All land use actions shall be classified as one of the following
unless state law mandates different or additional procedures for particular
land use actions or categories of land use actions.
(Ord. 24-05, 6/5/2024)
A.
Type I development actions involve permitted uses or development
governed by clear and objective review criteria. Type I actions do
not encompass discretionary land use decisions. Impacts have been
recognized by the development and public facility standards.
C.
If the manager determines that the proposed development does not
conform, with the applicable Type II or Type III decision, or requires
submittal of a new Type II or Type III application, it shall be processed
as provided in this title. The manager's determination shall
not be subject to appeal.
D.
Type I development actions shall be decided by the manager without public notice or hearing. Notice of a decision shall be provided to the applicant or the applicant's representative and owners of the subject property. The decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided in Chapter 17.18. The appeal shall be reviewed as a Type III hearing except that only the applicant and owners of the subject property shall be entitled to notice.
(Ord. 24-05, 6/5/2024)
A.
Type II land use actions are presumed to be appropriate in the relevant
zoning district. They generally involve uses or development for which
review criteria are reasonably objective, requiring only limited discretion.
Impacts on nearby properties may be associated with these uses, which
may necessitate imposition of specific conditions of approval to minimize
those impacts or ensure compliance with this title.
B.
Type II actions are identified as such in this title.
C.
Type II development actions shall be decided by the manager without a public hearing. The decision shall be by signed written order. The order shall comply with Sections 17.16.090(B) and (C).
D.
The notice of the decision shall be provided pursuant to Sections 17.16.090(A), (B), and (C). The decision may be appealed as provided in Chapter 17.18. The appeal shall be reviewed as a Type III hearing.
(Ord. 24-05, 6/5/2024)
A.
Type III actions involve development or uses which may be approved
or denied, thus requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment
when applying the development criteria contained in this title. Impacts
may be significant and the development issues complex. Extensive conditions
of approval may be imposed to mitigate impacts or ensure compliance
with this title and the comprehensive plan.
B.
The following are Type III actions:
1.
Those identified in this title as Type III;
2.
Those not identified or otherwise classified, which are determined
by the manager to be substantially similar to the uses or development
designated as Type III, require the exercise of significant discretion
or judgment, involve complex development issues, or which likely will
have significant impact. The determination may be challenged on appeal
of the decision on the proposed development but is not subject to
appeal on its own; and
3.
Quasi-judicial plan amendments.
C.
Type III actions shall be decided by the planning commission or design
review board after a public hearing, except that the city council
shall decide Type III actions for quasi-judicial plan amendments.
(Ord. 24-05, 6/5/2024)
A.
Type IV actions are legislative. They involve the creation, broad
scale implementation or revision of public policy. These include amendments
to the text of the comprehensive plan or this title. Large scale changes
in planning and development maps also may be characterized as legislative
where a larger number of property owners are directly affected.
B.
Type IV actions are made through adoption of city ordinances.
C.
Type IV actions shall be decided by the city after a public hearing.
The city council may also request that the planning commission hold
a public hearing in advance of the city council hearing to consider
the proposal, public testimony, and provide a recommendation.
(Ord. 24-05, 6/5/2024)
A.
The manager shall determine whether an application or decision is a Type I, II, or III action in accordance with the standards set forth above. Questions as to the appropriate procedure shall be resolved in favor of the type providing the greatest notice and opportunity to participate. The decision of the manager is subject to appeal on its own, or it may be alleged as an error in an appeal of the decision on the proposed development. Upon appeal of the decision on the merits of a development action not specifically classified in this title, the planning commission or city council may determine, based on the standards set forth in Section 17.14.020 through 17.14.040, that a different procedure type should have been used and direct that the proposed development action be processed accordingly.
B.
The determination as to whether a matter is subject to a Type IV procedure shall be made by the manager in accordance with the standards of this title. Concurrent actions involving legislative and non-legislative actions shall be separated for proper processing. The decision of the manager is not subject to appeal on its own but may be alleged as an error on appeal of the decision on the proposed development. Upon appeal of the final decision on the merits of the action, the planning commission or city council may determine, based on the standards set forth in Sections 17.14.020 through 17.14.050, that a different procedure type should have been used, and direct that the proposed development action be processed accordingly.
C.
An applicant may choose to have the proposal processed under a procedure
type (except Type IV), which provides greater notice and opportunity
to participate than would otherwise be required.
D.
At no additional cost to the applicant, the manager may choose to process a Type II application under the Type III procedure to provide greater notice and opportunity to participate than would otherwise be required, or in order to comply with the time requirements for reviewing development applications in Section 17.16.040.
(Ord. 24-05, 6/5/2024)
