfere with any public right-of-way. Those exterior paint proposals for multifamily, commercial, mixed use or industrial uses which are within the color system shall not require a Level 1 Review by the Planning Department; however, any required scaffolding shall not interfere with any public right-of-way. The painting of single family residences or their accessory buildings is not required to be reviewed.
2. Minor Exterior Construction and Minor Amendments to Approved Proposal or Site Development Permit Inside the CBD: Any amendment to the approved building or site or minor exterior construction requiring a Building Permit or other City permit inside the CBD or the adjacent CF zone and which, in the sole determination of the Planning Director/Manager:
a. Does not remain substantially similar to the existing or proposed development including but not limited to changes to impervious surfaces, uses, densities, buffers or setbacks, height, size or location of buildings, or other improvements to the property; and/or
b. Is not consistent with applicable design guidelines or subarea plans; and/or
c. Will substantially impact parking, City services or infrastructure; and/or
d. Is included in and/or consistent with the following examples of minor exterior construction or site modification requiring a Level 1 Review:
(1) Constructing a building addition; or
(2) Modifying the site layout (excluding Master Site Plans – See Level 2).
D. Minor Exterior Construction and Minor Amendments to Approved Proposal or Site Development Permit Outside the CBD: Minor exterior construction or site modifications that do not comply with the criteria listed in IMC 18.04.320(C) shall require a Level 1 Review regardless of the site size or street frontage.
E. Clearing/Grading or Filling Actions: Level 1 Review is required for clearing/grading or filling actions involving critical areas or their buffers regardless of street frontage or parcel size, or as determined by the Planning Director/Manager, using best judgment and knowledge of the individual project.
F. Shoreline Exemption Permit: Shoreline Exemption Permits shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director/Manager through the Level 1 Review regardless of street frontage or parcel size. A Shoreline Exemption Permit must comply with the goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program; it is only exempt from the need for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. A permit for shoreline exemption must be approved prior to commencement of any construction or activity which does not qualify as a substantial development upon the shorelines of the City. In the case of development subject to the policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program but exempt from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process, the City Building Official, through consultation and coordination with the Planning Director/Manager, shall attach shoreline management terms and conditions to the Building Permit.
G. Lot Line Adjustments: Lot line adjustments shall be reviewed through the Level 1 Review regardless of street frontage or parcel size.
H. Accessory Uses and Temporary Uses: Accessory uses and temporary uses listed as Level 1 Review on the Table of Permitted Land Uses (Chapter 18.06 IMC) shall be processed through Level 1 Review regardless of street frontage or parcel size.
I. Changes in Use: See Table 18.04.100-3.
J. Community Facilities Zone: Level 1 Review is required for those development proposals or uses located within a Community Facilities zone which have been designated as Level 1 on the Table of Permitted Land Uses (Chapter 18.06 IMC). All projects within the Community Facilities zone require a project review meeting with notification to all City departments.
K. Modifying a landscape plan or removing trees not substantially similar to existing landscape on site in accordance with Chapter 18.12 IMC, Landscaping and Tree Preservation.
L. Other Activities: Other activities as determined by this chapter or the Planning Director/Manager. (Ord. 2546 § 2, 2008; Ord. 2462 § 9, 2006; Ord. 2388 § 7, 2004; Ord. 2311 § 2, 2001; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2274 § 3, 2000; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.2.4, 1996).
Level 2 Review ensures public input and review by the Planning Department and other departments for consistency with the development regulations, Design Criteria Checklist (see Chapter 18.07 IMC) and other approval criteria. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.3.1, 1996).
The following land use actions are reviewed through the Level 2 process. Level 2 permits are reviewed and decided administratively with solicited public input through notice to adjacent property owners. Applications are routed to relevant/applicable City departments, including SEPA, for review and comment. Adjacent property owners are notified and given a comment period. Comments of the public and City departments are addressed by the applicant prior to a written decision by the Planning Director/Manager, or their designee. Development Commission input is not required to be solicited, however the Planning Director/Manager may forward the project to a different level of review if, in the sole discretion of the Director/Manager, the proposal merits a different review level. (Ord. 2388 § 3, 2004; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.3.2, 1996).
Level 2 permits are decided in accordance with the purpose and intent of this chapter, using approval criteria found in Chapter 18.07 IMC including, if applicable, development regulations, the Design Criteria Checklist, and/or the Building Permit, Clearing/Grading or Site Modification Design Checklist, and other applicable approval criteria. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.3.3, 1996).
Level 2 Review is required of the following development proposals or uses:
A. Administrative Site Development Permit (ASDP) Proposals: Level 2 Review is required for those development proposals or uses which have been designated as Level 2 Review on the Table of Permitted Land Uses (Chapter 18.06 IMC) and that meet the following criteria:
2. The site’s primary access and/or street frontage are not located on and/or the site does not abut Gilman Boulevard east of SR 900, Front Street, Newport Way, Sunset Way, SR 900, NW Sammamish Road, NW Maple Street, East Lake Sammamish Parkway (ELSP), SE 56th Street to one thousand two hundred (1,200) feet east of ELSP, Issaquah-Fall City Road, Issaquah-Pine Lake Road SE, 228th Avenue SE, SE 43rd Way, West Lake Sammamish Parkway (WLSP) or any street or street segment that abuts and is generally parallel to Interstate 90 (I‑90); and
B. Administrative Adjustment of Standards: The Planning Director/Manager has the authority, through the Level 2 Review, regardless of street frontage or parcel size, to approve the Administrative Adjustment of specific standards relating to height, home occupations, landscape, parking, senior housing, setbacks, or other development standards governed by this Code with the exception of those standards specifically prohibited for Administrative Adjustment which include density, impervious and pervious surface requirements, permitted or prohibited land uses, and any standard not subject to review in this Code. Decisions are based on the Level 2 Review approval criteria and the specific regulations for the related Administrative Adjustment.
C. Home Occupations: Level 2 Review is required for permitted home occupations which are listed as Level 2 Review in the Permitted Home Occupations Table (Chapter 18.07 IMC) regardless of street frontage or parcel size.
D. Nonconforming Situations: Nonconforming situations shall be reviewed through the Level 2 Review as determined by Chapter 18.08 IMC (Nonconforming Situations).
E. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Shoreline Variances and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits: The Planning Director/Manager has the authority, through the Level 2 Review, to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, shoreline variance or Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. The decision is made as governed by this chapter and the Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 18.10 IMC) regardless of street frontage or parcel size.
F. Minor Utility Facilities: Level 2 Review is required for minor utility facilities regardless of their street location or parcel size including parcels greater than fifteen (15) acres. If a project site in the CF zone includes mixed uses or the potential for mixed uses, the affected Boards and Commissions shall be notified of the proposal by their City staff.
G. Accessory Uses and Temporary Uses: Level 2 Review is required for accessory uses and temporary uses listed as Level 2 Review on the Table of Permitted Land Uses (Chapter 18.06 IMC) regardless of street frontage or parcel size.
H. Minor Amendments to Master Site Plans: Level 2 Review is required for minor technical and design amendments to Master Site Plans that meet the minor amendment criteria in IMC 18.04.530(A), Amendments (Minor Amendments).
I. Short Subdivisions: All short subdivision (subdivision into four (4) lots or less) proposals shall be reviewed through the Level 2 Review process and shall comply with the standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 18.13 IMC (Subdivisions).
J. Mineral Resource Extraction and Processing: Level 2 Review is required for mineral extraction activities in the Mineral Resource Zone (“M”) not in existence prior to August 2, 1999. Level 2 Review is not required for any permissible mineral extraction activities in existence prior to August 2, 1999.
K. Collective Gardens: Level 2 Review is required for collective gardens regardless of their street location or parcel size including parcels greater than fifteen (15) acres.
L. Changes in Use: See Table 18.04.100-3.
M. Community Facilities Zone: Level 2 Review is required for those development proposals or uses located within a Community Facilities zone which have been designated as Level 2 on the Table of Permitted Land Uses (Chapter 18.06 IMC). All projects within the Community Facilities zone require a project review meeting with notification to all City departments.
N. Other Activities: Other activities as determined by this chapter or the Planning Director/Manager. (Ord. 2633 § 7, 2011; Ord. 2624 § 6 (Exh. A5b), 2011; Ord. 2462 § 10, 2006; Ord. 2388 § 7, 2004; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2274 § 3, 2000; Ord. 2233 § 7, 1999; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.3.4, 1996).
The decision-making authority for the following permits and land use actions are the Development Commission, Hearing Examiner or the City Council (Table 18.04.100-1: Levels of Review): Site Development Permits, variances, Master Site Plans, subdivisions, reclassifications/rezones and annexations and other actions requiring a Level 3, 4, 5 or 6 Review. (Ord. 2501 § 12, 2007; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.3.4, 1996).
The following land use actions are reviewed through the Level 3 process which ensures public input and review by the Development Commission, the Planning Department and other departments for consistency with the development regulations, Design Criteria Checklist (see Chapter 18.07 IMC) and other approval criteria. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.4.1, 1996).
A. Recommendation: The Planning Department shall analyze and make a recommendation to the Development Commission based on the compliance of the proposal with:
2. The standards and provisions of this Code, and other uniform codes in effect and administered by the City and applicable jurisdictions; and
3. The criteria set forth in the Design Criteria Checklist (See Chapter 18.07 IMC, Appendix 2).
The recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial shall be contained in the staff report and shall be based on the information provided by the applicant and the best professional judgment of the Administration. The staff report shall state the specific reasons and cite the specific chapters and sections of this Code and any other applicable rules or regulations, upon which the recommendation to the Development Commission is based. The report shall demonstrate that the recommendation complies with the purpose and intent of the Code. Staff may add new information to the report provided through public testimony, the applicant, or other means. The Administration may also modify the recommendation or proposed conditions of approval.
B. Decision: The decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the project shall be the responsibility of the Development Commission, and shall be based on the staff report, applicable criteria, public comments, and discussion of the issues. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.4.2, 1996).
Level 3 permits are decided in accordance with the purpose and intent of this chapter, using approval criteria found in Chapter 18.07 IMC including, if applicable, development regulations, the Design Criteria Checklist, and other applicable approval criteria. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.4.3, 1996).
Level 3 Review is required of the following development proposals or uses:
A. Site Development Permit (SDP) Proposals: Level 3 Review is required of those development proposals or uses which have been designated as Level 3 on the Table of Permitted Land Uses (Chapter 18.06 IMC) and/or Level 1 or Level 2 with any of the following characteristics:
1. The site is equal to or greater than three (3) gross acres, yet less than fifteen (15) gross acres in size;
2. The site’s primary access and/or street frontage are located on and/or the site abuts Gilman Boulevard east of SR 900, Front Street, Newport Way, Sunset Way, SR 900, NW Sammamish Road, NW Maple Street, East Lake Sammamish Parkway (ELSP), SE 56th Street to one thousand two hundred (1,200) feet east of ELSP, Issaquah-Fall City Road, Issaquah-Pine Lake Road SE, 228th Avenue SE, SE 43rd Way, or West Lake Sammamish Parkway (WLSP) or any street or street segment that abuts and is generally parallel to Interstate 90 (I-90); provided, that this provision shall not apply to property subject to the Olde Town Design Standards established in IMC 18.19.030, Olde Town Design Standards Subarea Map. The level of review designated on the Table of Permitted Land Uses (IMC 18.06.130) is required for property subject to the Olde Town Design Standards;
3. The site abuts I-90.
B. Major Amendments to an Approved Site Development Permit: Any amendment to the approved building or site that substantially changes the existing or proposed development including, but not limited to, substantial changes to impervious surfaces, uses, densities, buffers or setbacks, height, size or location of buildings, or other improvements to the property, and/or is inconsistent with applicable design guidelines or subarea plans, and/or will substantially impact parking, City services or infrastructure.
1. Major amendments and/or examples of major amendments shall include:
a. Substantially modifying parking areas;
b. Substantially modifying facades;
c. Constructing a substantial building addition;
d. Substantially modifying the site layout;
e. Changes that are inconsistent with the approved development, applicable design guidelines or subarea plans.
C. Changes in Use: See Table 18.04.100-3.
D. Community Facilities Zone: Level 3 Review is required for those development proposals or uses located within a Community Facilities zone which have been designated as Level 3 on the Table of Permitted Land Uses (Chapter 18.06 IMC). All projects within the Community Facilities zone require a project review meeting with notification to all City departments.
E. Other Activities: Other activities as determined by this chapter or the Planning Director/Manager. (Ord. 2543 § 2, 2008; Ord. 2462 § 11, 2006; Ord. 2388 §§ 7, 8, 2004; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2280 § 7, 2000; Ord. 2274 § 3, 2000; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.4.4, 1996).
The following land use actions are reviewed through the Level 4 process which ensures review for consistency with the applicable approval criteria and other Codes. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.5.1, 1996).
A. Recommendation: Staff shall analyze and make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner based on the compliance of the proposal with the standards and provisions of this Code, and other uniform codes in effect and administered by the City and applicable jurisdictions. B. Hearing Type – Closed or Open Record: Except for the appeal of a determination of significance as provided in RCW 43.21C.075 (SEPA), the City shall provide for no more than one (1) consolidated open record hearing on such appeal. If an appeal is provided after the open record hearing, it shall be a closed record appeal before the Hearing Examiner. A variance includes an open record public hearing unless otherwise stated in this Code. A final plat is reviewed at a public meeting without the need for an open record public hearing.
C. Decision: The decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny the project shall be the responsibility of the Hearing Examiner, and shall be based on the decision criteria, staff report, public comments, and discussion of the issues. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.5.2, 1996).
Level 4 permits are decided in accordance with the purpose and intent of this chapter, using approval criteria found in this chapter and Chapter 1.32 IMC (Appeals), and other applicable approval criteria. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.5.3, 1996).
The following land use actions are reviewed through the Level 4 process:
A. Appeals – Level 0, 1, 2 and 3: The final decisions of Level 0, 1, 2, and 3 Reviews are appealable to the Hearing Examiner. The guidelines and provisions for appeals are addressed in IMC 18.04.250, Administrative appeals.
B. Variances: Requests to vary provisions of the Land Use Code are heard by the Hearing Examiner. A request for a variance shall be filed with the Permit Center on a form provided by the Planning Department and shall be reviewed through the Level 4 Review process.
1. Purpose: The variance provision is provided to property owners who, due to the strict implementation of standards set forth in this chapter, and/or to unusual circumstances regarding the subject property, are deprived of privilege commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and under the same land use regulations; provided, however, that the fact that surrounding properties have been developed under regulations in force prior to the adoption of this Code shall not be the sole basis for the granting of a variance.
2. Approval Criteria: Variances are decided in accordance with the purpose and intent of this chapter using approval criteria found in Chapter 18.07 IMC including, if applicable, development regulations, the Design Criteria Checklist, and other applicable approval criteria. Before any variance may be granted, the applicant must meet all of the following approval criteria through the Level 4 Review process:
a. The variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the relevant City ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege which would be inconsistent with the permitted uses, or other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located;
c. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and such variance will provide use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity, located in the same zone as the subject property, and developed under the same land use regulations as the subject property requesting the variance;
d. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated;
e. Alternative development concepts in compliance with the existing Code have been evaluated and undue hardship would result if such strict adherence to Code provisions is required;
f. The variance granted is the minimum amount necessary to comply with the approval criteria listed above and the minimum necessary to accommodate the permitted uses proposed by the application; in addition, the scale of the use shall be reduced as necessary to meet this requirement; and
g. The basis for the variance request is not the result of deliberate actions of the applicant or property owner.
3. Limitations on Variance Applicability:
a. No variance shall be granted concerning any provision establishing or restricting the uses that are permitted to locate, or that may continue to operate, in any zone or zoning district;
b. No variance shall be granted to any of the procedural provisions of this Code; c. Variances may be granted only to standards set forth in the Code (including impervious surface); for example, this process cannot be used to request a variance to the Building Code. No variance shall be granted if the applicable Code provision specifically states that its requirements or standards are not subject to variance;
d. No variance shall be granted to increase maximum density or permit uses otherwise not permitted in a zoning district.
4. Review and Decision-Making Responsibility:
a. Recommendation: Staff shall analyze and make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner based on the approval criteria set forth in this chapter. The recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial shall be written in a staff report and shall be based on the information provided by the applicant and on the best professional judgment of the staff. The staff shall state the specific criteria upon which the recommendation to the Hearing Examiner is based.
b. Decision: The decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance shall be the responsibility of the Hearing Examiner, and shall be based on the applicant’s compliance with the variance criteria, the information set forth in the staff report, and on public comments at the public hearing. The Hearing Examiner’s decision on a variance is appealable to the City Council. C. Subdivisions – Preliminary and Final Plats:
1. Preliminary Plat: Preliminary plat proposals, excluding short subdivisions, shall be reviewed through the Modified Level 4 Review process and shall comply with all standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 18.13 IMC, Subdivisions. The Hearing Examiner shall hold a public hearing and make the final decision. The Hearing Examiner’s decision on a preliminary plat is appealable to the City Council.
2. Final Plat: Final plats shall be reviewed administratively through the Modified Level 4 Review process including a notice of application to Parties of Record, and excluding review by the Development Commission or City Council. The final plat shall comply with all standards and criteria set forth in Chapter 18.13 IMC, Subdivisions. The Hearing Examiner’s decision on a final plat is appealable to the City Council.
D. Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTF): Applications for SCTFs shall be reviewed in accordance with the criteria set forth in Chapter 18.07 IMC (Required Development and Design Standards). The Hearing Examiner shall hold a public hearing and make the final decision. The Hearing Examiner’s decision on an SCTF is appealable to the City Council. (Ord. 2596 § 3 (Exh. B2), 2010; Ord. 2501 § 13, 2007; Ord. 2345 § 3, 2002; Ord. 2301 § 5, 2001; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.5.4, 1996).
The following land use actions are reviewed through the Level 5 process which ensures review for consistency with the applicable approval criteria and other Codes:
A. Master Site Plans;
B. Cluster Housing Development Agreements;
C. Transfer of Development Rights Development Agreements;
D. Major amendments to subsections (A) through (C) of this section. (Ord. 2501 § 14, 2007).
A. Recommendation: Staff shall analyze and make a recommendation to the Development Commission based on the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the standards and provisions of this Code and other uniform codes in effect and administered by the City and applicable jurisdictions. The Development Commission shall make a recommendation and findings of fact to be forwarded to the City Council.
B. City Council Final Decision: The decision to approve, approve with conditions, deny or remand the project shall be the responsibility of the City Council and shall be based on the staff report, applicable criteria, public comments, discussion of the issues and recommendation of the Development Commission. The decision shall be by resolution. The City Council shall base its action upon the approval criteria set forth in Chapter 18.07 IMC, Required Development and Design Standards. The decision of the City Council shall be final unless appealed pursuant to this chapter.
C. Time Limit of Plan/Agreement Approval: Final decisions approving Plan/Agreement applications shall be valid for five (5) years from the effective date of the Council action approving the Plan/Agreement, or the time limit of the phasing plan established in the Council approval. (Ord. 2501 § 14, 2007).
Upon City Council approval of a Master Site Plan or Development Agreement, the property’s development shall be governed by the substantive provisions of the approved Plan/Development Agreement and implemented through subdivisions, short plats, binding site plans or other applicable permits in accordance with the procedures specified in the Plan/Development Agreement, or standard City procedures if none are specified in the Plan/Development Agreement. Any conditions or standards of approval for any subdivision, short plat, binding site plan or other permit or approval for the property shall utilize and incorporate the development standards set forth in the approved Plan/Development Agreement. (Ord. 2501 § 14, 2007).
The following amendments may be permitted for an approved Master Site Plan, Cluster Housing Development Agreement and/or Transfer of Development Rights Development Agreement according to the following criteria:
A. Minor Amendment: Minor amendments shall be reviewed through a Level 2 Review and shall constitute the following:
1. Technical: Technical amendments shall include:
a. Adding portions of adjacent parcels through lot line adjustments; or
b. An extension of time limit for three (3) years or fewer; or
c. Any amendment that remains substantially similar to the existing or proposed Plan or Agreement including, but not limited to:
(1) Minor changes to impervious surface; or
(2) Minor changes to the project uses, densities, buffers, or setbacks; or
(3) Minor changes to the height, size, or location of buildings or other improvements; or
(4) Similar minor changes as determined by the Planning Director/Manager.
2. Design: Amendments that specifically relate to the design elements as listed in the approval criteria, or the Design Criteria Checklist, provided the amendments are consistent with applicable design guidelines or subarea plans.
The amendments shall not substantially impact parking, City services or infrastructure. The Planning Director/Manager may choose to forward the request for a minor amendment to the Development Commission for their decision. In this situation, the Development Commission shall make the decision on minor amendments at a public hearing for which there was the proper public hearing notice (IMC 18.04.180, Public notification).
B. Major Amendment: Major amendments shall be reviewed through a Level 5 Review and may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Adding parcels; or
2. An extension of time limit for more than three (3) years; or
3. Substantially modifies parking areas, facades, or the site layout; or
4. Substantial changes to impervious surface; or
5. Substantial changes to project uses, densities, buffers, or setbacks; or
6. Substantial changes to the height, size, or location of buildings or other improvements; or
7. Changes which are inconsistent with applicable design guidelines or subarea plans; or
8. Any amendment which does not meet the criteria of a minor amendment in subsection A of this section.
C. Who May Apply:
1. An amendment to an approved Master Site Plan may be applied for by an individual property owner in an approved Master Site Plan if the requested amendment does not affect the ability of other property owners in the Master Site Plan development to develop their property in accordance with the conditions of the approved Master Site Plan. All property owners within the approved Master Site Plan shall be parties of record for the purposes of public notification of proposed amendments.
2. An amendment to an approved Master Site Plan, Cluster Housing Development Agreement and/or Transfer of Development Rights Development Agreement that affects development parameters or conditions common to all or more than one (1) property owner may only be applied for by the individual and the legal entity representing the multiple ownership in the development and responsible for compliance with the conditions of approval for the development. (Ord. 2624 § 6 (Exh. A5b), 2011; Ord. 2501 § 14, 2007).
If a condition of approval is violated or is not achieved within the time set for its completion, or if any provision of this Code is violated, the Council may set a public hearing in the manner set forth in this chapter (IMC 18.04.180, Public notification) to consider the question of revocation of the approval and any permits granted pursuant to such approval. After a public hearing, the Council may revoke the approval and any permits, or may change the terms of the original approval. Nothing in this section shall limit or affect the revocation of Building Permits, issuance of stop orders or other similar procedures authorized by this Code. (Ord. 2501 § 14, 2007).
An extension of the time limit for the completion of a Master Site Plan or Development Agreement project may be requested in the following situations:
A. Before Master Site Plan/Development Agreement Approval: The City Council may, at the request of the applicant and at the time of initial approval, establish a period beyond five (5) years for completion of the project when the development is projected to take longer than five (5) years to complete.
B. Before Expiration of Master Site Plan/Development Agreement Approval:
1. The applicant may, at any time prior to expiration of the approval period, request additional time to complete the project through the following process:
a. Minor Amendment: If the applicant requests an extension of time of three (3) years or less, the request shall be processed as a minor amendment to the Master Site Plan/Development Agreement; or
b. Major Amendment: If the applicant requests an extension of time of more than three (3) years, the request shall be processed as a major amendment to the Master Site Plan/Development Agreement.
2. The request may be granted provided the following criteria are met:
a. The project has not been completed because of circumstances beyond the applicant’s control;
b. The applicant has shown a diligent, good faith effort to complete the project within the time previously allotted; and
c. The project can be built pursuant to the Land Use Code in effect at the time of the extension request without significant changes in the design originally approved. “Significant changes” are any changes which would not classify as minor amendments to the Master Site Plan/Development Agreement. (Ord. 2501 § 14, 2007).
18.04.560 Application for a Master Site Plan.
Repealed by Ord. 2447. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.6.1(f), 1996).
18.04.570 Master Site Plan contents.
Repealed by Ord. 2447. (Ord. 2164 § 7, 1997; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.6.1(g), 1996).
18.04.580 Approval criteria.
Repealed by Ord. 2447. (Ord. 2164 § 8, 1997; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.6.1(h), 1996).
18.04.590 Final recommendation.
Repealed by Ord. 2447. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.6.1(i), 1996).
18.04.600 City Council final decision.
Repealed by Ord. 2447. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.6.1(j), 1996).
18.04.610 Amendments.
Repealed by Ord. 2447. (Ord. 2164 § 9, 1997; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.6.1(k), 1996).
18.04.620 Termination of approval and extensions of time.
Repealed by Ord. 2447. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.6.1(l), 1996).
Level 6 Review – Rezones, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Land Use Code Amendments, and Annexations
The following actions are subject to the Level 6 Review process and other regulations that may apply: legislative rezones, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Land Use Code amendments and annexations. (Ord. 2383 § 5, 2004; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.7, 1996).
18.04.632 Rezones.*
A. Purpose: This section establishes the procedures and amendment criteria for amending the zoning map.
B. Types of Rezones:
1. Type A Rezones: Amendments to the zoning map that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan may be requested and processed at any time during the year. Type A rezone requests shall follow the Level 6 Review process outlined in Chapter 18.04 IMC, Appendix, Flow Charts for Levels of Review 0 – 6.
2. Type B Rezones: Amendments to the zoning map that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and require a concurrent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Type B rezone requests shall follow the Level 6 Review process outlined in Chapter 18.04 IMC, Appendix, Flow Charts for Levels of Review 0 – 6. During any calendar year, the City will accept Level 6 applications proposing Comprehensive Plan amendments for the Docket of Proposed Amendments (DPA) up to the specified deadline of the second Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting in January, or January 31st, whichever is earlier, after which additional proposals will be placed on the DPA for review in the following year.
C. Applicability: A rezone request may be initiated by the Administration, the City Council, the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) or property owner(s) and may apply to one (1) or several parcels.
All rezone requests from property owners must confirm ownership and/or authority of a third party agent to act on the owner’s behalf by submitting a signed and notarized Affidavit of Ownership and/or Affidavit of Agent Authority.
D. Approval Criteria: A rezone request shall be granted only if all the following approval criteria are met:
1. Complete Application: The applicant has submitted and the Permit Center has deemed the application complete; and
2. Health, Safety and Welfare: The rezone bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare or other community benefit; and
3. Growth Controls: If the requested rezone results in increased housing unit density, the additional density shall only be allowed if the Growth Management Act housing growth targets have not been met, unless the City Council approves a Development Agreement as part of the rezone proposal; and
4. Changed Circumstances or Reasonable Development: The rezone is warranted because of changed circumstances including the need for additional property in the proposed land use zoning district, or because the proposed zoning district is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; and
5. Zoning Conformance: The subject property is suitable for development in general conformance with zoning standards under the proposed zoning district; and
6. No Detriment to Adjacent Property: The rezone will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property(s); and
7. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan: The rezone request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or is in the concurrent process of a Comprehensive Plan redesignation application; and
8. Consistency with City Regulations: The rezone request complies with all other applicable City rules and regulations; and
9. Public Facilities and Services: Adequate public facilities and services are available, or would be made available, to serve the development allowed by the proposed zone; and
10. Environmental Impacts:
a. The probable adverse environmental impacts of the types of development allowed by the proposed zone can be mitigated taking into account all applicable regulations; or
b. The probable unmitigated impacts of the types of development allowed by the proposed zone are acceptable. E. Effective Date of Rezone Approval:
1. Council Action: The effective date of the rezone approval shall be the effective date of the City Council ordinance approving the rezone.
2. Map Change: Following approval of a rezone, the City zoning map shall reflect the change in zoning district. The zoning map shall identify the number of the ordinance adopting the change and the effective date. (Ord. 2501 § 15, 2007; Ord. 2383 § 2, 2004).
*Code reviser’s note: Ordinance 2383 sets out two sections numbered 18.04.630. This section has been editorially renumbered to prevent duplication of numbering.
A Docket of Proposed Amendments (DPA) is established to ensure that all required or potentially desirable contents of the Comprehensive Plan or Land Use Code are identified and given due consideration in accordance with RCW 36.70A.470 (Amendment suggestion procedure). The DPA shall be made available for review by the public upon request. The Administration shall add proposed amendments to the DPA as observations of required and/or potentially desirable changes are made in the course of City activities. In addition, any Level 6 application for a plan or code amendment that is determined to be complete shall be entered into the DPA for subsequent City review. The applications shall comply with the applicable elements of the development review process according to IMC 18.04.050. Payment of fees in accordance with IMC 18.04.080 is required only for those applications not subsequently endorsed by the Administration and/or Planning Policy Commission that an applicant wishes the City to continue to review in the legislative process. Level 6 applications may be submitted by any private individual, organization, corporation, partnership, or entity of any kind including any neighborhood or special purpose group, department or office, agency, or any other general or special purpose government. (Ord. 2383 § 5, 2004).
18.04.640 Contract reclassification (project rezones).
Repealed by Ord. 2383. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.7.1, 1996).
18.04.650 Legislative rezoning.
Repealed by Ord. 2383. (Ord. 2108 § 4.4.7.2, 1996).
A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish a review process for proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments that is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.020(11), Planning goals: Citizen participation and coordination; RCW 36.70A.035, Public Participation; RCW 36.70A.130, Comprehensive plans – Review – Amendments; RCW 36.70A.140, Comprehensive plan amendments – Ensure public participation; and RCW 36.70A.470, Project review.
1. Schedule: During any calendar year, the City will accept Level 6 applications proposing Comprehensive Plan amendments for the Docket of Proposed Amendments (DPA) up to the specified deadline of the second Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting in January, or January 31st, whichever is earlier, after which additional proposals will be placed on the DPA for review in the following year.
2. Annual Limit: Consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.130, Comprehensive Plan amendments shall not be made more frequently than once each calendar year so that all proposals are considered concurrently to ascertain the cumulative effect of the various proposals, except that the amendments may be considered more frequently than once per year under the following circumstances: a. The initial adoption of a subarea plan that does not modify the Comprehensive Plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea; b. The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program under the procedures set forth in Chapter 90.58 RCW; and c. The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget. d. After appropriate public participation, amendments for emergencies or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a Growth Management Hearings Board or with the court.
3. Public Participation and Notification: See IMC 18.04.100 through 18.04.250 for Issaquah’s requirements to ensure public participation and appropriate notification in a manner consistent with RCW 36.70A.020, 36.70A.035, 36.70A.130 and 36.70A.140.
4. Council Action: Legislative action by the City Council shall take place in a manner consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.130, including identifying the reasons for not adopting a proposed amendment and providing an additional opportunity for public review and comment before final voting if the City Council chooses to consider a significant change to a proposed comprehensive plan or development regulation amendment after the required opportunities for public review and comment have passed.
C. Approval Criteria: A plan amendment proposal should be granted only if the amendment is consistent with all of the following criteria: 1. Consistent with the Issaquah Comprehensive Plan; and 2. Consistent with King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the Growth Management Act; and
3. The proposed amendment addresses changed conditions since the last time the relevant policy or map was considered. (Ord. 2462 § 12, 2006; Ord. 2388 § 9, 2004; Ord. 2383 § 5, 2004).
A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish a review process for proposed Land Use Code amendments that is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.020(11), Planning goals: Citizen participation and coordination; RCW 36.70A.035, Public participation; RCW 36.70A.130, Comprehensive plans; RCW 36.70A.140, Comprehensive plan amendments – Ensure public participation; and RCW 36.70A.470, Project review.
B Process:
1. Schedule: During any calendar year, the Planning Department will accept applications proposing Land Use Code amendments for addition to the Docket of Proposed Amendments
(DPA). Proposed amendments may be reviewed at any time during the year. The initial Land Use Code DPA will be reviewed concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan DPA in January; subsequent additions to the Land Use Code DPA are at Administration discretion.
2. Annual Consideration: Consistent with RCW 36.70A.470, proposed Land Use Code amendments from the Docket of Proposed Amendments (DPA) will be considered at least once each calendar year.
4. Council Action: Legislative action by the City Council shall take place in a manner consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.130, including identifying the reasons for not adopting a proposed amendment and providing an additional opportunity for public review and comment before final voting if the City Council chooses to consider a significant change to a proposed development regulation amendment after the required opportunities for public review and comment have passed.
C Approval Criteria: A Land Use Code amendment proposal should be granted only if the amendment is consistent with all the following criteria: 1. Consistent with and actively implements the Issaquah Comprehensive Plan; and 2. Consistent with King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the Growth Management Act. (Ord. 2462 § 13, 2006; Ord. 2388 § 9, 2004; Ord. 2383 § 5, 2004).
Refer to Chapter 18.14 IMC (Annexations) and Chapter 35A.14 RCW per GMA and use the Level 6 Review (Annexations), with additional review done by the Boundary Review Board or as required by other local, regional, or state regulations. Annexations require PPC review only when a proposal does not meet the Comprehensive Plan Potential Annexation Area (PAA) vision. (Ord. 2383 § 5, 2004; Ord. 2108 § 4.4.8, 1996. Formerly 18.04.660).
Appendix FLOW CHARTS FOR LEVELS OF REVIEW 0 – 6
(Ord. 2462 § 14, 2006; Ord. 2447 § 22, 2005; Ord. 2388 § 3, 2004).
(Ord. 2462 § 14, 2006; Ord. 2388 § 3, 2004).
(Ord. 2462 § 14, 2006).
Level 4 Review – Appeal
Level 4 Review – Variance/Secure Community Transition Facilities
(Ord. 2596 § 3 (Exh. B2), 2010; Ord. 2462 § 14, 2006; Ord. 2345 § 4, 2002).
Modified Level 4 Review – Preliminary Plat
(Ord. 2596 § 3 (Exh. B2), 2010).
Modified Level 4 Review – Final Plat
(Ord. 2596 § 3 (Exh. B2), 2010; Ord. 2462 § 14, 2006).
Level 5 Review – Master Site Plan, Cluster Housing, TDRs
Level 6 Review – Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code Amendments*
(Ord. 2462 § 14, 2006; Ord. 2183 § 5, 2004; Ord. 2164 § 6, 1997).
Level 6 Review – Type A Rezone*
(Ord. 2462 § 14, 2006; Ord. 2183 § 5, 2004).
Level 6 Review – Annexations
U-V Rezone Process
(Ord. 2462 § 14, 2006; Ord. 2164 § 4, 1997).