Chapter 18.100

The purpose of this chapter is to establish a set of procedures and processes to be used for land use and development proposals subject to review under the Maple Valley Municipal Code. All project permit applications or related approvals are subject to this chapter except as specifically set forth below.

A. General Exemptions. The following permits or approvals are specifically excluded from the procedures set forth in this chapter:

1. Landmark designations.

2. Street vacations.

3. Street Use Permits.

B. Partial Exemptions. Applications for Process 1 permits and approvals, with the exception of final plat applications, shall not be subject to the requirements for public Notice of Application and Notice of Decision. See MVMC 18.90.050 for final plat procedures. Process 1 permits and approvals are subject to requirements for complete applications and 120-day timelines. A written staff report is seldom produced, although conditions of approval to ensure a project meets applicable codes may be written onto the plans or otherwise attached. These types of permits are technical, ministerial or minor approvals and typically do not require a full 120 days to complete permit review.

C. Process 4 Applications. Multiple use master plans and development agreements present special circumstances that warrant a review process different from that required for a typical project application. Process 4 applications, therefore, are not subject to the 120-day timeline requirement. The Department of Community Development shall, however, produce a timeline or schedule identifying target dates for completion of the review process and shall work with the applicant to ensure the review is completed in as timely a manner as possible.

D. Process 5 Applications. Comprehensive plan amendments, subarea plans, area-wide rezones, and amendments to GMA development regulations are not subject to the requirements for complete applications, 120-day timelines, public notice, consolidated hearings or other requirements for project permit applications. These decisions are legislative decisions made by the City Council following one or more public hearings before the Planning Commission. See MVMC 18.100.040(B) and 18.100.070 for process steps and other information regarding public notice, Planning Commission processes, environmental review and appeal opportunities for Process 5 legislative decisions. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.020 Definitions.

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

A. "Closed record appeals" are administrative appeals which are heard by the City Council.

B. "Open record hearing" or "open record public hearing" or "public hearing" means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body or officer authorized by the City to conduct such hearings, that creates the City's record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the hearing body or officer. An open record hearing may be held prior to a City's decision on a project permit to be known as an "open record predecision hearing." An open record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be known as an "open record appeal hearing," if no open record predecision hearing has been held on the project permit.

C. "Parties of record" means:

1. The applicant;

2. The Department of Community Development;

3. Any person who testified at an open record public hearing on the application; and/or

4. Any person who submitted written comments during administrative review or at an open record public hearing.

D. "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or environmental permit or license required from the City, including but not limited to Building Permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, Conditional Use Permits, variances, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, site plan review, design review, permits or approvals required by critical areas regulations, and site-specific rezones.

E. "Public meeting" means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public gathering of people to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the City's decision. A public meeting may include, but is not limited to, a Planning Commission meeting, a special committee meeting, or a scoping meeting on a draft Environmental Impact Statement. A public meeting does not include an open record hearing. The proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or recommendation may be included in the City's project permit application file. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.030 Application processes and classification.

A. Application Processes. Applications for review pursuant to this chapter shall be classified by type of process as a Process 1, Process 2, Process 3, Process 4, or Process 5 action. The application framework is presented in tables in MVMC 18.100.040(A) and (B), which show the type of process used for the various kinds of applications as well as the procedures or steps to be followed in each process type.

B. Determination of Process Type. The Director shall determine the proper procedure for all development applications. If there is a question as to the appropriate type of procedure, the Director shall resolve it in favor of the higher process type number. Process 1 is the lowest and Process 4 is the highest for project permit applications. Process 5 relates only to legislative actions.

C. Consolidated Permit Processing. Two or more land use applications relating to the same proposal will typically be processed collectively and a single consolidated report will be produced to address all land use issues. The Director shall determine whether to process land use applications separately (phased review) based on consideration of the type and complexity of the project and whether permit review can be accomplished more efficiently through phased review. Decisions regarding the order of permit processing shall be made to ensure timely and efficient permit processing, facilitate input from interested agencies and the public, and provide full consideration to the cumulative impacts of the entire proposal. Construction Permits may be reviewed concurrently with the land use applications, or may be submitted separately after the land use decisions have been made.

D. Merger of Process 2 Application (except SEPA) with Process 3 or 4 Application. When any Process 2 application, except for a SEPA threshold determination, is reviewed as a component of or in conjunction with a Process 3 or Process 4 proposal, the Process 2 application shall be merged with and treated the same as the Process 3 or 4 application. The decisionmaker for the Process 2 application shall be either the Hearing Examiner or the City Council (Process 3 or 4, respectively). Appeal opportunities for the Process 2 component shall be integrated with those described for the Process 3 or 4 application. The decisionmaking procedures for SEPA threshold determinations do not merge into the higher processes. Appeal of a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is consolidated with the required open record public hearing for a Process 3 or 4 decision but may not be appealed to the City Council. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.040 Project permit application framework.

A. Process Types – Applications.


Process 1	Process 2	Process 3	Process 4	Process 5
q Building Permit1 q Clearing and Grading Permit1 q Mechanical, Plumbing, other Construction Permits1 q Minor site plan review1 q Boundary line adjustment q Sign Permit q Temporary Use Permit q Compliance with prior land use approval2 q Limited amendment of prior land use approval q Final plat3	q Use approval with SEPA or street improvement review q Short plat q Binding site plan for four or fewer lots q Design review q Reasonable use exception q Variance q Shoreline substantial development permit q Shoreline variance q SEPA threshold determination q Administrative amendment of prior land use approval q Formal code interpretation	q Binding site plan for five or more lots q Preliminary plat q Plat alteration or vacation q Conditional Use Permit q Shoreline Conditional Use Permit	q Multiple use master plan q Development agreement	q Comprehensive Plan amendment q Subarea plan q Rezones q Development Code text amendment

Notes:

1. Building Permits, Clearing and Grading Permits, minor site plan review, and any other construction related approvals that are subject to SEPA review or have required street improvements also require a use approval in conjunction with other SEPA or street improvement review.

2. Excluding final plats. For final plat process, see MVMC 18.90.050.

3. Final plats are subject to the requirements of RCW 58.17.140 and MVMC 18.90.050. The final plat decision is made by the City Council.

B. Process Steps.


Process Step	Process 11	Process 21	Process 31	Process 41	Process 51 Legislative Decisions
Preapplication Conference:	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Public Meeting:	No	DCD may require2	Yes	Yes, before Planning Commission for recommendation to DCD	See Public Hearings below
Recommendation Made By:	N/A	N/A	DCD	DCD to Hearing Examiner, then Examiner to City Council	Planning Commission
Final Decision Made By:	DCD (excluding final plats3)	DCD	Hearing Examiner	City Council	City Council
Notice of Application:	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, in conjunction with SEPA review
Open Record Predecision Hearing:	No	No	Yes, before Hearing Examiner to render final decision	Yes, before Hearing Examiner for recommendation to City Council	Legislative hearing(s) before Planning Commission
Open Record Appeal to Hearing Examiner:	No	Yes	No, except for associated SEPA DNS	No, except for associated SEPA DNS	No
Closed Record Appeal to Council:	No	No	Yes	Yes, on recommendation from Hearing Examiner	No
Judicial Appeal:	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	GMA plans and regulations appealable to Growth Management Hearings Board

Notes: 1. These process steps may be modified for projects with multiple land use approvals. See MVMC 18.100.030 and text describing each process.

2. Public meetings may be required by DCD when requested by citizens interested in the proposed project or when a project is expected to generate substantial community interest or controversy.

3. Final plats are subject to the requirements of RCW 58.17.140 and MVMC 18.90.050. The final plat decision is made by the City Council.

(Ord. O-03-223 §§ 1, 2; Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.050 Joint public hearings – Director's decision.

The Director may combine any public hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that may be held by another local, State, regional, federal, or other agency, on the proposed action, as long as:

A. The other agency consents to the joint hearing;

B. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;

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;

D. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the local government hearing; and

E. The hearing is held within the City limits. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.060 Applicant's request for 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 time periods set forth in this chapter. In the alternative, the applicant may agree to a particular schedule if additional time is needed in order to complete the hearings. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.070 Preapplication conference.

A. Applicability. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to acquaint City staff with a sufficient level of detail about the proposed development to enable staff to advise the applicant regarding requirements of the Maple Valley Municipal Code. A full preapplication conference involves the Development Review Committee members: Community Development Director, Public Works Director, Building Official, Fire Marshal, and Police Chief, or their designees. The following project permit applications require the applicant to attend a full preapplication conference: All Process 3 and all Process 4 actions. A limited preapplication conference with only a representative from DCD may be allowed by the Director for Process 2 applications that do not involve substantial review by other departments. Otherwise, a full preapplication conference is also required for Process 2 actions. See MVMC 18.100.140(B). The Director may waive in writing the requirement for a preapplication conference for projects that are determined to be of a size and complexity to not require the detailed analysis of a preapplication conference. Preapplication conferences for all other types of applications are not required, but may be considered by the Director upon request of the applicant.

B. Preapplication Conference Initiation. To initiate a preapplication conference, an applicant shall submit a completed preapplication request form with the information and numbers of copies as set forth by the Director. At a minimum, a preliminary site plan, and any other information known to the applicant that may be useful in providing an overview of the proposed project are required. The conference will generally be held within two weeks of the date the request form and accompanying information are received.

C. Written Summary of Preapplication Conference. The Department shall mail the applicant a written summary of the preapplication conference within approximately two weeks of the conference. The written summary shall include the following information to the extent possible given the material provided by the applicant:

1. A summary of the proposed action;

2. A list of the requirements for a completed project permit application;

3. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the project permit application; and

4. References to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to the approval of the project permit application.

A preapplication conference is not an exhaustive review of all potential issues and will typically not address federal or State jurisdictional issues. The discussions at a preapplication conference or the summary of the conference shall not bind or prohibit the City of Maple Valley's future application or enforcement of all applicable codes and regulations.

D. Expiration of Preapplication. Project permit applications requiring a preapplication conference must be submitted to the City and accepted as counter complete pursuant to MVMC 18.100.090 within six months of a written summary of the preapplication conference. If an application is not submitted within six months, the proposal shall require another preapplication conference to take into account any new City policies and changes to the Maple Valley Municipal Code or comprehensive plan. The Director may grant in writing a single six-month extension for submittal of a project permit application. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.080 Submittal requirements.

A. Checklist. The Department shall establish and may revise submittal requirements for each type of application. The requirements shall be made available to the public in a form that clearly explains what material must be submitted for an application to be considered complete, including type, size, detail, and number of copies for each item. The submittal requirements shall be in the form of a "counter complete checklist." Requirements for related permits or environmental review under SEPA shall also be provided when applicable. Submittal requirements may be waived by the Director, in writing, only if the applicant can demonstrate that normally required information is not relevant to the proposed action and is not required to show that an application complies with applicable City codes and regulations.

B. Who May Apply. Application for the various types of permits and approvals covered by this code may be made by the following parties:

1. The property owner or any agent of the owner with proof of agency may apply for any type of Process 1, 2, 3, or 4 application.

2. Any person may apply for an interpretation of the land use code.

3. The City Council, the Planning Commission, or the Director of Community Development may apply for a comprehensive plan amendment, site-specific or area-wide rezone, or amendment to the text of the land use code. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.090 Review for counter complete status.

A. All applications must include the counter complete checklist that accompanies the submittal requirements information. The counter complete checklist shall be the basis for determining whether a project permit application (Process 1 – 4) will be accepted at the permit counter or returned to an applicant.

B. Applications may either be brought in person to the City or applications may be mailed to the City for counter complete review.

C. An application is counter complete if the Director finds that the application purports and appears to include the information required by the counter complete checklist; provided, no effort shall be made to evaluate the substantive adequacy of the information in the application in the counter complete review process.

D. If the Director decides the application is counter complete, then the application may be submitted.

E. If the Director decides the application is not counter complete, then the City shall reject and return the application and identify in writing what is needed to make the application counter complete.

F. Director shall make a counter complete determination regarding an application brought in person to the City while the applicant is present. For applications mailed to the City, the counter complete determination shall be made within two working days from the date of receipt. If the City does not provide a counter complete determination for a mailed application, the application shall be deemed counter complete as of the third day from receipt. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.100 Determination of technical completeness.

A. Within 28 days of accepting an application as "counter complete," the Department shall determine whether an application is technically complete. If the Department does not provide written notification that an application is incomplete, the application shall be deemed complete for processing as of the 29th day following counter completeness.

B. A determination of technical completeness may be made even though additional information is later required or project modifications are subsequently undertaken. The determination of technical completeness shall not preclude the City from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice of completeness or at some later time. Such new information may be required to establish whether the proposal meets applicable City codes and regulations, whether additional environmental study is required, or, more generally, when there are substantial changes in the proposed action.

C. The City may determine that a "counter complete" application is not technically complete because the information submitted is not sufficient for further processing, is incomplete, or is facially incorrect. If the applicant receives a written determination from the City that an application is not technically complete, the applicant shall have up to 90 calendar days to submit the necessary information to the City. Within 14 calendar days after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the City shall determine whether the application is technically complete as set forth in subsection (A) of this section.

D. If an applicant either refuses in writing to submit additional information or does not submit the required information within 90 calendar days, the application shall be canceled, unless within the 90-day time period the applicant demonstrates that additional time is required and provides a schedule for submitting the needed information. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.110 Procedure for corrections.

A. Following a determination of technical completeness and the commencement of project review, the City may make a determination in writing that some information is incorrect or that additional information is required. The applicant shall have up to 90 calendar days to submit corrected information.

B. Within 14 calendar days of receiving corrected information, the City shall determine whether the information, plans, or other review materials are now correct and sufficient for further review. If the corrections are incomplete or if additional information is required, the City shall so notify the applicant in writing.

C. If an applicant either refuses in writing to submit additional information or does not submit the required information within 90 calendar days, the application shall be canceled, unless within the 90-day time period the applicant demonstrates that additional time is required and provides a schedule for submitting the corrections. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.120 Time limitations.

A. One-Hundred-Twenty-Day Time Period. All decisions on project permit applications for Process 1, 2, and 3 applications shall be made within 120 days of a determination of technical completeness, as limited by subsections (B) and (C), below.

B. Calculation of Time Periods for Issuance of Notice of Decision. In determining the number of days that have elapsed after the City has notified the applicant that the application is technically complete for processing, the following periods shall be excluded:

1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the City to correct plans, perform required studies, provide additional required information, or otherwise requires the applicant to act. The period shall be calculated from the date the City notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the date the local government determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information or 14 calendar days after the date the information has been provided to the City;

2. Any period during which an Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared following a Determination of Significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW, if the City by ordinance has established time periods for completion of Environmental Impact Statements, or if the City and the applicant in writing agree to a time period for completion of an Environmental Impact Statement;

3. Any period for administrative appeals of Process 2 or 3 project permit applications, if an open record appeal hearing or a closed record appeal, or both, are allowed. The time period for consideration and decision on appeals shall not exceed 90 calendar days for an open record appeal hearing, or 60 calendar days for a closed record appeal unless the applicant agrees to extend these time periods;

4. Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the local government.

C. Time Limit Exceptions. The time limits established in this section do not apply if a project permit application:

1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation;

2. Requires approval of the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or

3. 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 technically complete pursuant to MVMC 18.100.100.

D. Failure to Meet Time Limit. If the City is unable to issue its decision within the time limits provided in this chapter, it 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 a final decision. The City is not liable for damages due to the City's failure to make a final decision within the time limits established in this chapter. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.130 Process 1.

A. General. Process 1 applications are defined in the framework pursuant to MVMC 18.100.040(A) and (B). All Process 1 applications must meet all the applicable requirements of the Maple Valley Municipal Code in addition to the requirements specified below.

B. Preapplication Conference. Process 1 applications do not require a preapplication conference.

C. Public Notice. Process 1 applications do not require public notice.

E. Decision. Process 1 applications are subject to the maximum 120-day timeline described in MVMC 18.100.120, but in most cases review will be complete within a much shorter time period. If no correction cycles are required, review should be complete within approximately 35 calendar days from the date of technical completeness. Correction cycles will extend review time in proportion to the time the City must wait for an applicant to submit additional or corrected information. The decision of the Director may be reflected on the plans or permit itself or may be documented in a written report or letter of approval.

F. Notice of Decision. No public notice of a Process 1 decision is required. The applicant will be notified in writing, by fax, or by email that the permit is ready to issue or the application is approved.

G. Administrative Appeal. There is no administrative appeal of a Process 1 decision.

H. Judicial Appeal. A Process 1 decision may be appealed to King County Superior Court pursuant to MVMC 18.100.230. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.140 Process 2.

A. General. Process 2 applications are defined in the framework pursuant to MVMC 18.100.040(A) and (B). All Process 2 applications must meet all the applicable requirements of the Maple Valley Municipal Code in addition to the requirements specified below.

B. Preapplication Conference. Process 2 applications are required to have a preapplication conference. A limited preapplication conference may be allowed for projects that do not require substantial review by other departments such as variances and design review without SEPA or street improvement requirements.

C. Notice of Application. Process 2 applications require a Notice of Application. See MVMC 18.100.090. All Process 2 applications have a minimum 14-day public comment period, except Shoreline Substantial Development Permits and shoreline variances which have a minimum 30-day comment period.

E. Decision. Process 2 decisions are subject to the maximum 120-day timeline requirement described in MVMC 18.100.120. A decision for a Process 2 action shall be made in writing by the Director and shall include the following information:

1. A description of the proposal and a listing of permits or approvals included in the application;

2. A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in this code and other applicable law;

3. A statement of background information and facts relied upon by the Department which show the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria;

4. A summary of public comment received and how the Department or applicant responded to the public comments or concerns; and

5. The decision to deny or approve the application and, if approved, any conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with applicable law.

F. Notice of Decision. Public notice of a Process 2 decision shall be provided to all parties of record and to the applicant. Notice of a short plat or binding site plan shall be provided in the same manner as Notice of Application as set forth in MVMC 18.100.190.

G. Administrative Appeal. A Process 2 decision, except for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits and shoreline variances, may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner within 14 calendar days of the Notice of Decision pursuant to MVMC 18.100.220. A decision on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or shoreline variance may be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to Chapter 14.05 MVMC. Shoreline appeal procedures and information is available from the Department or from the State Department of Ecology.

H. Judicial Appeal. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on a Process 2 appeal may be appealed to King County Superior Court pursuant to MVMC 18.100.230.

I. Merger of Process 2 Applications (Except SEPA) with Process 3 or 4 Applications. When any Process 2 application except for a SEPA threshold determination is reviewed concurrently with a Process 3 or Process 4 application, the procedures for notice, decisionmaking, and appeal set forth in MVMC 18.100.150 or 18.100.160, respectively, shall apply to the Process 2 application. SEPA threshold determination decisions do not merge with the Process 3 or Process 4 decision procedures except that any appeal of a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance associated with a Process 3 or 4 application shall be integrated with the open record public hearing for the Process 3 or 4 action. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.150 Process 3.

A. General. Process 3 applications are defined in the framework set forth in MVMC 18.100.040(A) and (B). All Process 3 applications must meet all the applicable requirements of the Maple Valley Municipal Code in addition to the requirements specified below.

B. Preapplication Conference. Process 3 applications are required to have a preapplication conference.

C. Notice of Application and Public Meeting. Process 3 applications require a Notice of Application. See MVMC 18.100.190. All Process 3 applications have a minimum 30-day public comment period. In addition, a public meeting shall be scheduled and included in the Notice of Application for each Process 3 proposal. The public meeting shall be scheduled so as to allow at least seven days beyond the date of the public meeting for comments to be submitted within the minimum 30-day comment period.

D. Review of Application. The Director shall determine which City departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application. Following a determination of technical completeness, satisfactory completion of any required correction cycles, and expiration of the minimum public comment period, the Director shall prepare a written recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. The Director's recommendation shall provide a description of the proposal, a listing of the permits or approvals included in the application, a statement of the criteria and standards applicable to the proposal, and a review of the background information and facts relied upon by the Department in its recommendation. The recommendation shall enumerate any conditions needed to ensure the application meets each of the applicable decision criteria. A summary of public comment received and how the Department or applicant responded to the public comments or concerns shall also be included. If a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for the proposal, in most cases the DNS will be issued in conjunction with the Director's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner.

E. Public Hearing. A Process 3 action requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.

1. At least 15 calendar days before the date of the hearing, public notice of the hearing shall be provided consistent with the requirements of MVMC 18.100.210.

2. The Director's recommendation shall be made available on the date the hearing notice is issued. When the Director's recommendation includes a SEPA threshold Determination of Nonsignificance, the hearing notice shall inform the public that a SEPA appeal may be filed and that any SEPA appeal will be heard at the same hearing.

3. The burden of proof shall be on the proponent to demonstrate that the proposal conforms to applicable codes and standards; except that for any SEPA DNS appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant.

4. The Hearing Examiner shall explain the format and rules of procedure for the hearing to the public before opening the public hearing record.

5. The public hearing shall be recorded on audio or audiovisual tape.

F. Decision. A written decision for a Process 3 action shall be issued by the Hearing Examiner within 10 working days after the date the record closes. The Hearing Examiner's decision shall include the following information:

1. A description of the proposal and a listing of permits or approvals included in the application;

2. A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in this code and other applicable law;

3. A statement of background information and facts relied upon by the Hearing Examiner which show the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria;

4. A summary of public comment received and how the Department or the applicant responded to the public comments or concerns; and

5. The decision to deny or approve the application and, if approved, any conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with applicable law; provided, that the Hearing Examiner may remand the proposal to the Department for further review or additional information when the Examiner is unable to determine, based on the information presented at the hearing, whether the proposal is in compliance with or can be modified to comply with the applicable decision criteria and standards.

G. Notice of Decision. Public notice of a Process 3 decision shall be provided to all parties of record and to the applicant according to the same requirements as for Notice of Application set forth in MVMC 18.100.190.

H. Reconsideration. The Hearing Examiner may reconsider a Process 3 decision if a written request is filed by a party of record within five working days of the date of the initial decision. Grounds for requesting reconsideration shall be limited to the following: (1) the decision or conditions of approval are not supported by facts in the record, (2) the decision contains an error of law, (3) there is newly discovered evidence potentially material to the decision which could not reasonably be produced in time for the hearing, or (4) the applicant proposes changes to the proposal in response to deficiencies identified in the decision. Any request for reconsideration shall be mailed to all parties of record on the same day as the request is mailed or delivered to the Hearing Examiner. A request for reconsideration shall stop the running of the appeal period on a Process 3 decision for five working days. During this time period, the Examiner shall decide whether reconsideration is appropriate. If the Examiner decides to reconsider the decision, the appeal period will be placed on hold until the reconsideration process is complete and a new decision is issued. If the Examiner rejects the request or takes no action within five working days, the appeal period on the original decision will be automatically extended by five working days. If the Examiner decides to reconsider a decision, all parties of record shall be notified. The Examiner shall set a schedule for other parties to respond in writing to the reconsideration request and shall issue a decision no later than 10 working days following the submittal of written responses. A new appeal period shall run from the date of the Hearing Examiner's order on reconsideration.

I. Administrative Appeal. Process 3 decisions, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits and any associated shoreline permits, may be appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days of the Notice of Decision. Shoreline decisions are appealable to the State Shoreline Hearings Board. See Chapter 14.05 MVMC.

J. Judicial Appeal. A Process 3 appeal decision by the City Council may be appealed to the King County Superior Court pursuant to MVMC 18.100.230. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.160 Process 4.

A. General. Process 4 applications are defined in the framework pursuant to MVMC 18.100.040(A) and (B). All Process 4 applications must meet all the applicable requirements of the Maple Valley Municipal Code in addition to the requirements specified below.

B. Preapplication Conference. All Process 4 applications are required to have a preapplication conference.

C. Notice of Application and Public Meeting. Process 4 applications require Notice of Application. All Process 4 applications shall have a minimum 30-day comment period. In addition, the Notice of Application shall include notice of a public meeting before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public meeting, allowing the applicant to present an overview of the project, and shall hear comments and questions from those in attendance. The Planning Commission shall have an opportunity to discuss the proposal with staff and the applicant, and shall set a schedule for submitting written comments to the Director. If the 30-day minimum comment period expires before the Planning Commission has completed its written comments and recommendation, the Director shall accept and review the comments pursuant to subsection (D) of this section and MVMC 18.100.190(F).

D. Review of Application. The Director shall determine which City departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application. Following a determination of technical completeness, satisfactory completion of any required correction cycles, and expiration of the minimum public comment period, the Director shall prepare a written recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. The Director's recommendation shall provide a description of the proposal, a listing of the permits or approvals included in the application, a statement of the criteria and standards applicable to the proposal, and a review of the background information and facts relied upon by the Department in its recommendation. The recommendation shall enumerate any conditions needed to ensure the application meets each of the applicable decision criteria. A summary of public comment received, including the Planning Commission comments and recommendations, and how the Department or applicant responded to the public comments or concerns shall also be included. If a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for the proposal, in most cases the DNS will be issued in conjunction with the Director's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner.

E. Public Hearing. A Process 4 application requires an open record predecision hearing before the Hearing Examiner.

1. At least 15 calendar days before the date of the hearing, public notice of the hearing shall be provided consistent with the requirements of MVMC 18.100.210.

2. The Director's recommendation shall be made available on the date the hearing notice is issued. When the Director's recommendation includes a SEPA threshold Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) the hearing notice shall inform the public that a SEPA appeal may be filed and that any SEPA appeal will be heard at the same hearing.

3. The burden of proof shall be on the proponent for a Process 4 application to demonstrate that the proposal conforms to applicable codes and standards; except that for any SEPA DNS appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant.

4. The Hearing Examiner shall explain the format and rules of procedure for the hearing to the public before opening the public hearing record.

5. The public hearing shall be recorded on audio or audiovisual tape.

F. Hearing Examiner Recommendation. The Hearing Examiner shall issue a written recommendation on a Process 4 action within 10 working days after the hearing record is closed. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation shall include the following information:

1. A description of the proposal and a listing of permits or approvals included in the application;

2. A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in this code and other applicable law;

3. A statement of background information and facts relied upon by the Hearing Examiner which show the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria;

4. A summary of public comment received at the public hearing and in writing, including the Planning Commission comments and recommendations, and how the Department or the applicant responded to the public comments or concerns;

5. The Examiner's recommendation to the City Council to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application; provided, that the Hearing Examiner may remand the proposal to the Department for further review or additional information when the Examiner is unable to determine, based on the information presented at the hearing, whether the proposal is in compliance with or can be modified to comply with the applicable decision criteria and standards; and

6. The date on which the matter will be set for a closed record hearing before the City Council and a date by which any written comment or argument in support of or in opposition to the Examiner's recommendation must by submitted to the City Council.

G. City Council Hearing. The City Council shall hold a closed record hearing to review the recommendation from the Hearing Examiner prior to deciding on a Process 4 application. No new evidence shall be submitted, but the Council may hear argument based on the record from the Hearing Examiner's hearing. The Council shall set time limits within which the parties of record who wish to comment in favor of or against the Hearing Examiner's recommendation must speak.

H. City Council Decision. The City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Process 4 application by motion following the closed record hearing, except that the City Council may remand a Process 4 application to the Hearing Examiner or to the Department for further review or additional information. If the proposal is not remanded and a decision is made, an ordinance shall be prepared to reflect the City Council decision. This ordinance may be formally passed and signed, if available, the night of the closed record hearing or may be reviewed and formally passed and signed at the next regular City Council meeting. The date of the Council decision for purposes of beginning any relevant appeal periods shall be the date of actual passage and signing of the ordinance.

I. Judicial Appeal. A Process 4 decision may be appealed to the King County Superior Court pursuant to MVMC 18.100.230. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.170 Process 5.

A. General. Process 5 actions are defined in the framework pursuant to MVMC 18.100.040 (A) and (B). All Process 5 proposals are legislative actions, but not all legislative actions are Process 5 decisions. Process 5 is specifically limited to actions affecting the City's Growth Management Act comprehensive plan and development regulations.

B. Hearings. A Process 5 action may require one or more hearings before the Planning Commission to formulate a recommendation and may require one or more hearings before the City Council for a final decision. The public hearings shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 35A.12 RCW. The City Council may hold its own hearings or may delegate all hearings to the Planning Commission.

C. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be provided to the public by publishing in the legal newspaper as required by Chapter 35A.12 RCW.

D. Implementation. The City Council's decision shall become effective by passage of an ordinance or resolution.

E. Legislative Enactments Not Restricted. Nothing in this section or the permit processing procedures shall limit the authority of the City Council to make changes to the City's comprehensive plan, as part of a regular revision process, or to make changes to the City's municipal code.

F. Appeal to Growth Management Hearings Board. A Process 5 decision may be appealed to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board pursuant to the regulations set forth in RCW 36.70A.290. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.180 Public notice – Generally.

The records of the King County assessor's office shall be used for determining the property owner of record. Addresses for mailed notices shall be obtained from the County's real property tax records. The applicant shall issue a declaration of mailing to the Director. All public notices shall be deemed to have been provided or received on the date the notice is deposited in the mail or personally delivered, whichever occurs first. Failure to receive public notice when provided as described in this chapter shall not be grounds for invalidation of any permit decision. (Ord. O-99-109 § 1).

18.100.190 Notice of application.

A. Notice of Application. Notice of Application shall be provided for Process 2, 3, and 4 applications within 14 days of a determination of completeness as set forth in below:


Application Type	Publish	Mail	Post
Use approval with SEPA or street improvement review	4
SEPA threshold determination	4
Variance and shoreline variance	4	4
Reasonable use exception	4	4
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit	4	4
Design review	4	4	4
Short plat	4	4	4
Binding site plan	4	4	4
Preliminary plat	4	4	4
Conditional use and shoreline conditional use	4	4	4
(reserved)
Plat alteration or vacation	4	4	4
Multiple use master plan	4	4	4
Development agreement	4	4	4

Chapter 18.100 ADMINISTRATION OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

18.100.010 Purpose and applicability.

18.100.020 Definitions.

18.100.030 Application processes and classification.

18.100.040 Project permit application framework.

18.100.050 Joint public hearings – Director's decision.

18.100.060 Applicant's request for joint hearing.

18.100.070 Preapplication conference.

18.100.080 Submittal requirements.

18.100.090 Review for counter complete status.

18.100.100 Determination of technical completeness.

18.100.110 Procedure for corrections.

18.100.120 Time limitations.

18.100.130 Process 1.

18.100.140 Process 2.

18.100.150 Process 3.

18.100.160 Process 4.

18.100.170 Process 5.

18.100.180 Public notice – Generally.

18.100.190 Notice of application.

Chapter 18.100
ADMINISTRATION OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS