Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Streamlining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anacortes planning commission studies permit‑streamlining code amendments
Summary
Planning staff presented a draft package of Title 19 changes to implement the mayors April 2026 executive order, including advance site-plan review, a new site construction permit for engineering review, administrative exceptions allowing small reductions to numeric standards, and an exemption for fence permits up to 7 feet; the session was study-only and no ordinance was adopted.
The Anacortes Planning Commission held a study session July 14 to review draft amendments to Title 19 of the Anacortes Municipal Code intended to streamline the citys permit review process.
Planning Manager Libby Grama told commissioners the package implements Executive Order 2026-02, issued in April 2026, and is intended to make the citys permit process “efficient, predictable, and easy to understand,” while continuing to implement adopted policies and regulations. “These proposed code amendments are intended to implement the mayor's executive order,” she said.
Key proposals include allowing a site plan to be submitted and approved in advance of building-permit applications so land-use, site design and environmental issues are resolved before applicants spend money on engineered construction plans; creation of a new site-construction-permit chapter to house civil and engineering review (stormwater, utilities, roads) for projects with shared infrastructure; and a new building-permit chapter clarifying how building permits relate to land-use and construction permits.
Staff said an approved site plan would act as a preliminary approval that governs subsequent construction and building permits so long as later submittals remain consistent. Grama compared the proposed site-plan approval to preliminary land-division approval and said it would retain flexibility for limited modifications during final engineering. “An approved site plan governs subsequent review of site construction and building permits implementing the approved development until it expires, is modified, or revoked,” she said.
The draft would also add a chapter on administrative flexibility (proposed chapter 19.21). That provision would combine existing departures with a new administrative-exception process that allows modest reductions in objective numeric standards (for example, setbacks or minimum landscaped area) when strict criteria are met and when such reductions still advance the codes purpose. Commissioners debated whether the draft should set a single maximum (the staff draft shows a 5–10% range) and emphasized that exceptions must be limited and documented in the project record.
Grama described a separate change to remove city fence permits for fences up to 7 feet by adopting the state building-code exemption into the municipal code, while keeping code limits on height, setbacks and visibility triangles enforceable. “This proposal would add that exemption into our code,” she said. Staff said a handout and web guidance would explain remaining fence rules so residents do not rely on permits for compliance.
Staff also explained consolidated-review options required by state lawone notice, one staff report and one decision for projects needing multiple project permitsand cautioned that submitting land-use and building permits concurrently can affect statutory review clocks. If land-use review requires changes that affect construction-permit submittals, staff may not be able to meet the standard turnaround times for building permits.
On permit terms and monitoring, the draft would generally give applicants two years after project-permit approval to obtain a building or site-construction permit; monitoring requirements for mitigation (for example, shoreline plantings) were described as commonly requiring reports for up to five years. Staff said noncompliance would remain subject to code enforcement.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions about applicability to single-family projects versus larger developments, when director-level decisions could be used, and whether limited waivers of professional-engineer submittal requirements might be appropriate for small standardized projects. Grama said staff will update submittal checklists if the amendments proceed and will include clear documentation requirements for any administrative exceptions.
No formal action was taken; staff will revise the draft based on tonights feedback, publish a revised draft for public written comment, and schedule a public hearing before the planning commission. Grama said the item will return for further commission review Aug. 11, and that a public hearing is tentatively set for Sept. 15, after which the commission may forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Votes and motions at the start of the meeting were limited to procedural matters: the commission voted to excuse Commissioner Sage for a family vacation and unanimously approved the minutes of June 9, 2026.
The commissions study-session discussion focused on clarifying the scope and guardrails of administrative exceptions, the relationship between site-plan approvals and subsequent construction permits, and how concurrent submittals affect statutory review timelines. Staff will incorporate the commissions comments into a revised draft for public review and a scheduled public hearing this fall.
