Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting And Concurrency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anacortes staff propose clarifications to vesting, concurrency and permit-review costs in development-regulation update
Summary
Draft amendments would remove a confusing vesting sentence, require applicants to provide information and reimburse the city for consultant concurrency reviews, and adopt state language on transportation mitigation.
City planning staff told the Anacortes Planning Commission on Sept. 17 that draft amendments to Chapter 19 of the municipal code would clarify permit vesting, add applicant responsibilities for concurrency reviews and require applicants to reimburse the city when outside consultants are needed.
Why it matters: Vesting and concurrency rules determine which code provisions apply to proposed developments and whether the city may deny permits for impacts to transportation capacity. Clarifying these rules reduces uncertainty for applicants and helps the city recover review costs.
Staff said the only proposed change to the city’s vesting section is to strike a sentence that prompted confusion: language implying that site plans do not vest at time of application. "The standards that talk about which codes a project needs to follow, based on when it has a complete application ..." said Libby Grage, describing why the sentence caused uncertainty about which projects are governed by which rules.
On concurrency, staff added a requirement that an applicant must provide information the director deems necessary so the city can conduct a concurrency review — for example trip generation, water/wastewater demand or utility needs — and added that the cost of the review must be borne by the applicant, including reimbursement where consultant work is required. Commissioners asked whether reimbursement amounts should be capped; staff said the city typically provides an estimate but does not currently set a maximum.
Grage also said the draft includes the new state provision that prohibits denying a permit on the basis of transportation-level-of-service decline if impacts can be mitigated through active-transportation improvements such as sidewalks or bike lanes; the text mirrors the state statute to ensure compliance.
Commissioners and staff also discussed permit processing and a forthcoming consultant report on the city’s development-review procedures; staff told the commission the consultant’s findings will be presented to City Council and used to improve internal permitting workflows.
No final code votes were taken; the items remain subject to public comment and further commission review.
