(1) Specifying the on-site and off-site facilities and services that must be in place or otherwise assured of timely provision prior to development;

(2) Allocating the cost of those facilities and services fairly; and

(3) Providing a general framework for relating development standards and other requirements of this code to:

(1) All new development proposals including any use, activity or structure allowed by Chapter 18.25 CMC that requires City of Covington approval shall be adequately served by the following facilities and services prior to the time of occupancy, recording or other land use approval, as further specified in this chapter:

(2) All new development proposals for building permits, plats, short plats, urban planned developments, fully contained communities and binding site plans, that will be served by a sewer or water district, shall include a certificate of water availability and a certificate of sewer availability to demonstrate compliance with this chapter and other provisions of the City of Covington Municipal Code, the City of Covington comprehensive plan and the Growth Management Act.

(3) Regardless of the number of sequential permits required, the provisions of this chapter shall be applied only once to any single development proposal. If changes and modifications result in impacts not considered when the proposal was first approved, the City shall consider the revised proposal as a new development proposal. (Ord. 42-02 § 2 (21A.28.020))

(1) A public sewage system is adequate for a development proposal; provided, that:

(1) A public water system is adequate for a development proposal; provided, that:

(1) The proposed system is adequate if the development proposal site is served by a surface water management system approved by the Department as being consistent with the design, operating and procedural requirements of the adopted stormwater manuals and CMC Title 13;

(2) A design deviation or design variance request from the requirements of the stormwater manuals and CMC Title 13 shall be reviewed as set forth in CMC Title 13. (Ord. 26-16 § 32; Ord. 13-09 § 37; Ord. 42-02 § 2 (21A.28.050))

(1) All new development shall be served by adequate streets. Streets are adequate if the development’s traffic impacts on surrounding public streets are acceptable under the level-of-service standards and the compliance procedures established in CMC Title 12.

(2) The issuance of a new permit for existing uses constitutes a new development proposal if it will generate additional traffic above that currently generated by the use. Mitigation may be required under CMC Titles 12 and 19 to offset level-of-service impacts as a result of additional traffic.

(3) A design deviation or design variance request from the requirements of CMC Title 12 and the Design and Construction Standards shall be reviewed as set forth in Chapter 12.60 CMC. (Ord. 27-16 § 13; Ord. 42-02 § 2 (21A.28.060))

(1) The property upon which the development proposed is to be located has direct access to:

(2) The proposed circulation system for a development proposal shall intersect with existing and anticipated streets abutting the site at safe and convenient locations, as determined by the Department and the City Engineer, and in accordance with the Design and Construction Standards; and

(3) Every lot upon which one or more buildings are proposed to be erected or traffic-generating use is proposed to be established shall establish safe access as follows:

(1) The site of the development proposed is served by a water supply system that provides at least minimum fire flow and a road system or fire lane system that provides life safety/rescue access, and other fire protection requirements for buildings as required by CMC Title 15, Buildings and Construction;

(2) For a zone reclassification or urban planned development, the timing of installation of required fire protection improvements shall be stated in the approving ordinance, secured with a bond or similar security, and deposited with the City of Covington; and

(3) A variance request from the requirements established by CMC Title 15, Fire Code, shall be reviewed as set forth in CMC Title 15, and/or in Article 2 of the currently adopted edition of the International Fire Code and does not require a variance from this title unless relief is requested from a building height, setback, landscaping or other development standard set forth in Chapters 18.30 through 18.80 CMC. (Ord. 6-05 § 1; Ord. 23-04 § 17; Ord. 42-02 § 2 (21A.28.130))

(1) The school concurrency standard set out in CMC 18.75.120 shall apply to applications for preliminary plat or urban planned development (UPD) approval, mobile home parks, requests for multifamily zoning, and building permits for multifamily housing projects which have not been previously evaluated for compliance with the concurrency standard.

(2) The City’s finding of concurrency shall be made at the time of preliminary plat or UPD approval, at the time that a request to actualize potential multifamily zoning is approved, at the time a mobile home park site plan is approved, or prior to building permit issuance for multifamily housing projects which have not been previously established for compliance with the concurrency standard. Once such a finding has been made, the development shall be considered as vested for purposes of the concurrency determination.

(3) Excluded from the application of the concurrency standard are:

(4) All of the development activities which are excluded from the application of the concurrency standard are subject to school impact fees imposed pursuant to CMC Title 19.

(5) The assessment and payment of impact fees are governed by and shall be subject to the provisions in CMC Title 19 addressing school impact fees.

(6) A certification of concurrency for a school district shall not preclude the City from collecting impact fees for the district. Impact fees may be assessed and collected as long as the fees are used to fund capital and system improvements needed to serve the new development, and as long as the use of such fees is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 82.02 RCW and this chapter. Pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, impact fees may also be used to recoup capital and system improvement costs previously incurred by a school district to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or incurred costs. (Ord. 16-16 § 3; Ord. 20-07 § 129; Ord. 42-02 § 2 (21A.28.140))

(1) In making a threshold determination pursuant to SEPA, the Director and/or the Hearing Examiner, in the course of reviewing proposals for residential development including applications for plats or UPDs, mobile home parks, or multifamily zoning, and multifamily building permits, shall consider the school district’s capital facilities plan as adopted by the Council.

(2) Documentation which the district is required to submit pursuant to CMC 18.75.110 or CMC Title 14, Division I, shall be incorporated into the record in every case without requiring the district to offer such plans and data into the record. The school district is also authorized to present testimony and documents demonstrating a lack of concurrency in the district and the inability of the district to accommodate the students to be generated by a specific development.

(3) Based upon a finding that the impacts generated by the plat, manufactured home park or the multifamily development were generally not anticipated at the time of the last Council review and approval of a school district capital plan and were not included in the district’s long-range forecast, the Director may require or recommend phasing or provision of the needed facilities and/or sites as appropriate to address the deficiency or deny or condition approval, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, the State Subdivision Act, and the State Environmental Policy Act.

(4) Determinations of the Examiner or Director regarding concurrency can be appealed only pursuant to the provisions for appeal of the development permit process for which the determination has been made. Where no other administrative appeal process is available, an appeal may be taken to the Hearing Examiner using the appeal procedures for variances. Any errors in the formula identified as a result of an appeal should be referred to the Council for possible modifications.

(5) Where the Council has not adopted an impact fee ordinance for a particular school district, the language of this section shall not affect the authority or duties of the Examiner or the Director pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act or the State Subdivision Act. (Ord. 42-02 § 2 (21A.28.150))

(1) On an annual basis, each school district shall submit the following materials to the City:

(2) To the extent that the district’s standard of service reveals a deficiency in its current facilities, the district’s capital facilities plan must demonstrate a plan for achieving the standard of service, and must identify the sources of funding for building or acquiring the necessary facilities to meet the standard of service.

(3) Facilities to meet future demand shall be designed to meet the adopted standards of service. If sufficient funding is not projected to be available to fully fund a capital plan which meets the standard of service, the district’s capital plan should document the reason for the funding gap.

(4) If an impact fee ordinance has been adopted on behalf of a school district, the district shall also submit an annual report to the City showing the capital improvements which were financed in whole or in part by the impact fees. (Ord. 42-02 § 2 (21A.28.152))

(1) Schools shall be considered to have been provided concurrently with the development which will impact the schools if:

(2) Any combination of the following shall constitute the “necessary financial commitments” for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Compliance with this concurrency requirement of this section shall be sufficient to satisfy the provisions of RCW 58.17.060 and 58.17.110. (Ord. 42-02 § 2 (21A.28.160))