Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation And Streets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews proposed street‑design code updates, active‑transportation network and exceptions
Summary
Planning staff and Transpo Group presented proposed edits to Anacortes Municipal Code Title 19 Division 5 to add an active transportation network, align street cross sections to functional classification and add limited flexibility where right‑of‑way constraints exist.
Planning staff and Transpo Group consultant Chris Como presented proposed amendments to development regulations (Anacortes Municipal Code, Title 19 Division 5) that govern public street standards, driveways and street frontage required when development occurs.
Why it matters: the regulation changes implement the transportation and active‑transportation policies in the comprehensive plan and affect how future development constructs or pays for sidewalk, bicycle facilities and related frontage. Como emphasized that the proposed changes incorporate the Growth Management Act’s multimodal level‑of‑service approach and an active transportation network that distinguishes primary and secondary segments.
Key changes summarized by Como: the code will reference an active transportation map and the functional classification map; it specifies cross sections for principal arterials and minor arterials (and lists those streets in code); it distinguishes primary and secondary segments of the active transportation network (primary segments generally require separated bicycle/pedestrian facilities; secondary segments may allow shared lane markings and parking on both sides); it adds flexibility language and an administrative path for the Public Works Director to apply professional judgment where right‑of‑way or other constraints prevent full implementation; and it updates references (for example, to the newest edition of the Trip Generation Manual and the city ADA transition plan).
Commissioner questions focused on practical tradeoffs: several commissioners signaled willingness to remove parking on one side of constrained commercial streets to gain space for bike lanes, and asked staff to re‑examine specific corridors. Commissioners also pressed staff to review J Avenue and an area of Jay Street near a school to ensure proposed classifications and cross sections do not inadvertently reduce child‑safety protections. Como agreed to review those segments and report back.
The draft code includes a set of tables that tie street classification to typical features (lane widths, parking, buffer widths, sidewalks or multi‑use paths). The draft also proposes an in‑lieu option and other ways to meet frontage requirements (for example, completing required frontage elsewhere if a low‑volume residential street resists curb and sidewalk construction). Commissioners asked staff to clarify the public‑interest tests and to avoid wording that could be read as allowing arbitrary neighborhood vetoes; staff agreed to refine language about how neighborhood preferences and public‑safety standards are balanced.
A few narrow administrative changes were added late in the packet: for example, staff proposed giving the Public Works Director authority to approve driveway curb openings wider than 30 feet in special circumstances, subject to review.
Next steps: the Planning Commission scheduled an Oct. 1 special meeting to continue development‑regulation review and tentatively set an Oct. 22 public hearing on the Division 5 amendments. Staff will return with revised language and targeted reviews of named streets and safety concerns.
