Commission debates housing action plan code changes: duplex lot sizes, Old Town rules, ADUs, minimum density and design standards

Anacortes Planning Commission members on Feb. 12 continued a detailed line-by-line review of draft municipal-code changes prompted by the 2023 Housing Action Plan (HAP) and City Council referrals. Commissioners discussed residential lot-size minimums for duplexes and small duplexes, whether Old Town zoning should match nearby zones, how accessory dwelling unit (ADU) state mandates intersect with local lot-size rules, minimum-density proposals for the R4 zone, and several design and definition clarifications.

Staff planning manager Libby Grama reminded the commission the HAP was adopted in 2023 and that city council’s planning committee selected a subset of strategies to forward to the planning commission for code-change recommendations. Grama said staff prepared draft code amendments (strike-through/underline version) and cross-referenced HAP strategy numbers to help commissioners track proposed edits.

Lot sizes and ‘‘small duplex’’ carve-outs: Commissioners discussed a recommended reduction in duplex minimum lot sizes. The packet showed an R2 duplex minimum of 9,000 sq ft in one table, while another zone-specific standard referenced 7,500 sq ft; staff explained the intention is to retain a larger-lot threshold for a regular duplex but to add an explicit “small duplex” category with a 6,000 sq ft minimum in Old Town (mirroring R3-style standards). Commissioners suggested inserting the adjective “small” where relevant (for example, in zone-specific standards) to avoid confusion between a regular duplex and a small duplex and agreed to the following working directions: keep the standard duplex lot-size row as shown, add a separate “small duplex” row set to 6,000 sq ft in Old Town, and set the additional lot size needed for each additional attached dwelling unit beyond a duplex to 1,500 sq ft for Old Town.

Old Town questions and design standards: Commissioners debated whether Old Town should continue to be treated differently from R2/R3 zones. Staff noted Old Town is subject to design/modulation standards adopted more than a decade ago and that parts of Old Town are platted on small historic lots (often ~3,000 sq ft). Commissioners asked staff to research and report back on (a) whether Old Town’s future land-use designation needs to change in the comprehensive plan if the commission recommends higher-density allowances there and (b) whether the planning committee had specific reasons for treating Old Town differently. Commissioners discussed that design standards (setbacks, modulation, height/setback trade-offs) address ‘‘look and feel’’ while lot and unit-size standards affect density and affordability.

Accessory dwelling units and state law: Commissioners noted new state ADU law since the HAP was adopted; staff said they are drafting ADU-specific code language and that ADUs raise questions about how lot-size and additional-unit tables interact with state-mandated allowances (including where local controls remain permitted). For some details — such as whether two ADUs are allowed on very small lots — staff said they will return with specific recommendations once the state thresholds and local options are integrated into the draft.

Minimum density in R4 and grandfathering concerns: Staff recommended a minimum density (a floor) for the R4 zone (the city’s highest residential density) — for example, a 15 dwelling-unit-per-acre floor was referenced in related materials — to encourage efficient land use near the central business district and support transit. Commissioners supported the concept but raised equity concerns for existing lot owners who bought property under current rules. Staff suggested standard vesting approaches (for example, permitting applicants who have a complete building-permit application prior to an ordinance’s effective date to continue under prior rules) and offered to return with proposed effective-date and vesting language.

Small-unit size and elevator/penthouse allowances: The commission considered raising a ‘‘small unit’’ cap from 600 square feet to 650 square feet to improve livability and allow modest additional storage. Commissioners also revisited a related elevator-penthouse technical issue: emerging elevator designs put mechanical equipment on top of the elevator cab, increasing the rooftop penthouse overrun. Commissioners debated allowing a modest rooftop-height allowance (staff discussed a 2-foot penthouse allowance) to accommodate that equipment. Some commissioners said even a small height increase could be controversial; others said the rooftop allowance is typically limited to the penthouse and is not the same as adding an additional full floor, and that the allowance could enable more small, lower-cost units. The commission asked staff to return with refined language and to clarify how the penthouse allowance would be applied.

Definitions and household/family language: The HAP recommended amendments to the municipal definition of “family.” Commissioners discussed replacing the code’s “family” definition with a clearer “household” definition to align with state law and reduce ambiguity. Staff noted state law already limits the city’s ability to regulate the number of unrelated people living together (except for building-code occupancy, short-term rentals, or health-and-safety rules). Commissioners requested staff bring back a draft that replaces “family” with a defined “household” term and clarifies accountability/point-of-contact expectations for nontraditional shared living arrangements and for licensed adult family homes (the transcript referenced RCW 71 2 7.01 as the cited statute text in the draft packet).

Townhouse applicability and design standards: Commissioners approved clarifying language to make certain multifamily design standards (for example, block-frontage standards and service-area screening requirements) explicitly apply to townhouse developments. Staff explained townhouses already have a dedicated design-standards section but that some block-frontage and service-area rules were being missed in practice; the draft will direct applicants to all applicable code sections.

Open space, roof decks and park adjacency: Commissioners reviewed proposed internal open-space rules. The draft ties open-space requirements to unit bedroom mix (e.g., per-unit square-foot minimums for studios/1-bed units). The HAP had suggested allowing a shared roof deck to satisfy up to 100% of internal open-space requirements; several commissioners preferred limiting roof-deck credit to 50%, citing accessibility concerns for some household types and the desirability of ground-level open space for families and children. The draft also includes a 33% usable-open-space reduction where developments are within 250 feet of an existing public park; commissioners accepted that as reasonable.

Parking-lot landscaping and service-area screening: Commissioners discussed reducing a Type C parking buffer from 10 feet to a narrower figure to reduce departures applicants frequently request because wide rights-of-way in Anacortes already provide space for planting between curb and property line. After discussion the commission suggested a compromise approach: allow a smaller on-site buffer in constrained locations while accounting for right-of-way planting and site context. Commissioners asked staff to return with revised language that permits contextual flexibility (examples discussed included a 7.5-foot baseline in some circumstances) and clarified how buffers are measured relative to sidewalks and alleys. On service-area screening (dumpster and rooftop mechanical screening), commissioners asked staff to revisit a proposed prohibition on certain materials and to reintroduce perforated metal as an allowable screening material with design guidance; staff said they would bring that back.

Next steps: Commissioners made no final code adoptions at the Feb. 12 meeting. Staff will return with refined draft code language that: (a) inserts “small duplex” into zone-specific standards and shows the 6,000-sq-ft small-duplex row for Old Town; (b) clarifies Old Town implications and whether comp-plan language needs amendment; (c) integrates state ADU requirements and advises on interactions with additional-unit lot-size rows; (d) provides proposed vesting/effective-date language for any R4 minimum-density rule; (e) proposes penthouse/elevator dimensions and small-unit sizing language; (f) replaces the “family” definition with a “household” term and accompanying accountability language; (g) tightens cross-references so townhouse design standards point to block-frontage and service-area requirements; and (h) returns with revised language on parking buffers and rooftop/perforated-metal screening. Staff and the commission scheduled these issues to continue at the next meeting and for future public hearings as part of the comprehensive-plan update process.