The Anacortes Planning Commission on Aug. 13 reviewed the city’s draft 2025–2045 comprehensive plan update and heard staff identify several proposed future‑land‑use map changes — including a request to re‑designate the parcel containing the Olson Building and a separate proposal to change the Anacortes Museum parcel to a public designation — ahead of a public hearing scheduled for Aug. 27 and a written comment deadline of Aug. 28.

“The comp plan is a required portion of the Growth Management Act…we're planning for 20 years’ worth of projected population growth,” said John Coleman, director of Planning, Community and Economic Development, explaining the purpose of the update and why the city is preparing policy and regulatory changes for a 20‑year horizon.

The draft comprises two volumes: Volume 1 (goals and policies) and Volume 2 (background data and analyses). Libby Grange, planning manager, told commissioners the update integrates new state housing and climate legislation, updates background demographic and facilities inventories, adds a new climate element that did not exist in the 2016 plan, and will be followed by proposed development‑regulation amendments.

Why it matters: The comprehensive plan guides land use, housing, utilities, transportation and capital facility decisions for two decades and is the local implementation tool for state Growth Management Act requirements. Grange said staff has conducted extensive outreach — including three open houses, attendance at community events, a mailer sent to about 12,000 addresses and an email project list — and had received more than 145 separate comment letters and emails to date.

Key map and use changes discussed
- Olson Building parcel: Staff proposed changing the parcel’s designation from Manufacturing & Shipping to Central Business District (CBD). Grange said the change would align the map with the building’s existing and proposed uses — “retail on the bottom and residential on top” — and make those uses permitted rather than conditional. She noted form and intensity standards differ between zones: “In the manufacturing and shipping zone, there's a 10‑foot setback requirement…in the central business district there is a 0‑foot setback from the property line if you have commercial storefront type uses on the ground floor,” Grange said. Commissioners discussed the reduction in permitting time and cost a move would allow; staff said conditional‑use processes add fees, public‑notice costs and uncertainty that can increase development expense.

- Anacortes Museum parcel (Eighth and M): The museum site is city‑owned and currently designated Old Town; staff proposed changing it to a Public designation so the museum would be a conforming use and could pursue expansion. Grange said some public‑zone standards are more flexible for public facilities and that minimum setback requirements in the Public zone are “no minimum” in some cases, subject to block frontage and other standards in the municipal code.

Regulatory and policy updates
Staff summarized element‑level changes carried into the draft: updates to land use and the future land‑use map, housing element changes to reflect recent state housing legislation, an added climate element with supporting greenhouse‑gas inventories and a climate vulnerability and risk assessment, transportation and active‑transportation level‑of‑service updates, parks/open‑space mapping updates, and updated capital facilities inventories and 20‑year capital plans for utilities. Grange said the draft also consolidates overlapping policies and clarifies implementation language so that policies can be enforced through development regulations.

Housing authority and ownership notes
Commissioners asked about the Olson Building owner. Coleman explained the parcel is owned by the local housing authority and described the entity as separate from the city: “They are not part of the city…they are a quasi‑governmental organization,” Coleman said, noting that the mayor appoints the authority’s board but the authority does not receive general‑fund support from the city.

Process, schedule and next steps
Grange outlined the two‑phase public process. Phase 1 (information gathering and preliminary policy revisions) is complete. Phase 2, now under way, is the release of the compiled draft and the development‑regulation amendments that will follow. Key upcoming dates staff cited: Aug. 27 — public hearing (staff intends to open and keep the hearing open to continue receiving comments); written comments due Aug. 28; subsequent deliberations and potential recommendations to city council anticipated in September and October, with staff noting some dates may be adjusted and special meetings may be needed. Commissioners asked staff to return with additional details on form‑and‑intensity standards and setback comparisons prior to the hearing and recommendation stages.

Urban growth area update
Coleman told the commission that Skagit County recently adopted its comprehensive plan and related regulations, and that action officially expanded the Anacortes urban growth area to include city‑owned lands in the Anacortes Community Forest Lands (ACFL): “The ACFL has been added to the urban growth area,” he said. Coleman added the city may pursue annexation of those lands in the future.

Staff materials and public participation
The draft plan and supplemental documents (maps, appendices, land capacity analysis, greenhouse gas inventory, climate vulnerability and risk assessment, and a racially disparate impacts analysis) were posted at planacortes.org. Grange said the draft shows deletions as strikethrough and additions as underlined for ease of review. Staff will compile a comment summary table responding to public input and will bring additional detail on specific map changes, setbacks and development standards to future meetings.

What commissioners said
Commissioners thanked staff for the volume of work and asked for clarifying detail on specific code provisions prior to making formal recommendations. Several commissioners identified scheduling conflicts in late September and early October; staff said they would circulate dates and attempt to accommodate the commission while meeting statutory review timelines.

What’s next: The Planning Commission’s Aug. 27 public hearing on the draft is already advertised; staff recommended holding the hearing open to accept further comments and to return with refined development‑regulation amendments and supporting analyses before final deliberations and a recommendation to the City Council.