The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that public facilities and services necessary to support development are adequate or will be provided in a timely manner consistent with the public facilities and services planning goal of the Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 by:
A. 
Specifying the on-site and off-site facilities and services that must be in place or otherwise assured of timely provision prior to development;
B. 
Allocating the cost of those facilities and services fairly; and
C. 
Providing a general framework for relating development standards and other requirements of this code to:
1. 
Adopted service level standards for public facilities and services,
2. 
Procedural requirements for phasing development projects to ensure that services are provided as development occurs, and
3. 
The review of development permit applications.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994)
A. 
All new development proposals including any use, activity, or structure allowed by Chapter 18.08 NMC that requires the city approval shall be adequately served by the following facilities and services prior to the time of occupancy, plat recording, or other land use approval, as further specified in this chapter:
1. 
Sewage disposal;
2. 
Water supply;
3. 
Surface water management;
4. 
Roads and access;
5. 
Fire protection service; and
6. 
Schools.
B. 
Regardless of the number of sequential permits required, the provisions of this chapter shall be applied only once to any single development proposal. If changes and modifications result in impacts not considered when the proposal was first approved, the city shall consider the revised proposal as a new development proposal.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994)
A. 
For all new development that is required to be served by a public sewer system, the public sewer system is adequate if:
1. 
The sewer system is consistent with the Coal Creek Utility District Comprehensive Sewer Plan and any subsequent amendments; and
2. 
A certificate of sewer availability has been issued by the Coal Creek Utility District; and
3. 
Prior to final plat approval or recording of a binding site plan, the approved public sewer system set forth in subsection (A)(1) of this section shall be installed to serve each lot in accordance with a developer extension agreement signed with the Coal Creek Utility District and verification of such agreement provided to the city.
B. 
A private individual sewage system is adequate for a lot applying only for a building permit if the on-site sewage disposal system is installed to meet the requirements and standards of the county department of public health as to lot size, soils, and system design prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a building or change of use permit.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994; Ord. 2001-241 § 7)
A. 
For all new development that is required to be served by a public water system, the public water system is adequate if:
1. 
The existing water supply system complies with the applicable planning, operating and design requirements of the Water System Plan of the Coal Creek Utility District; and
2. 
A certificate of water availability has been issued by the Coal Creek Utility District; and
3. 
Prior to final plat approval or recording of a binding site plan, the approved public water system authorized pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section shall be installed to serve each lot in accordance with a developer extension agreement signed with the Coal Creek Utility District and provided to the city.
B. 
A private on-site, individual water system is adequate for a lot applying only for a building permit if the county department of public health has approved the proposed method of water supply in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994; Ord. 2001-241 § 8)
All new development shall be served by an adequate surface water management system as follows:
A. 
The proposed system is adequate if the development proposal site is served by a surface water management system approved by the department as being consistent with the design, operating and procedural requirements of the King County surface water design manual and the city;
B. 
For a subdivision or zone reclassification, the phased installation of required surface water management improvements shall be stated in the approving ordinance. Such phasing may require that a bond or similar security be deposited with the city of Newcastle; and
C. 
A surface water management design requiring one or more zoning variances pertaining to building height, setback, landscaping or other development standard set forth in Chapters 18.12 through 18.38 NMC shall be reviewed under the process set forth in NMC Title 19 and under the decision criteria set forth in Chapter 18.44 NMC. Surface water management proposals that necessitate adjustments to the King County surface water design manual are regulated under NMC § 13.10.070.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994; Ord. 97-153 § 32; Ord. 2023-656 § 10)
A. 
All new development shall be served by adequate roads. Roads are adequate if the development's traffic impacts on surrounding public roads are acceptable under the level of service standards as stated in NMC § 18.28.070 and the compliance procedures established in NMC § 18.28.080 and § 18.28.090.
B. 
The renewal of permits or the issuance of a new permit for existing uses constitutes a new development proposal only if it will generate additional traffic above that currently generated by the use.
C. 
A variance request from the road cross-section or construction standards established by the city code shall be reviewed as set forth in NMC Title 19, Administrative Procedures, and does not require a variance from this title unless relief is requested from a building height, setback, landscaping or other development standard set forth in Chapters 18.12 through 18.38 NMC.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994; Ord. 97-153 § 33)
The road adequacy standards as stated in NMC § 18.28.070 shall apply to all public city, county, or state roads, other than freeways; provided, that:
A. 
No improvements to state roads shall be required unless the state requests such improvements and there is an agreement between the state, city and applicant;
B. 
No improvements to county roads shall be required unless the county requests such improvements and an interlocal agreement is adopted by county and city ordinances. An application of different standards than set forth in NMC § 18.28.070 may be allowed within the city limits or the city's planning area, outside the city, through an interlocal agreement if such standards are agreed upon through an interlocal agreement and have been adopted as an official control by city and county ordinance; and
C. 
The standard established in NMC § 18.28.070 shall be applied to a project unless a different standard as provided in subsection (B) of this section has been adopted prior to the project date, or in the case of plats, it has been adopted prior to the preliminary plat approval date.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994; Ord. 2005-311 § 1)
A. 
A development proposal which will have a direct traffic impact on a roadway or intersection which results in a calculated LOS not meeting the required standard shall not be approved unless:
1. 
The nonproject LOS is D (LOS C outside the CBC overlay) or better and the applicant agrees to fund improvements needed to attain LOS D (LOS C outside the CBC overlay) or better;
2. 
The nonproject LOS is E or F (LOS D or E outside the CBC overlay) and the applicant agrees to fund improvements to LOS E (LOS D or E outside the CBC overlay) or better;
3. 
The applicant achieves the required minimum LOS E by phasing the project or using transportation demand management (TDM) techniques to reduce the number of peak hour trips generated by the project;
4. 
The city has established a date for final approval of subdivisions to become effective corresponding with the anticipated date of award of a construction contract for city, county, or state improvements needed to provide LOS D or better, or when the calculated nonproject LOS does not meet the required minimum LOS, to provide the required minimum LOS or better; provided such effective approval date may be established only when the anticipated date of award of construction contract is within 12 months of final approval; or
5. 
The roadway or intersection has already been improved to its ultimate roadway section and the applicant agrees to use TDM incentives and/or phase the development proposal as determined by the city.
B. 
Developments proposed which will have a direct impact on city traffic facilities or designated areas pursuant to NMC § 18.28.080 may attain the LOS specified in the adopted interlocal agreements rather than meeting NMC § 18.28.070.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994; Ord. 2005-311 § 1)
The conditions set forth in NMC § 18.28.070 shall be considered fulfilled for all developments proposed, except building permits, if the following conditions are met:
A. 
Intersection improvements need only attain the required LOS in NMC § 18.28.070;
B. 
A construction contract is scheduled to be awarded within 12 months; and
C. 
Complete funding for the necessary improvements is assured by the city, county, state, developer, or any combination thereof.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994; Ord. 2005-311 § 1)
A. 
Exceptions from the standards of NMC § 18.28.060 through § 18.28.070 may be granted only when extraordinary circumstances make compliance with the standards infeasible or when a traffic impact fee is proposed.
B. 
For those developments proposed where the hearing examiner makes a recommendation to the city council, the record must reflect the basis for the exception, and the approving ordinance must grant the exception in order for it to be effective. The ordinance approving the proposal shall be determinative and conclusive as to the proposal's compliance with this chapter.
C. 
For developments proposed for which the hearing examiner decision is final, the decision of the hearing examiner shall be determinative and conclusive as to the proposal's compliance with this chapter.
D. 
For permits which are administrative and ministerial for which no appeal is normally available, the issue of the application of the standards in this chapter to a development proposed may be appealed to the hearing examiner for a final decision pursuant to NMC Title 19, Administrative Procedures.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994; Ord. 97-153 § 34)
All new development shall be served by adequate vehicular access as follows:
A. 
The property upon which the development proposed is to be located has direct access to:
1. 
A public or private street, other than a half-street, that meets city street standards or is formally declared acceptable by the city; or
2. 
The property has access to such a street over a private driveway approved by the city.
B. 
The proposed circulation system of a proposed development shall intersect with existing and anticipated streets abutting the site at safe and convenient locations, as determined by the city.
C. 
Every lot upon which one or more buildings is proposed to be erected or traffic generating use is proposed to be established, shall establish safe access as follows:
1. 
Safe passage from the street right-of-way to building entrances for transit patrons and other pedestrians, in accordance with the design standards set forth in Chapter 18.18 NMC;
2. 
Direct access from the street right-of-way, fire lane or a parking space to any part of the property as needed to provide public services in accordance with adopted standards (e.g., fire protection, emergency medical service, mail delivery or trash collection); and
3. 
Direct access from the street right-of-way, driveway, alley or other means of ingress/egress approved by the city of Newcastle, to all required off-street parking spaces on the premises.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994; Ord. 2001-248 § 43)
All new development shall be served by adequate fire protection as set forth below:
A. 
The site of the development proposed is served by a water supply system that provides at least minimum fire flow and a road system or fire lane system that provides life safety/rescue access, and other fire protection requirements for buildings as required by the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code as adopted by the city;
B. 
For a zone reclassification, the timing of installation of required fire protection improvements shall be stated in the approving ordinance, secured with a bond or similar security, and deposited with the city of Newcastle; and
C. 
A variance request from the requirements established by the Uniform Fire Code shall be reviewed and does not require a variance from this title unless relief is requested from a building height, setback, landscaping or other development standard set forth in Chapters 18.12 through 18.34 NMC.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994)
A. 
The concurrence standard set out in NMC § 18.28.160 shall apply to applications for preliminary plat which would result in the creation of new residential building lots or mobile home parks or the construction of new dwelling units, requests for multifamily zoning, and building permits for multifamily housing projects which have not been previously evaluated for compliance with the concurrence standard.
B. 
The city's finding of concurrence shall be made at the time of preliminary plat approval, at the time that a request to actualize potential multifamily zoning is approved, or prior to building permit issuance for multifamily housing projects which have not been previously established for compliance with the concurrence standard. Once such a finding has been made, the development shall be considered as vested for purposes of the concurrence determination.
C. 
Excluded from the application of the concurrence standard are building permits for individual single-family dwellings, any form of housing exclusively for the elderly, including nursing homes and retirement centers. Also excluded from the application of the concurrence standard are shelters for temporary placement, relocation facilities and transitional housing facilities. Replacement reconstruction or remodeling of existing dwelling units is not subject to the provisions of this chapter.
D. 
Also excluded from the application of the concurrence standard set out in this chapter are short subdivisions.
E. 
All of the development activities which are excluded from the application of the concurrence standard are subject to school impact fees; if the city has adopted a school impact ordinance.
F. 
The assessment and payment of impact fees are governed by and shall be subject to any city ordinance addressing school impact fees.
G. 
A certification of concurrence for a school district shall not preclude the city from collecting impact fees for the district. Impact fees may be assessed and collected as long as the fees are used to fund capital and system improvements needed to serve the new development, and as long as the use of such fees is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 82.02 RCW and this chapter. Pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, impact fees may also be used to recoup capital and system improvement costs previously incurred by a school district to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or incurred costs.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994)
A. 
The director and/or the hearing examiner, in the course of reviewing proposals for residential development including applications for plats or multifamily zoning, and multifamily building permits, shall consider any facilities element of the city's capital facilities plan as adopted by the city council.
B. 
A school district may present testimony and submit documents demonstrating a lack of concurrence in the district and the inability of the district to accommodate the students to be generated by a specific development.
C. 
Based upon a finding that the impacts generated by the plat or the multifamily development were generally not anticipated at the time of the last city council review and approval of a school facilities element of the city's capital plan and were not included in long-range forecast, the director may require or recommend phasing or provision of the needed facilities and/or sites as appropriate to address the deficiency or deny or condition approval, consistent with the provisions of this chapter, the State Subdivision Act, and the State Environmental Policy Act.
D. 
Determinations of the hearing examiner or director regarding concurrence can be appealed only pursuant to the provisions for appeal of the development permit process for which the determination has been made. Where no other administrative appeal process is available, an appeal may be taken to the hearing examiner using the appeal procedures for variances. Any errors in the formula identified as a result of an appeal should be referred to the city council for possible modifications.
E. 
If the city council has not adopted a school impact fee ordinance, the language of this section shall not affect the authority or duties of the hearing examiner or the director pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act or the State Subdivision Act.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994; Ord. 97-153 § 39)
A. 
Schools shall be considered to have been provided concurrently with the development which will impact the schools if:
1. 
The permanent and interim school improvements necessary to serve the development are planned to be in place at the time the impacts of development are expected to occur; or
2. 
The necessary financial commitments are in place to assure the completion of the needed improvements to meet the district's standard of service within three years of the time that the impacts of development are expected to occur. Necessary improvements are those facilities identified in the schools facilities element of the city's capital facilities plan.
B. 
Any combination of the following shall constitute the "necessary financial commitments" for the purposes of subsection (A) of this section.
1. 
The appropriate school district has received voter approval of and/or has bonding authority;
2. 
The appropriate school district has received approval for federal, state, or other funds;
3. 
The appropriate school district has received a secured commitment from a developer that the developer will construct the needed permanent school facility, and the school district has found such facility to be acceptable and consistent with its capital facilities plan; and/or
4. 
The appropriate school district has other assured funding, including but not limited to school impact fees which have been paid.
C. 
Compliance with this concurrence requirement of this section shall be sufficient to satisfy the provisions of RCW 58.17.060 and 58.17.110.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994)
A. 
During the interim period prior to the school capacity technical review committee completing its review of a district's plans and the city incorporating the plan into the city's comprehensive plan, the district shall submit the following materials to the hearing examiner and director:
1. 
A copy of the inventory of permanent school facilities prepared by the superintendent of public instruction which identifies the number of classrooms at each of the schools by grade span and by type of student;
2. 
Documentation of the number of other classrooms available in the district which the district believes will best serve its student population; and
3. 
Based on the information in subsections (1) and (2), a resolution of the school board adopting an interim estimate of the district's overall capacity over the next six years, which shall be a function of the district's standard of service, by the number of students which can be housed in district facilities.
B. 
Until such time as the committee is able to conduct the review required by Section 18.61.065, the hearing examiner and the director shall be guided by the interim capacity submitted by the district and adopted by the school board in making finds of concurrence.
C. 
In the event that the hearing examiner or the director finds that the district's interim capacity is unreasonable based on the standards identified in 21A.61.065, the hearing examiner or the director shall request the city council to review the interim capacity consistent with the requirements of 21A.61.070 or Title 20.
D. 
Determinations of the hearing examiner or director may be appealed to the city council pursuant to the provisions for appeal of the underlying permit process.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994; Ord. 97-153 § 39)
Whenever a development is granted approval subject to a condition that the development proponent actually provide a school facility acceptable to the city or the school district, the development proponent shall be entitled to a credit for the actual cost of providing the facility, against any fee that would be chargeable under a school impact fee formula provided by city ordinance. The cost of construction shall be estimated at the time of approval, but must be documented and the documentation confirmed after the construction is completed to assure that an accurate credit amount is provided. If construction costs are less than any calculated fee amount, the difference remaining shall be chargeable as a school impact fee.
(Ord. 18 § 1, 1994; Ord. 45 § 1, 1994)