A.

Purpose. Administration of the development code is intended to be expedient and effective. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the processes, authorities and timing for administration of development permits. Public noticing and hearing procedures, decision criteria, appeal procedures, dispute resolution and code interpretation issues are also described.

B.

Objectives. Guide customers confidently through the permit process; process permits equitably and expediently; balance the needs of permit applicants with neighbors; allow for an appropriate level of public notice and involvement; make decisions quickly and at the earliest possible time; allow for administrative decision-making, except for those decisions requiring the exercise of discretion which are reserved for appointed decision makers; ensure that decisions are made consistently and predictably; and resolve conflicts at the earliest possible time.

C.

Roles and responsibilities. The roles and responsibilities for carrying out the provisions of the development code are shared by appointed boards and commissions, elected officials and city staff. The authorities of each of these bodies are set forth below.

1.

City council. The city council is responsible for establishing policy and legislation affecting land use within the city. The city council acts on recommendations of the planning commission and hearing examiner.

2.

Planning commission. The role of the planning commission in administering the development code is governed by chapter 3.46 MICC. In general, the planning commission is the designated planning agency for the city (see RCW Chapter 35A.63). The planning commission makes recommendations to the city council on land use legislation, comprehensive plan amendments and quasi-judicial matters.

3.

Design commission. The role of the design commission in administering the development code is governed by chapter 3.34 MICC and MICC 19.15.220. In general, the design commission is responsible for maintaining the city's design standards and acting on sign, commercial and multiple-family design applications.

4.

Community planning and development department. The responsible officials in the community planning and development department act upon ministerial and administrative permits.

a.

The code official is responsible for administration, interpretation and enforcement of the development code.

b.

The building official is responsible for administration and interpretation of the building code, except for the International Fire Code.

c.

The city engineer is responsible for the administration and interpretation of engineering standards.

d.

The environmental official is responsible for the administration of the State Environmental Policy Act and the shoreline master program.

e.

The fire code official is responsible for administration and interpretation of the International Fire Code.

5.

Hearing examiner. The role of the hearing examiner in administering the development code is governed by chapter 3.40 MICC.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 17C-15 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 17C-12 § 10; Ord. 13C-12 § 5; Ord. 11C-05 § 2; Ord. 11C-04 § 2; Ord. 10C-06 § 5; Ord. 10C-01 § 5; Ord. 08C-01 § 8; Ord. 06C-06 § 2; Ord. 06C-05 § 2; Ord. 05C-12 § 9; Ord. 04C-12 § 16; Ord. 04C-08 § 3; Ord. 03C-08 §§ 9, 10; Ord. 02C-04 § 5; Ord. 02C-01 § 6; Ord. 99C-13 § 1)

Legislative actions involve the creation, amendment or implementation of policy or law by ordinance. In contrast to the other types of actions, legislative actions apply to geographic areas and implement adopted city policy, promote the community interest, and are normally of interest to many property owners and citizens. Legislative actions are only adopted after an open record public hearing. Review procedures for legislative actions are located in MICC 19.15.260. Legislative actions include street vacations, comprehensive plan amendments, reclassification of property (rezones), and code amendments.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

There are four categories of land use review that occur under the provisions of the development code.

A.

Type I. Type I reviews are based on clear, objective and nondiscretionary standards or standards that require the application of professional expertise on technical issues.

B.

Type II. Type II reviews are based on clear, objective and nondiscretionary standards or standards that require the application of professional expertise on technical issues. The difference between Type I and Type II review is that public notification shall be issued for Type II decisions.

C.

Type III. Type III reviews require the exercise of discretion about nontechnical issues.

D.

Type IV. Type IV reviews require discretion and may be actions of broad public interest. Decisions on Type IV reviews are only taken after an open record hearing.

E.

The types of land use approvals are listed in Table A of this section. The required public process for each type of land use approval are listed in Table B of this section.

F.

Consolidated permit processing. An application for a development proposal that involves the approval of two or more Type II, III and IV reviews may be processed and decided together, including any administrative appeals, using the highest numbered land use decision type applicable to the project application. Consolidated land use reviews shall be subject to the longest review time period identified in MICC 19.15.040.

1.

The following permits and land use reviews are excluded from consolidated review and approval:

a.

Building permits associated with the construction of one or more new single-family dwellings on lots resulting from the final plat approval of a short subdivision or long subdivision.

b.

Building permits associated with shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variance.

c.

Project SEPA reviews.

2.

When a review is heard by multiple decision bodies, the higher decision body will make the final decision, and the lower decision body will review the project at a public meeting and issue a recommendation that will be reviewed by the higher decision body. The higher decision body will either adopt the recommendation as part of the permit conditions, will remand the recommendation back to the lower body for further consideration, will amend the recommendation, or will deny adoption of the recommendation and will adopt their own permit conditions. The hierarchy of decision bodies is as follows, from highest to lowest:

a.

City council;

b.

Hearing examiner;

c.

Design commission.

G.

Interior alterations exempt from site plan review.

1.

Applications for interior alterations are exempt from site plan review provided they meet the following criteria:

a.

The proposed development does not result in additional sleeping quarters or bedrooms;

b.

The proposed development would not result in nonconformity with federal emergency management agency substantial improvement thresholds; or

c.

The proposed development would not increase the total square footage or valuation of the structure thereby requiring upgraded fire access or fire suppression systems.

2.

Applications for interior alterations are subject to review for consistency with any otherwise applicable building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical codes.

H.

Land use review types and review processing procedures.

(Ord. 19C-21 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 19C-05 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 19C-04 § 1 (Exh. A); Ord. 19C-02 § 3 (Exh. A); Ord. 18C-12 § 2; Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. No. 21C-12, § 4(Exh. D), 7-20-2021; Ord. No. 21C-17, §§ 4(Exh. D), 7, 8, 8-31-2021; Ord. No. 22C-05, § 1(Exh. A), 6-7-2022; Ord. No. 23C-10, § 2(Exh. B), 7-18-2023; Ord. No. 24C-07, § 6(Exh. C), 6-4-2024; Ord. No. 24C-17, § 3(Exh. B), 12-3-2024)

Editor's note— Ord. No. 24C-12, adopted July 2, 2024, renewed the interim regulations set forth by Ord. No. 23C-10, adopted July 18, 2023, for a period of six months from the effective date of July 15, 2024, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the city. Subsequently, Ord. No. 24C-17, § 2, adopted December 3, 2024 replaced the interim regulations set forth by Ord. No. 23C-10 and Ord. No. 24C-12, and shall be effective for a period of one year, beginning December 3, 2024, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the city council.

A.

The following are general requirements for processing a permit application under Title 19 MICC. Additional or alternative requirements may exist for actions under specific code sections (see MICC 19.07.110, 19.07.190, 19.08.020, and 19.08.070).

B.

Decisions for land use review applications subject to the standards in Title 19 MICC must be issued in a timely manner, subject to the following standards:

1.

The decision for any Type I or Type II land use review must be issued within 65 days of the determination of completeness issued consistent with MICC 19.15.070.

2.

The decision for any Type III land use review must be issued within 100 days of the determination of completeness issued consistent with MICC 19.15.070.

3.

The decision for any Type IV land use review and reclassification of property consistent with MICC 19.15.240 that does not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment must be issued within 170 days of the determination of completeness issued consistent with MICC 19.15.070.

4.

The following land use approvals are exempt from the decision timelines established in this section:

a.

Home business;

b.

Special needs group housing safety determination;

c.

Temporary commerce on public property;

d.

Transportation concurrency certificate;

e.

Final plat;

f.

Parking modification reviewed by city engineer;

g.

Final short plat;

h.

Development code interpretation;

i.

Comprehensive plan, subarea plan, and development code amendments docketed through the process established in MICC 19.15.230.

5.

The time periods for issuance of a decision for a land use review established in this section shall start over if an applicant proposes a change in use that adds or removes commercial or residential elements from the original application that would make the application fail to meet the determination of completeness for the new use, as required by Chapter 19.15 MICC.

6.

If, at any time, an applicant informs the city, in writing, that the applicant would like to temporarily suspend the review of the project for more than 60 days, or if an applicant is not responsive for more than 60 consecutive days after the city has notified the applicant, in writing, that additional information is required to further process the application, an additional 30 days may be added to the time periods established in this section. Any written notice from the city to the applicant that additional information is required to further process the application shall include a notice that failure to respond to a request for additional information within 60 days may result in 30 days being added to the time for review. For the purposes of this subsection, "not responsive" means that the applicant is not making demonstrable progress on providing additional requested information to the local government, or that there is no ongoing communication from the applicant to the local government on the applicant's ability or willingness to provide the additional information.

C.

If a decision regarding a land use review is not issued in compliance with this section, a portion of the permit fee must be refunded to the applicant or discounted prior to final collection as provided below. The portion of the permit fee that must be refunded or discounted for missing time periods shall be:

1.

Ten percent if the final decision for a land use review is issued as follows:

a.

For Type I and Type II land use reviews, between 66 and 78 days after the determination of completeness was issued;

b.

For Type III land use reviews, between 101 and 120 days after the determination of was issued; and

c.

For Type IV land use reviews and reclassification of property consistent with MICC 19.15.240 that does not require a comprehensive plan amendment, between 171 and 204 days after the determination of completeness was issued.

2.

Twenty percent if the final decision for a land use review is issued as follows:

a.

For Type I and Type II land use reviews, more than 78 days after the determination of completeness was issued;

b.

For Type III land use reviews, more than 120 days after the determination of completeness was issued; and

c.

For Type IV land use reviews and reclassification of property consistent with MICC 19.15.240 that does not require a comprehensive plan amendment, more than 204 days after the determination of completeness was issued.

D.

For the purposes of this section, the number of days shall be calculated by counting every calendar day and excluding the following time periods:

1.

Any period between the day that the city has notified the applicant, in writing, that additional information is required to further process the application and the day when responsive information is resubmitted by the applicant;

2.

Any period after an applicant informs the city, in writing, that they would like to temporarily suspend review of the application until the time that the applicant notifies the city, in writing, that they would like to resume the application. The code official may set conditions for the temporary suspension of land use review; and

3.

Any period after an administrative appeal is filed until the administrative appeal is resolved and any additional time period provided by the administrative appeal.

E.

Nothing in this section prohibits the city from extending the deadline for issuing a decision for a specific project permit application for any reasonable period of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city. Such an extension may be granted only if a signed affidavit confirming the extension is submitted by the applicant prior to a review deadline established by this section.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A). Formerly 19.15.020; Ord. No. 24C-17, § 4(Exh. C), 12-3-2024)

A.

Purpose. Meetings with the staff provide an opportunity to discuss the proposal in concept terms, identify the applicable city requirements and the project review process. Meetings or correspondence with the neighborhood to inform the neighborhood of the project proposal are encouraged prior to the formal notice provided by the city.

B.

Optional preapplication meetings. Applicants for development proposals are encouraged to participate in informal meetings with city staff. Preapplication meetings may be held for any other development proposal at the request of the applicant.

C.

Required preapplication meetings. Preapplication meetings are required for Type III and Type IV land use reviews and for new development within landslide hazard areas. Preapplication meetings may be held for any other development proposal at the request of the applicant. This requirement may be waived by the code official.

D.

Application. Applicants shall prepare a concept sketch of the development proposal for the preapplication meeting along with any other information specified by the code official in the preapplication meeting form.

E.

Validity. Successful completion of a preapplication meeting does not constitute approval of any plan or design. Preapplication meetings shall occur within one year of application submittal, or after a code change affecting the application has occurred.

(Ord. 19C-05 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

The department shall not commence review of any application until the applicant has submitted the materials and fees specified for complete applications. An application shall contain all information deemed necessary by the code official to determine if the proposed permit or action will comply with the requirements of the applicable development regulations. The applicant for a development proposal shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed development complies with the applicable regulations and decision criteria. All land use applications shall include, at a minimum, the materials in Table A below:

Notes:

1.

The code official may request additional studies or information at any time during review, provided such reports or studies are necessary to complete review of the application.

2.

The code official may waive any submittal materials required by this section provided such waiver is described in the determination of completeness issued in compliance with MICC 19.15.070.

3.

Additional application requirements for tree removal are established in MICC 19.10.090 application requirements.

B.

A determination of completeness shall not preclude the code official from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of determination of completeness or subsequently if new or additional information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur, as determined by the code official.

C.

All applications for permits or land use review by the city shall be accompanied by a filing fee in an amount established by city ordinance.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. No. 24C-17, § 5(Exh. D), 12-3-2024)

A.

Complete application required. The city will not accept an incomplete application for processing and review. An application is complete only when all information required on the application form has been provided to the satisfaction of the code official. The code official may request 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.

B.

Determination of completeness. Within 28 calendar days after receiving an application for a project permit application (as such is defined in RCW 36.70B.020), the city shall mail, email, or provide in person a written letter of completion or letter of incompletion to the applicant, stating either that the application is complete or that the application is incomplete. If an application is incomplete, the letter of incompletion shall identify what additional documentation is necessary to result in a procedurally complete application. To the extent known at the time of review, the code official shall identify other agencies of local, state, or federal governments that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the application. An application shall be deemed complete if the city does not provide a written determination to the applicant stating that the application is incomplete within 28 days after receiving an application.

1.

At the discretion of the code official, the determination of completeness may include or be combined with any of the following:

a.

A preliminary determination of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation;

b.

A preliminary determination of consistency, as provided under RCW 36.70B.040;

c.

Other information the code official chooses to include; and

d.

A notice of application issued in compliance with MICC 19.15.090.

C.

Response to letter of incompletion. Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted all additional information identified as being necessary for a complete application, the city shall notify the applicant that the application is complete, or indicate that the application is incomplete and specify additional documentation as specified in subsection B of this section that is necessary to result in a complete application.

1.

If an applicant is not responsive for more than 60 consecutive days after the city has notified the applicant, in writing, that additional information is required to further process the application, an additional 30 days may be added to the time periods for local government action to issue a final decision for each type of project permit that is subject to MICC 19.15.040.

2.

Any written notice from the city to the applicant that additional information is required to further process the application must include a notice that non-responsiveness for 60 consecutive days may result in 30 days being added to the time for review. For the purposes of this section, "non-responsiveness" means that an applicant is not making demonstrable progress on providing additional requested information to the local government, or that there is no ongoing communication from the applicant to the local government on the applicant's ability or willingness to provide additional information.

D.

Completion date. The date an application is determined complete is the date of receipt by the department of all of the information necessary to make the application complete as provided in this chapter. The department's issuance of a letter of complete application, or the failure of the department to provide the applicant a letter detailing what additional documentation is necessary to result in a complete application, shall cause an application to be conclusively deemed to be complete as provided in this section.

E.

If the applicant fails to provide the required information within 90 days of the letter of incompletion, the application shall lapse.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. No. 23C-10, § 3(Exh. B), 7-18-2023; Ord. No. 24C-17, § 6(Exh. E), 12-3-2024)

Editor's note— Ord. No. 24C-12, adopted July 2, 2024, renewed the interim regulations set forth by Ord. No. 23C-10, adopted July 18, 2023, for a period of six months from the effective date of July 15, 2024, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the city. Subsequently, Ord. No. 24C-17, § 2, adopted December 3, 2024 replaced the interim regulations set forth by Ord. No. 23C-10 and Ord. No. 24C-12, and shall be effective for a period of one year, beginning December 3, 2024, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the city council.

A.

Public notification is distinct from a notice of application, a notice of decision, and a notice of public hearing. The purpose is to inform and notify the community of projects. No comment period is required for a public notification, although public comment is allowed.

B.

Timing. A public notification will be issued for Type II permits listed in MICC 19.15.030 prior to issuance of a decision, and as soon as reasonably feasible after submittal of a complete application.

C.

Distribution. A public notification shall be posted in the weekly CPD bulletin.

D.

Content. A public notification shall include the following information:

1.

Permit number;

2.

The name of the applicant;

3.

The location and description of the project;

4.

A link to a website where additional information about the project can be found; and

5.

Any other information that the city determines appropriate.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

Timing. Within 14 days of the determination of completeness, the city shall issue a notice of application for all Type III and Type IV permits listed in MICC 19.15.030.

B.

Distribution. Notice shall be provided in the weekly CPD bulletin, mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the property, posted on the site in a location that is visible to the public right-of-way, and made available to the general public upon request.

If the owner of a proposed long subdivision owns land contiguous to the proposed long subdivision, that contiguous land shall be treated as part of the long subdivision for notice purposes, and notice of the application shall be given to all owners of lots located within 300 feet of the proposed long subdivision and the applicant's contiguous land. The city shall provide written notice to the department of transportation of an application for a long subdivision or short subdivision that is abutting the right-of-way of a state highway.

C.

Content. The notice of application shall include the following information:

1.

The dates of the application, the determination of completeness, and the notice of application;

2.

The name of the applicant;

3.

The location and description of the project;

4.

The requested actions and/or required studies;

5.

The date, time, and place of the open record hearing, if one has been scheduled;

6.

Identification of environmental documents, if any;

7.

A statement of the public comment period, which shall be not less than 30 days following the date of notice of application; and a statement of the rights of individuals to comment on the application, receive notice and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made and any appeal rights;

8.

The city staff contact and contact information;

9.

The identification of other permits not included in the application to the extent known by the city;

10.

A description of those development regulations used in determining consistency of the project with the city's comprehensive plan;

11.

A link to a website where additional information about the project can be found; and

12.

Any other information that the city determines appropriate.

D.

Open record hearing. If an open record hearing is required on the land use approval, the city shall provide the notice of application at least 30 days prior to the hearing.

E.

Public comment. The city shall 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 land use review.

F.

Except for a determination of significance, the city shall not issue a threshold determination under chapter 19.21 MICC or issue a decision on an application until the expiration of the public comment period on the notice of application.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

A public hearing notice is required for land use reviews requiring a public hearing. A public hearing notice may be combined with a notice of application.

B.

Public hearing notice shall be provided at least 30 days prior to any required open record hearing.

C.

The public hearing notice shall include the following:

1.

A general description of the proposed project and the action to be taken by the city;

2.

An address or parcel number of the property and a vicinity map or sketch;

3.

The time, date and location of the open record public hearing;

4.

A contact name and number where additional information may be obtained;

5.

A statement that only those persons who submit written comments or testify at the open record hearing will be parties of record; and only parties of record will receive a notice of the decision and have the right to appeal;

6.

A link to a website where additional information about the project can be found.

D.

Public hearing notices shall be provided in the following manner:

1.

Notice shall be mailed to parties of record, all property owners within 300 feet of the property, published in the weekly CPD bulletin, and posted on the site in a location that is visible to the public right-of-way.

a.

Long subdivisions. Additional notice for the public hearing for a preliminary long subdivision approval shall be provided as follows:

i.

Notice of public hearing shall also be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the city.

ii.

If the owner of a proposed long subdivision owns land contiguous to the proposed long subdivision, that contiguous land shall be treated as part of the long subdivision for notice purposes, and the public hearing notice shall be given to all owners of lots located within 300 feet of the proposed long subdivision and the applicant's contiguous land.

E.

Every complete application for which notice is to be provided under subsection (D)(1) of this section together with all information provided by the applicant for consideration by the decision authority shall be posted by the city to a website accessible without charge to the public. Information shall be posted at the time the city issues the notice of application under subsection (D)(1) of this section and shall be updated within seven days after additional information is received from the applicant.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

Request authorized. The official or entity reviewing a development proposal may request additional information or studies if:

1.

New or additional information is required to complete a land use review and issue a decision;

2.

Substantial changes in the development proposal are proposed by the applicant; or

3.

The official or entity reviewing the development proposal determines additional information is required prior to issuance of a decision.

B.

Deadline for response. The official or entity requesting information shall establish a time limit for the applicant to respond. The time limit for an applicant to respond to a request for information shall not be less than 30 days, provided an extension to the applicant's time limit to respond may be authorized pursuant to subsection C of this section. If responses are not received within the established time limit and no extension has been authorized, the code official may cancel the land use review for inactivity.

C.

Deadline extension. Applicants may request an extension to provide requested materials. Extension requests shall be in writing, shall include a basis for the extension and shall be submitted in writing prior to expiration of the time limit. The code official is authorized to extend the time limit in writing. There is no limit to the number of extensions an applicant may be granted; however, the total time limit for a response shall not exceed 180 days unless there is an extenuating circumstance. An extenuating circumstance must be unexpected and beyond the control of the applicant.

D.

Limit on number of review cycles. The code official may issue a decision when three or more requests for the same information have remained unaddressed by materials submitted by the applicant. The official or entity shall provide written notification to the applicant, informing them that a decision will be issued and providing the opportunity for one set of information to be submitted before the decision is issued. The intent of this provision is to allow the code official to issue a decision when the content of submittal materials demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to meet applicable code requirements after repeated requests by the city. It is not the intent of this section to limit good faith efforts to meet code requirements by submitting new information in pursuit of approval.

(Ord. 19C-21 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

The city will make an effort to process permits and land use reviews in a reasonable time subject to constraints related to staff workload and resources. The city shall provide notice in a timely manner of its final decision or recommendation on development proposals requiring Type II, III and IV land use decisions, including the SEPA threshold determination, if any, the dates for any public hearings, and the procedures for administrative appeals, if any. Notice shall be provided to the applicant, parties of record, and agencies with jurisdiction. Notice of decision shall also be provided to the public as provided in MICC 19.15.090. The notice of decision may be provided by email or a hard copy may be mailed.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

Appeals to shoreline hearings board. Appeals to any shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance decision shall be in accordance with RCW 90.58.180. Appeals to shoreline exemption permits shall be filed in accordance with subsection B of this section.

B.

Administrative appeals. Any decision may be administratively appealed by filing a written appeal on the decision. Administrative appeals shall be filed with the city clerk within 14 days after the notice of decision is made available to the public and applicant pursuant to MICC 19.15.120, if a notice of decision is required, or after the effective date of the decision subject to appeal if no notice of decision is required.

C.

The burden of proof is on the appellant to demonstrate that there has been substantial error, or the proceedings were materially affected by irregularities in procedure, or the decision was unsupported by evidence in the record, or that the decision is in conflict with the standards for review of the particular action.

D.

Written appeals shall include the following information:

1.

The decision(s) being appealed;

2.

The development code interpretation, if any, associated with the proposed appeal;

3.

The name and address of the appellant and his/her interest in the matter;

4.

The specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The burden of proof is on the appellant to demonstrate that there has been substantial error, or the proceedings were materially affected by irregularities in procedure, or the decision was unsupported by evidence in the record, or that the decision is in conflict with the standards for review of the particular action;

5.

The desired outcome or changes to the decision; and

6.

Payment of the appeals fee, if any.

E.

Authority for appeals as specified in MICC 19.15.220(B)(6).

F.

Notice of an open record public hearing for an appeal shall be provided consistent with the notice of public hearing provisions of MICC 19.15.100.

G.

The hearing body may adopt rules of procedure in addition to the following required provisions. At a minimum, rules of procedure for appeal hearings shall provide that:

1.

If the hearing body finds that there has been substantial error, or the proceedings were materially affected by irregularities in procedure, or the decision was unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record, or the decision is in conflict with the city's applicable decision criteria, it may:

a.

Reverse the decision.

b.

Modify the decision and approve it as modified.

c.

Remand the decision back to the decision maker for further consideration.

2.

If the hearing body finds that none of the procedural or factual bases listed above exist and that there has been no substantial error, the hearing body may adopt the findings and/or conclusions of the decision body, concur with the decision of the decision body and approve the development proposal as originally approved, with or without modifications.

3.

Final decision on the appeal shall be made within 30 days from the last day of the appeal hearing.

4.

The city's final decision on a development proposal may be appealed to King County Superior Court within 21 days of the issuance of the decision.

H.

When an applicant has opted for consolidated permit processing pursuant to MICC 19.15.030(F), administrative appeals of Type I, II, or III approvals listed in MICC 19.15.030, Table A, for a single project shall be consolidated and heard together in a single appeal by the highest level hearing body. For example, an appeal of a consolidated decision for a Type I and III decision shall be heard by the hearing examiner.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

Only one open record public hearing shall be required prior to action on all Type IV actions or to hear an appeal of a Type I, II, or III decision.

B.

Open record public hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the hearing body's rules of procedures. In conducting an open record public hearing, the hearing body's chair shall, in general, observe the following sequence:

1.

Staff presentation, including the submittal of any additional information or correspondence. Members of the hearing body may ask questions of staff.

2.

Applicant and/or applicant representative's presentation. Members of the hearing body may ask questions of the applicant.

3.

Testimony by the public. Questions directed to the staff, the applicant or members of the hearing body shall be posed by the chairperson at his/her discretion.

4.

Rebuttal, response or clarifying statements by the applicant and/or the staff and/or the public.

5.

The public comment portion of the hearing is closed and the hearing body shall deliberate on the action before it.

C.

Following the hearing procedure described above, the hearing body shall:

1.

Approve;

2.

Conditionally approve;

3.

Continue the hearing;

4.

Remand the application to staff; or

5.

Deny the application.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

General. Except as stated below, or as otherwise conditioned in the approval process, land use review approvals shall expire three years from the date of notice of decision if the development proposal authorized by the land use review is not commenced. For the purposes of this section, the development proposal shall be considered established if construction or substantial progress toward construction of a development proposal for which a land use review approval has been granted must be undertaken within two years of the date of notice of decision of the land use review. Where no construction activities are involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within three years of the date of notice of decision of the land use review.

B.

Renewal. Renewal of expired land use approvals shall require a new application.

C.

Long and short subdivisions. A final plat application meeting all requirements of this chapter shall be submitted to the code official and recorded within five years of the date of preliminary plat approval.

D.

Shoreline land use reviews. The following time limits shall apply to all substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variance permits:

1.

Construction or substantial progress toward construction of a development for which a permit has been granted must be undertaken within two years of the effective date of a shoreline permit. Where no construction activities are involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of a substantial development permit. The effective date of a shoreline permit shall be the date of the last action required on the shoreline permit and all other government permits and approvals that authorize the development to proceed, including all administrative and legal actions on any such permit or approval.

2.

A single extension before the end of the time limit, with prior notice to parties of record, for up to one year, based on reasonable factors may be granted if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and to the department of ecology.

E.

Design review. If the applicant has not submitted a complete application for a building permit within three years from the date of the notice of the final design review decision, or within three years from the decision on appeal from the final design review decision, design review approval shall expire.

F.

Responsibility for knowledge of the expiration date shall be with the applicant.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

Upon formal application, or as determined necessary, the code official may issue a written interpretation of the meaning or application of provisions of the development code. In issuing the interpretation, the code official shall consider the following:

1.

The plain language of the code section in question;

2.

Purpose and intent statement of the chapters in question;

3.

Legislative intent of the city council provided with the adoption of the code sections in question;

4.

Policy direction provided by the Mercer Island comprehensive plan;

5.

Relevant judicial decisions;

6.

Consistency with other regulatory requirements governing the same or similar situation;

7.

The expected result or effect of the interpretation; and

8.

Previous implementation of the regulatory requirements governing the situation.

B.

The code official may also bring any issue of interpretation before the planning commission for determination. Anyone in disagreement with an interpretation by the code official may also appeal the code official's interpretation to the hearing examiner.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

Purpose. The purpose of this section is to identify certain points in the land use approval process at which an applicant's rights become "vested." "Vested rights" is defined as the guarantee that an application will be reviewed and a development proposal can be developed (if a permit is issued) under regulations and procedures existing at one moment in time and regardless of changes that may have been made later and prior to final completion of a project or use.

B.

Vesting for land use reviews. Complete applications for land use review of Type I land use reviews, building permits, conditional use permits, design review, short subdivisions and long subdivisions, shall vest on the date a complete application is filed. The department's issuance of a letter of completion for Type III and IV land use decisions, as provided in this chapter, or the failure of the department to provide such a letter as provided in this chapter, shall cause an application to be conclusively deemed to be vested as provided herein.

C.

Scope of vested rights.

1.

Land use reviews that are subject to the provisions of this section shall be considered under the zoning and land use control ordinances (MICC titles 15 and 19) in effect on the date of complete application. Supplemental information and revisions to a development proposal design required by the city after vesting of a complete application shall not affect the validity of the vesting for such application.

2.

An applicant must specifically identify a proposed land use or uses in the land use review application as the intended use of the development proposal site in order to vest the right to engage in a specific land use against an ordinance implementing a change in permitted land uses.

3.

An application for a land use review may be denied or approved with conditions under the authority of the city to protect and enhance the public safety, health and welfare, and under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the city of Mercer Island's SEPA regulations and policies as of the date of vesting, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant has attained a vested right against enforcement of an ordinance implementing changes in regulations, codes or procedures affecting that land use review application.

D.

Termination of vested rights.

1.

Termination of vested rights associated with a land use review for a development proposal shall occur at the time of expiration of land use review approval, as established in MICC 19.15.150, or when an applicant withdraws the land use application.

2.

Applicant-generated modifications or requests for revision(s) to building permits, short subdivision, or long subdivisions which are not made in response to staff review, public process, appeal, or conditions of approval, and which result in substantial changes to a development proposal design, which includes but is not limited to the creation of additional lots, substantial change in access, substantial changes in project design, or additional impacts to critical areas shall be treated as new applications for purposes of vesting.

3.

Applicant-generated proposals to create additional lots, substantially change access, increase critical area impacts, or change conditions of approval on an approved preliminary short subdivision or long subdivision shall also be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

Open record public hearing. An open record public hearing before the code official shall be conducted on the shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, and shoreline variances when, within the 30-day comment period, ten or more interested citizens file a written request for a public hearing.

B.

Ecology filing. The applicant shall not begin construction until after 21 days from the date of filing with the department of ecology and Attorney General and/or any appeals are concluded. The applicant shall also comply with all applicable federal, state and city standards for construction.

C.

Shoreline substantial development permit decisions. The city's action in approving, approving with conditions, or denying any substantial development permit or shoreline exemption is final unless an appeal is filed in accordance with applicable laws. The city shall send the shoreline permit and documentation of final local decisions to the applicant, the department of ecology, the Washington State Attorney General and to all other applicable local, state, or federal agencies. The decision shall be sent to the Department of Ecology by return receipt requested mail or as regulated by WAC 173-27-130.

D.

Shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variances. The final decision in approving, approving with conditions, or denying a shoreline conditional use permit or shoreline variance is rendered by the department of ecology in accordance with WAC 173-27-200, and all other applicable local, state, or federal laws. The city shall send the shoreline permit and documentation of final local decision to the applicant, the department of ecology, the Washington State Attorney General and to all other applicable local, state, or federal agencies. The decision shall be sent to the department of ecology by return receipt requested mail or as regulated by WAC 173-27-130.

(Ord. 19C-05 § 2 (Exh. B); Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

Editor's note— Ord. No. 21C-17, § 5, adopted Aug. 31, 2021, repealed § 19.15.190, which pertained to permit review for 6409 eligible wireless communications facilities and derived from Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. No. 21C-12, § 5, July 20, 2021.

Revisions of approved permits are as follows: A complete application, filing fees and SEPA checklist, if applicable, shall be filed with the city on approved forms to ensure compliance with development codes and standards except for building permits which shall be reviewed in accordance with MICC title 17. All revisions shall be subject to the vesting provisions in MICC 19.15.170.

A.

Revisions for approved Type I, II, and III land use permits, except shoreline permits, are as follows:

1.

Revisions that result in substantial changes, as determined by the code official, shall be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting. For the purposes of this section, "substantial change" includes changes to conditions of approval.

2.

Approval of typographical errors, minor omissions, or minor corrections by the code official shall not be considered revisions.

B.

Revisions for approved Type IV land use permits, except shoreline permits, are as follows:

1.

Revisions that result in substantial changes, as determined by the code official, shall be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting. For the purposes of this section, "substantial change" includes the creation of additional lots, the elimination of open space, substantial changes in access, or changes to conditions of approval. Additionally, the need for the modification was not known and could not have been reasonably known before the approval was granted.

2.

Approval of the following modifications by the code official shall not be considered revisions:

a.

Engineering design, unless the proposed design alters or eliminates features required as a condition of preliminary approval.

b.

Changes in lot or tract dimensions that are consistent with chapter 19.02 MICC.

c.

A decrease in the number of lots to be created.

d.

Typographical errors and minor omissions.

3.

The code official shall have the authority to administratively review and approve modifications described in subsection (B)(2) of this section through review procedures established by the department.

C.

Revisions for shoreline permits are as follows. When an applicant seeks to revise an approved shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit and/or shoreline variance permit, the requirement of WAC 173-27-100, as amended, shall be met. If these requirements are met, the decision will be processed per the following:

1.

Revision of substantial development permit.

a.

A decision will be provided to the applicant and parties of record and posted in CPD's weekly permit bulletin.

b.

The city shall send the revised permit to all applicable local, state or federal agencies, including the Attorney General, as required by state or federal law within eight days of issuing the decision.

c.

Appeals shall be in accordance with RCW 90.58.180.

2.

Revision of a shoreline CUP or shoreline variance.

a.

The application for a revision shall be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology. Within 15 days of receipt, Ecology will issue a decision of approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the revision.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

It is the intent of this section to require that nonconforming sites, structures, lots, and uses, which were created without prior city approval, comply with the applicable provisions of this title.

B.

If development inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of this title has occurred on a development proposal site without prior city approval, the city shall not issue any land use review approvals for the development proposal site unless the land use review approval requires that the restoration of the site to a state that complies with the purposes and requirements of this title be addressed.

C.

Suspension of land use approvals. When the conditions of a permit have been violated, the city may suspend any land use review approval, including shoreline permits. Such noncompliance may be considered a code violation. The enforcement shall be in conformance with the procedures set forth in MICC 19.15.270, Enforcement.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

Rules and records.

1.

The design commission shall adopt rules and regulations for the conduct of its business, subject to the approval of the city council.

2.

A majority of the membership shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business. Action by the design commission shall be by majority vote of the members constituting the quorum. A tie vote on a motion to approve shall constitute a failure of the motion and a denial of the application.

3.

The code official shall serve as executive secretary of the design commission and shall be responsible for all records. All meetings of the design commission shall be open to the public. The design commission shall keep minutes of its proceedings and such minutes and a copy of its rules shall be kept on file in the office of the city clerk and open to inspection by the public.

B.

Powers of the design commission and additional functions.

1.

No building permit or other required permit shall be issued by the city for any major new construction or minor exterior modification of any regulated improvement without prior approval of the design commission or code official as authorized pursuant to MICC 19.15.010(C)(4)(a). Certain development and activities that do not require a permit are subject to design review as provided in subsection (C)(1)(c) of this section.

2.

The design commission or code official may require a bond or assignment of funds as set out in MICC 19.01.060(C) to secure the installation and maintenance of landscaping, screens, and other similar site improvements.

3.

When the city council deems it necessary to retain consultants for a proposed capital improvement, the council shall seek recommendations from the design commission as to the selection of consultants to provide design services.

4.

Consultants or city officials charged with the design responsibility for a major capital improvement shall hold preliminary discussions on the proposed project with the design commission to obtain its preliminary recommendations as to aesthetic, environmental and design principles and objectives. In addition, the design commission shall review major capital improvements at the completion of the design development phase. A capital improvement approved by the city council after review and recommendations by the design commission may be implemented on a phasing basis without further review so long as the improvement is developed in substantial conformity with the reviewed plan. Significant deviations from an approved plan shall be submitted to the design commission for its further review and recommendations.

5.

The design commission or code official shall complete its review and make its decision and/or recommendations pursuant to the process set forth in subsection C of this section, and the review and decision and/or recommendations shall be based upon the design objectives and standards set forth in subsection C of this section, with such amendments as may be made from time to time.

6.

Additional functions. The design commission may undertake the following additional functions as needed:

a.

The design commission may assist any person, group, or agency who requests design advice on matters not requiring formal commission action.

b.

The design commission shall consult and cooperate with the planning commission and other governmental bodies on matters affecting the appearance of the Island. The design commission may offer recommendations to the appropriate city agencies and officials on legislation to promote aesthetic and environmental values.

c.

The design commission shall act as the appeal authority for design review decisions made by the code official for minor exterior modifications.

C.

Design review procedure.

1.

General.

a.

Intent. The intent of the design review process is to ensure that regulated development in all land use zones complies with design objectives and standards established in chapters 19.11 and 19.12 MICC.

b.

Scope. No building permit or other required permit shall be issued by the city for development of any regulated improvement without prior approval of the design commission or code official as authorized pursuant to this chapter. Deviations from a plan approved by the design commission or code official shall be permitted only upon the filing and approval of an amended plan. In no instance shall the design commission's or code official's action conflict with the city's development code or other applicable city ordinances or with state or federal requirements. Certain development and activities that do not require a permit are subject to design review as provided in subsection (C)(1)(c) of this section.

c.

Review authority.

i.

The following development proposals shall require design commission review:

(a)

New buildings;

(b)

Any additions of gross floor area to an existing building(s);

(c)

Any alterations to an existing building that will result in a change of 50 percent, or more, of the exterior surface area;

(d)

Any alterations to a site, where the alteration will result in a change to the site design that affects more than 50 percent of the development proposal site; and

(e)

Any alterations to existing facades, where the building is identified by the city as an historic structure;

ii.

All other development proposals requiring design review and not requiring design commission review under subsection (C)(1)(c)(i) of this section shall be reviewed by the code official. The code official shall have the authority to determine that an application normally reviewed by code official shall require design commission review and approval, based on factors such as the scope, location, context, and visibility of the proposed change or modification; and

iii.

Exemptions from design review. The following activities shall be exempt from either design commission or code official design review:

(a)

Any activity which does not require a building permit; or

(b)

Interior work that does not alter the exterior of the structure; or

(c)

Normal building and site maintenance including repair and replacement that involves no material expansion or material change in design. For example, replacement in kind of roof mounted heating and cooling equipment or ventilation equipment does not require design review.

d.

Process.

i.

Time frame and procedure. Design review shall be conducted in accordance with the timelines and procedures set forth in MICC 19.15.040, Review procedures. Design review is not subject to the one open record hearing requirement or consolidated permit review processing.

ii.

Written recommendations. All decisions of the design commission shall be reduced to writing and shall include findings of fact and conclusions that support the decisions.

2.

Review process.

a.

Study session. In addition to the preapplication meeting, an applicant for a project that will require design review and approval by the design commission shall meet with the design commission in a study session to discuss project concepts before the plans are fully developed. At this session, which will be open to the public, the applicant should provide information regarding its site, the intended mix of uses, and how it will fit into the focus area objectives. The design commission may provide feedback to be considered in the design of the project.

b.

Plan submittal. All materials shall be submitted a minimum of 30 days prior to any meeting dates including study sessions, public meetings, and public hearings. The final plans shall be in substantial conformity with approved preliminary plans.

(Ord. 19C-21 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 17C-12 § 10; amended during 3/15 supplement; Ord. 11C-04 § 3; Ord. 04C-08 § 4; Ord. 03C-10 § 6; Ord. 03C-06 § 4; Ord. 02C-04 § 4; Ord. 99C-13 § 1. Formerly 19.15.040)

A.

Purpose. The Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW Chapter 36.70A, requires that the city include within its development regulations a procedure for any interested person to suggest plan amendments. The suggested amendments will be docketed for consideration. The purpose of this section is to establish a procedure for amending the city's comprehensive plan text and maps. Amendments to the comprehensive plan are the means by which the city may modify its 20-year plan for land use, development or growth policies in response to changing city needs or circumstances. All plan amendments will be reviewed in accordance with the GMA and other applicable state laws, the countywide planning policies, the adopted city of Mercer Island comprehensive plan, and applicable capital facilities plans.

B.

Application requirements. Proposed amendment requests may be submitted by the public, city manager, city department directors or by majority vote of the city council, planning commission or other city board or commission. Proposed amendments submitted by the public shall be accompanied by application forms required by this title and by the code official and the filing fees established by resolution. All application forms for amendments to the comprehensive plan shall include a detailed description of the proposed amendment in nontechnical terms.

C.

Frequency of amendments.

1.

Periodic review. The comprehensive plan shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the city ("periodic review"). The city shall take legislative action to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive plan to ensure the plan complies with the requirements of the GMA according to the deadlines established in RCW 36.70A.130.

2.

Annual amendment cycle. Updates, proposed amendments, or revisions to the comprehensive plan may be considered by the city council no more frequently than once every calendar year as established in this section (the "annual amendment cycle"). During a year when periodic review of the comprehensive plan is required under RCW 36.70A.130, the annual amendment cycle and the periodic review shall be combined.

3.

More frequent amendments may be allowed under the circumstances set forth within RCW 36.70A.130(2). Amendments processed outside of the annual amendment cycle under RCW 36.70A.130(2) may be initiated by action of the city council. The city council shall specify the scope of the amendment, identify the projected completion date, and identify and, if necessary, fund resources necessary to accomplish the work. Amendments allowed to be processed outside of the annual amendment cycle are not subject to the docketing process outlined within subsection D of this section.

D.

Docketing of proposed amendments. For purposes of this section, docketing refers to compiling and maintaining a list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan or code in a manner that will ensure such suggested changes will be considered by the city and will be available for review on the city's website by the public. The following process will be used to create the docket:

1.

Preliminary docket review. By September 1, the city will issue notice of the annual comprehensive plan and code amendment cycle for the following calendar year. The amendment request deadline is October 1. Proposed amendment requests received after October 1 will not be considered for the following year's comprehensive plan and code amendment process but will be held for the next eligible comprehensive plan and code amendment process.

a.

The code official shall compile and post for public review a list of suggested amendments and identified deficiencies as received throughout the year.

b.

The code official shall review all complete and timely filed applications and suggestions proposing amendments to the comprehensive plan or code and place these applications and suggestions on the preliminary docket along with other city-initiated amendments to the comprehensive plan or code.

c.

The planning commission shall review the preliminary docket at a public meeting and make a recommendation on the preliminary docket to the city council each year.

d.

The city council shall review the preliminary docket at a public meeting. By December 31, the city council shall establish the final docket based on the criteria in subsection E of this section. Once approved, the final docket defines the work plan and resource needs for the following year's comprehensive plan and code amendments.

2.

Final docket review.

a.

Placement on the final docket does not mean a proposed amendment will be approved. The purpose of the final docket is to allow for further analysis and consideration by the city.

b.

All items on the final docket shall be considered concurrently so that the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. Proposed amendments may be considered at separate meetings or hearings, so long as the final action taken considers the cumulative effect of all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan.

c.

The code official shall review and assess the items placed on the final docket and prepare recommendations for each proposed amendment. The code official shall be responsible for developing an environmental review of the combined impacts of all proposed amendments on the final docket, except that applicants seeking a site-specific amendment shall be responsible for submittal of a SEPA environmental checklist and supporting information. The applicant will need to submit SEPA and any other accompanying legislative actions such as a rezone or a code amendment at this time. The code official may require an applicant to pay for peer review and/or additional resources needed to review the proposal. The code official shall set a date for consideration of the final docket by the planning commission and timely transmit the staff recommendation prior to the scheduled date.

d.

The planning commission shall review the proposed amendments contained in the final docket based on the criteria set forth in subsection (F)(1) of this section. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed amendments. The planning commission shall make a recommendation on the proposed amendments and transmit the recommendation to the city council.

e.

After issuance of the planning commission's recommendation, the code official shall set a date for consideration of the final docket by the city council. The city council shall review the proposed amendments taking into consideration the recommendations of the planning commission and code official. The city council may deny, approve, or modify the planning commission's recommendations consistent with the criteria set forth in subsection (F)(1) of this section. The city council's establishment of a final docket of proposed amendments is not appealable.

f.

The planning commission and the city council may hold additional public hearings, meetings, or workshops as warranted by the proposed amendments.

E.

Docketing criteria. The following criteria shall be used to determine whether a proposed amendment is added to the final docket in subsection D of this section:

1.

The request has been filed in a timely manner, and either:

a.

State law requires, or a decision of a court or administrative agency has directed, such a change; or

b.

All of the following criteria are met:

i.

The proposed amendment presents a matter appropriately addressed through the comprehensive plan or the code;

ii.

The city can provide the resources, including staff and budget, necessary to review the proposal, or resources can be provided by an applicant for an amendment;

iii.

The proposal does not raise policy or land use issues that are more appropriately addressed by an ongoing work program item approved by the city council;

iv.

The proposal will serve the public interest by implementing specifically identified goals of the comprehensive plan or a new approach supporting the city's vision; and

v.

The essential elements of the proposal and proposed outcome have not been considered by the city council in the last three years. This time limit may be waived by the city council if the proponent establishes that there exists a change in circumstances that justifies the need for the amendment.

F.

Decision criteria. Decisions to amend the comprehensive plan shall be based on the criteria specified below. An applicant for a comprehensive plan amendment proposal shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed amendment complies with the applicable regulations and decision criteria.

1.

The amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act, the countywide planning policies, and the other provisions of the comprehensive plan and city policies; and:

a.

There exists obvious technical error in the information contained in the comprehensive plan; or

b.

The amendment addresses changing circumstances of the city as a whole.

2.

If the amendment is directed at a specific property, the following additional findings shall be determined:

a.

The amendment is compatible with the adjacent land use and development pattern;

b.

The property is suitable for development in conformance with the standards under the potential zoning; and

c.

The amendment will benefit the community as a whole and will not adversely affect community facilities or the public health, safety, and general welfare.

G.

Combined comprehensive plan amendment and rezone. In cases where both a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezone are required, both shall be considered together, and all public notice must reflect the dual nature of the request.

H.

Expansion of land use map amendment. The city may propose to expand the geographic scope of an amendment to the comprehensive plan land use map to allow for consideration of adjacent property, similarly situated property, or area-wide impacts. The following criteria shall be used in determining whether to expand the geographic scope of a proposed land use map amendment:

1.

The effect of the proposed amendment on the surrounding area or city;

2.

The effect of the proposed amendment on the land use and circulation pattern of the surrounding area or city; and

3.

The effect of the proposed amendment on the future development of the surrounding area or city.

I.

Repealed.

(Ord. 19C-21 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 16C-13 § 2. Formerly 19.15.050)

(Ord. No. 21C-05, § 1, 5-4-2021)

A.

Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish the process and criteria for a rezone of property from one zoning designation to another.

B.

Process. A rezone shall be considered as provided in MICC 19.15.260.

C.

Criteria. The city council may approve a rezone only if all of the following criteria are met:

1.

The proposed reclassification is consistent with the policies and provisions of the Mercer Island comprehensive plan;

2.

The proposed reclassification is consistent with the purpose of the Mercer Island development code as set forth in MICC 19.01.010;

3.

The proposed reclassification is an extension of an existing zone, or a logical transition between zones;

4.

The proposed reclassification does not constitute an illegal site-specific rezone;

5.

The proposed reclassification is compatible with surrounding zones and land uses;

6.

The proposed reclassification does not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare; and

7.

If a comprehensive plan amendment is required in order to satisfy subsection (C)(1) of this section, approval of the comprehensive plan amendment is required prior to or concurrent with the granting of an approval of the rezone.

D.

Map change. Following approval of a rezone, the city shall amend the zoning map to reflect the change in zoning designation. The city shall also indicate on the zoning map the number of the ordinance adopting the rezone.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish the process and criteria for amendment of this Code.

B.

Process. Code amendments shall be considered as provided in MICC 19.15.260.

C.

Initiation of code amendment request.

1.

A code amendment request may be initiated at any time by the city council, planning commission, or code official.

2.

A code amendment request may be initiated by any interested person as follows:

a.

Suggestion. A code amendment may be suggested by any interested person.

b.

Application. An application for a code amendment may be submitted by any interested person. An application for a code amendment shall be accompanied by the filing fee established by resolution.

c.

Suggested code amendments and applications for code amendments shall be docketed pursuant to MICC 19.15.230(D) and considered on at least an annual basis.

d.

Whether initiated by suggestion or application, a proposed code amendment by an interested party shall be accompanied by an application form and shall require a detailed description of the proposed amendment in nontechnical terms.

3.

Multiple code amendment requests may be consolidated for review and action at the city's discretion.

D.

Criteria. The city may approve or approve with modifications a proposal to amend this Code only if:

1.

The amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and

2.

The amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, or welfare; and

3.

The amendment is in the best interest of the community as a whole.

E.

Codification. Following approval of an amendment, the city shall amend this Code to reflect the amendment.

(Ord. 19C-21 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

The city shall issue a notice for comprehensive plan amendments, reclassifications of property, and zoning code text amendments as described in MICC 19.15.230, 19.15.240, and 19.15.250. Notice shall be provided in the weekly CPD bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation, made available to the general public upon request, and, if the proposed amendment will affect a specific property or defined area of the city, mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the affected property or defined area, and posted on the site in a location that is visible to the public right-of-way.

1.

The notice shall include the following information:

a.

The name of the party proposing the proposed amendment or change;

b.

The location and description of the project, if applicable;

c.

The requested actions and/or required studies;

d.

The date, time, and place of the open record hearing;

e.

Identification of environmental documents, if any;

f.

A statement of the public comment period which shall not be less than 30 days. The city shall accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing; and a statement of the rights of individuals to comment on the application, receive notice and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made and any appeal rights;

g.

The city staff contact and contact information;

h.

The identification of other reviews or permits that are associated with the review of the proposed comprehensive plan, zoning text, or zoning map amendment, to the extent known by the city;

i.

A description of those development regulations used in determining consistency of the review with the city's comprehensive plan;

j.

A link to a website where additional information about the project can be found; and

k.

Any other information that the city determines appropriate.

2.

Timing of notice. The city shall provide the notice at least 30 days prior to the hearing.

3.

The city shall accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record public hearing.

B.

Review after public hearing.

1.

Following the completion of the open record public hearing, the planning commission shall consider the proposed amendment for conformance with the criteria as listed in the applicable section, the comprehensive plan and other applicable development standards.

2.

The planning commission shall make a written recommendation on the review to the city council.

3.

The city council shall consider the planning commission's recommendation at a public meeting where it may adopt or reject the planning commission's recommendations or remand the review back to the planning commission.

(Ord. 19C-21 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A))

A.

Violations.

1.

It is a violation of this title for any person to initiate or maintain or cause to be initiated or maintained the use of any structure, land or real property within the city of Mercer Island without first obtaining proper permits or authorizations required for the use by the development code.

2.

It is a violation of the development code for any person to use, construct, locate, demolish or cause to be used, constructed, located, or demolished any structure, land or property within the city of Mercer Island in any manner that is not permitted by the terms of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to the development code or previous codes.

3.

It is a violation of the development code to misrepresent any material fact in any application, plans or other information submitted to obtain any land use authorization.

4.

It is a violation of the development code for anyone to fail to comply with the requirements of the development code, as set out in the specific sections of the code.

5.

Any person who violates any provision of this chapter may be issued a civil infraction, notice of violation, or other penalties as authorized by chapter 6.10 MICC.

(Ord. 18C-08 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 18C-06 § 1 (Att. A); Ord. 99C-13 § 1. Formerly 19.15.030)