Chapter 18.255 ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES (EPF)

Essential public facilities shall be processed in accordance with the permit type as listed in DMMC § 18.52.010A and 18.52.010B or with a development agreement using the alternative process of DMMC § 18.255.100 and in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.

In accordance with DMMC § 18.240.160, the City Council may choose to delegate review of an essential public facility unclassified use permit to the Hearing Examiner.

§ 18.255.060 Affected agencies – Neighborhood meeting.

For unclassified use permits, in addition to the requirements for notice set forth in chapter 18.20 DMMC, notice shall be mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site.

(Ord. 1697 § 11(part), 2018)

The applicant shall conduct at least one neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed EPF development. The meeting shall be held at least 45 days before submitting the EPF notification to the City pursuant to DMMC § 18.255.070.

The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to:

(a)

Ensure that an applicant pursues early public participation in conjunction with and prior to the application, giving the applicant an opportunity to understand and mitigate any impacts that the proposed development might have;

(b)

Ensure that neighborhood residents, tribes, public service agencies and utility providers, federal, state and local governments, and business owners have an opportunity at an early stage to learn about how the proposed development might affect them and to work with the applicant to resolve concerns prior to submitting an application;

(c)

The applicant is responsible for notifying, facilitating and summarizing the neighborhood meeting pursuant to the following requirements:

(i)

Public notice for the neighborhood meeting shall include:

Date, start time, and location of the meeting;

Proposed development name;

Map showing the location of the proposed development and the location of the meeting;

(D)

Description of proposed development; and

(E)

Name, address and phone number of the applicant or representative of the applicant to contact for additional information.

(ii)

The notice must be provided to the City at least 21 days prior to the meeting and at least seven days prior to mailing the public notice. Notice shall be mailed at least 14 days prior to the neighborhood meeting and shall, at a minimum, be mailed to:

Each taxpayer of record and each known site address within one-half mile (1,000 feet) of any portion of the boundary of the property on which the EPF is proposed to be located and any contiguous property owned by the applicant;

Any city or town whose boundaries are within one mile of the property on which the EPF is proposed to be located and any contiguous property owned by the applicant; and

Any affected public service agencies and utility providers, federal, state and local governments, and school districts.

(iii)

The City, upon request, shall provide the applicant with necessary names and addresses or mailing labels. The applicant shall reimburse the City for any costs associated with this request consistent with City procedures.

(iv)

The neighborhood meeting shall be held at a location accessible to the public and within a reasonable distance from the boundary of the proposed development.

(v)

At a minimum the applicant shall provide at the neighborhood meeting:

Conceptual graphic presentation depicting the layout and design of the proposed development;

Size of the proposed development;

The proposed uses including the square footage;

(D)

Project narrative and description;

(E)

Site plan;

(F)

Potential expansion areas; and

(G)

Potential impacts and how those impacts will be addressed by the applicant.

(vi)

The applicant shall prepare a written summary of the neighborhood meeting to be included with the EPF notice required in DMMC § 18.255.070, including:

A copy of the notice of the neighborhood meeting along with a list of persons to whom it was mailed;

A signed affidavit listing the persons who attended the meeting and their addresses if provided; and

§ 18.255.070 Essential public facilities – Notification, determination of permit process, and appeal.

A signed affidavit providing a summary of concerns, issues, problems and mitigation expressed during the neighborhood meeting.

(Ord. 1697 § 11(part), 2018)

Any public or private entity proposing to site an EPF in the City shall provide written notification of its intent to site the EPF to the City Manager or the City Manager's designee at least 90 days prior to submittal of an application. Such notification shall include the following:

(a)

An EPF preapplication conference request and fee as listed in the City's fee schedule.

(b)

When the EPF is proposed to be processed through a development agreement, a request to utilize the alternative procedures of DMMC § 18.255.100, and a description of the completed and proposed public process.

(c)

A detailed description of the proposal including:

(i)

An explanation of the operations and the need for the proposed facility, why the facility is difficult to site and why it qualifies as an EPF;

(ii)

Documentation that affected jurisdictions and the public have been notified and given an opportunity to comment pursuant to chapter 18.20 DMMC or equivalent process;

(iii)

Proof of a published notice regarding the proposed EPF in the City's official newspaper describing the proposal and soliciting comments, together with any written comments received on the proposed EPF;

(iv)

An analysis of the facility siting criteria, including size, physical characteristics, support facilities, access, future expansion needs and analysis of alternative sites and a description of any applicable state or regional siting process;

(v)

A description of general environmental, traffic and social impacts and proposed mitigation measures;

(vi)

A description of community amenities proposed;

(vii)

The site's relationship to the projected service area and distribution of similar facilities within that service area;

(viii)

An analysis of the proposal's consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations, and an identification of any inconsistencies;

(ix)

A proposed site plan and vicinity map with current zoning designations; and

(x)

A written summary of the neighborhood meeting prepared in accordance with DMMC § 18.255.060(2)(c)(vi).

The City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall issue a determination as to whether the proposal is designated as an EPF consistent with the definition of EPFs pursuant to RCW 36.70A.200, WAC 365-196-550 and DMMC § 18.01.050 and a determination of the applicable permitting process. The City Manager or designee shall provide written notice of his or her determination within 90 days from the filing of the notice to the applicant and City Council and publish notice of the determination in the official newspaper of record.

§ 18.255.080 Decision criteria for siting and expansion of essential public facilities.

The City Manager's or the City Manager's designee's determination shall be appealable to the City Council by the applicant or by any affected person. Appeals shall be filed pursuant to chapter 18.20 DMMC. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the appeal within 30 days of the filing of the appeal. At the hearing, any interested person may provide oral or written comment on matters relevant to the appeal. The City Council shall issue a decision on the appeal within 14 days of the close of the hearing. The City Council's decision shall be a final decision subject to appeal under chapter 36.70C RCW.

(Ord. 1697 § 11(part), 2018)

The City's decision-maker may consider whether the proposal is consistent with the following factors:

The proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Des Moines Comprehensive Plan;

The project applicant has demonstrated a need for the project, as supported by an analysis of the projected service population, an inventory of existing and planned comparable facilities, and the projected demand for the type of facility proposed;

If applicable, the project would serve a significant share of the City's population, and the proposed site will reasonably serve the project's overall service population;

The applicant has reasonably investigated alternative sites, as evidenced by a detailed explanation of site selection methodology;

(5)

The project is consistent with the applicant's own long-range plans for facilities and operations;

(6)

The project will not result in a disproportionate burden on a geographic area;

(7)

The project proposes public amenities that benefit the surrounding community;

(8)

The applicant has provided an opportunity for public participation in the siting decision and development of mitigation measures that is appropriate considering the project's scope, applicable requirements of this code, and state or federal law;

(9)

The project site meets the facility's minimum physical site requirements, including projected expansion needs. Site requirements shall be determined by the minimum size of the facility, setbacks, access, support facilities, topography, geology, and on-site mitigation;

(10)

The proposal, as conditioned, adequately mitigates adverse impacts to life, limb, property, the environment, public health and safety, transportation systems, economic development and other identified impacts;

(11)

The proposal incorporates specific features to ensure it responds appropriately to the existing or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding property;

(12)

The applicant has proposed mitigation measures that aid displaced or impacted businesses including assistance in relocating within the City;

(13)

The facility satisfies the provisions of this Title for development within the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located, except as provided in this chapter;

(14)

The proposal incorporates the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED); and

(15)

Whether the essential public facility and its location have been evaluated through a valid state or regional siting process. In the case of an EPF sited through a state or regional siting process, the City shall accept the valid siting determination with respect to any such facility.

(Ord. 1697 § 11(part), 2018)

§ 18.255.090 Conditions.

In issuing an approval or permit under this chapter, the City's decision-maker may impose such reasonable conditions as necessary to ensure that a proposed essential public facility satisfies, to the extent practicable, the applicable criteria therefor and does not unreasonably impact the public health, safety, environment and welfare.

Reasonable conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a)

Increase requirements in the standards, criteria, or policies established by this Title;

(b)

Limit the manner in which the proposed use is conducted, including restricting the time during which an activity may take place, and restraints to minimize such environmental effects as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare and odor;

(c)

Stipulate the exact location of an EPF as a means of minimizing hazards to life or limb, property damage, impacts to the environment, erosion, underground collapse, landslides, and transportation systems;

(d)

Impose reasonable conditions necessary to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impacts identified resulting from the project;

(e)

Require the posting of construction and maintenance bonds or other security as provided in chapter 14.20 DMMC sufficient to secure to the City the estimated cost of construction, installation and maintenance of required improvements;

(f)

Require a special yard or other open space or lot area or dimension;

(g)

Limit the height, size or location of a building or other structure;

(h)

Designate the size, number, location or nature of vehicle access points;

(i)

Designate the amount of street dedication, roadway width or improvements within the street right-of-way;

(j)

Designate the size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing or other improvement of parking or vehicle loading areas;

(k)

Limit or otherwise designate the number, size, location, and height of lighting of signs;

(l)

Limit the location and intensity of outdoor lighting, and/or requiring shielding thereof;

(m)

Require screening, landscaping or another facility to protect adjacent or nearby property, and designate standards for the installation or maintenance of such facility;

(n)

Designate the size, height, location or constituent materials for on-site fencing;

(o)

Protect existing trees, vegetation, water resources, wildlife habitat or other significant natural resources;

(p)

Require provisions for public access, both physical and visual, to natural, scenic and recreational resources;

(q)

Require provisions for stormwater drainage, including designating the size, location, screening, or other improvements of detention ponds and related facilities;

(r)

Impose special conditions on the proposed use to reasonably ensure its conformance with the surrounding neighborhood and the intent and purpose of the underlying zoning district;

(s)

Require provisions of public amenities that benefit the surrounding community;

(t)

Require building and site design changes to increase compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood;

(u)

Require that necessary infrastructure is or will be made available to ensure safe transportation access and transportation concurrency;

(v)

Require that necessary infrastructure is or will be made available to ensure that public safety responders have sufficient capacity to handle increased calls or expenses that will occur as the result of the facility;

(w)

Require that all capital costs associated with on-site and off-site improvements necessitated by the facility are borne by the project sponsor to the extent legally permissible;

(x)

Require that the facility not unreasonably increase noise levels in residential areas, especially at night;

(y)

Require visual screening be provided that will mitigate the visual impacts from streets and adjoining properties while using the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED);

(z)

Require that probable significant adverse environmental impacts, including but not limited to impacts to wetlands, shorelines and wildlife habitat, are adequately mitigated; and

(aa)

Require conditions to assure that any other applicable criteria set forth in this Title are satisfied.

In the event that an EPF sited through a state or regional siting process cannot, by the imposition of reasonable conditions of approval, satisfy the criteria set forth in this section, the City shall approve the siting or expansion of the facility with such reasonable conditions of approval as may mitigate such impacts to the maximum extent practicable.

§ 18.255.100 Alternative process – Development agreement.

The list of conditions enumerated in subsections (1) and (2) of this section is nonexclusive. Nothing in this chapter is intended to diminish or otherwise abridge the City's authority to require mitigation measures or impose conditions pursuant to any other applicable requirement, including but not limited to the SEPA regulations codified in chapter 16.05 DMMC.

(Ord. 1697 § 11(part), 2018)

A conditional use permit (CUP) or unclassified use permit (UUP) shall not be required for an essential public facility as set forth in DMMC § 18.255.050 if an applicant and the City agree to process the EPF with a development agreement, and the applicant demonstrates the following:

The public has been notified and given an opportunity to comment in a process as rigorous as that required by chapter 18.20 DMMC and this chapter;

Proof of a published notice(s) regarding the proposed EPF in the City's official newspaper or equivalent media describing the proposal and soliciting comments, together with any written comments received on the proposed EPF;

Proof that the applicant has had at least one neighborhood meeting consistent with the requirements of DMMC § 18.255.060 to discuss the proposed EPF;

§ 18.255.110 Independent consultant review and environmental review.

(5)

A description of general environmental, traffic and social impacts and proposed mitigation measures;

(6)

The site's relationship to the projected service area and distribution of similar facilities within that service area;

(7)

An analysis of the proposal's consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations, and an identification of any inconsistencies; and

(8)

A proposed site plan and vicinity map with current zoning designations.

An exemption from the CUP or UUP process shall not be deemed to exempt the EPF from any other applicable city, state and/or federal regulations.

The development agreement shall contain such reasonable conditions as necessary to ensure the proposed essential public facility satisfies, to the extent practicable, the permit criteria therefor and does not unreasonably impact the public health, safety, environment and welfare as enumerated in DMMC § 18.255.080 through § 18.255.110.

The City Council shall hold a public hearing prior to approval of the development agreement. At the hearing, any interested person may provide oral or written comment on matters relevant to the agreement. The City Council's decision shall be a final decision subject to appeal under chapter 36.70C RCW.

(Ord. 1697 § 11(part), 2018)

The City may require independent consultant review of an EPF proposal to assess its compliance with applicable regulations and the requirements of this chapter.

If independent consultant review is required, the applicant shall bear and secure all consultant and City costs incurred in the preparation of studies or review as determined by the City. The applicant shall make a deposit with the City sufficient to defray the cost of such review. The applicant shall pay all costs prior to issuance of permits. Unexpended funds will be returned to the applicant following the final decision on the application.

The applicant may, at its expense and to the extent determined by the City, provide additional studies or other information.

§ 18.255.130 Building permit application.

Any applicant applying for an EPF shall pay the cost of environmental review and studies necessary under SEPA, pursuant to chapter 16.05 DMMC.

(Ord. 1697 § 11(part), 2018)

§ 18.255.120 Decision timing.

The review, reconsideration and appeal process set forth in this chapter shall not be used to preclude an EPF. The City's decision-maker shall render a final, appealable decision with respect to an EPF within 240 days of the City's notice of completion regarding the permit application.

(Ord. 1697 § 11(part), 2018)

Any building permit issued for an EPF approved under this chapter shall be consistent with all conditions of approval of the conditional use permit, unclassified use permit or development agreement, and other city requirements.

In the event a building permit for an EPF is denied because the building permit application does not comply with construction codes, the City shall submit in writing the reasons for denial to the project applicant.

No building or construction permits may be applied for prior to a conditional use permit, unclassified use permit, or development agreement approval for an EPF unless the applicant signs a written release acknowledging that such approval is neither guaranteed nor implied by the City's acceptance of the building or construction permit applications.