Commission weighs broad Housing Action Plan code changes — duplexes, Old Town, ADUs, density and design standards

The Anacortes Planning Commission spent much of its Feb. 12 meeting reviewing draft code amendments intended to implement the 2023 Housing Action Plan (HAP) as part of the city’s 2025 Comprehensive Plan update. Staff presented draft ordinance language and commissioners worked through a series of topic-specific recommendations, from duplex lot sizes to how the code should define a household.

Nut graf: The commission’s decisions on lot sizes, density minimums, accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules and design standards will shape the city’s ability to add housing, influence neighborhood form — especially Old Town — and determine whether the changes will be prospective or apply to existing lots and permits.

What staff presented and key outcomes

• Scope and process: Planning Manager Libby Graige reminded commissioners that the HAP was adopted by city council in 2023 and that council’s planning committee forwarded prioritized HAP strategies to the commission for detailed review. Graige said staff prepared redline/strikeout drafts of municipal code sections showing proposed HAP implementations and flagged items that are mandatory because of state law.

• Duplex and small‑duplex lot sizes; Old Town: Commissioners examined a matrix of proposed minimum lot sizes. For R‑2 the code draft differentiates a standard duplex (9,000 sq ft minimum) from a “small duplex” allowed on smaller lots when individual unit sizes are limited. Commissioners recommended clarifying the text to insert the word “small” in the zone‑specific standard and adopt a 6,000 sq ft minimum for small duplexes in Old Town, with an additional 1,500 sq ft required for each attached dwelling unit beyond a duplex in Old Town. Commissioners and staff noted this change likely requires checking the Comprehensive Plan future‑land‑use language for consistency.

• Old Town special standards and design: Several commissioners pushed for treating Old Town in parity with nearby R‑2A or R‑3 standards for lot sizes while preserving Old Town’s separate design standards (modulation, height setbacks, facade treatment). Commissioners asked staff to seek planning committee guidance about why Old Town has been treated differently in past regulations and noted some HAP recommendations that would alter Old Town were not forwarded for this round because of potential controversy.

• Minimum density in R‑4: Staff recommended (and commissioners provisionally supported) adding a minimum density floor in the R‑4 zone — a higher‑density residential zone adjacent to Commercial Avenue and the Central Business District — so lots over 6,000 sq ft are expected to yield at least 15 dwelling units per net acre (staff to confirm final unit/acre metric in draft code). Commissioners asked that the minimum density apply prospectively (to creation of new lots) rather than retroactively to existing, pre‑entitlement lots; staff suggested using vesting (complete permit application) or an effective date pause to address fairness for property owners with active plans.

• Accessory dwelling units (ADUs): Commissioners noted recent state law changes require cities to allow ADUs in many situations and to remove some local barriers. Graige said staff are still drafting recommended zoning language in response to the new law and would return with detailed ADU amendments; commissioners flagged potential interactions between ADU rules and the proposed “additional attached dwelling unit” sizing rules in the matrix.

• Small unit size/height bonus and elevator penthouses: The HAP drafts include an incentive allowing additional height where developers provide a percentage of small residential units (600 sq ft was the historical threshold). Staff proposed allowing small units up to 650 sq ft to permit modestly larger units and added limited allowance for elevator penthouse height to accommodate newer machine‑on‑cab elevator technology. Commissioner Duretsky questioned the elevator technical assumptions; after discussion commissioners agreed to allow the modest adjustments but asked staff to confirm technical details and rooftop screening rules.

• Definition of family / household: The HAP proposes amending the municipal definition traditionally labeled “family.” Commissioners and staff agreed that the municipal code should use a clearer term such as “household” to reflect state law limitations on restricting unrelated occupants and to avoid implying blood relationship. Commissioners discussed adding registration or a local point of contact for nonprofit group housing configurations and clarifying the treatment of adult family homes (regulated separately by state law and licensing).

• Townhouse design standards applicability: Staff proposed clarifying that townhouse development (defined in code as row units of three or more with ground‑level entrances) must meet block frontage and other site design standards the city applies to multifamily and mixed‑use projects. Commissioners supported adding cross‑references to avoid future confusion about applicable standards.

• Usable residential open space: The commission reviewed proposed minimums tied to unit size (for example, 100 sq ft per unit for studios/one‑bedrooms) and rules allowing different combinations of private and shared open space. Commissioners supported allowing up to half of required common open space on rooftop decks (rather than delegating an unspecified percentage) and accepted a provision that nearby public parks within 250 feet can reduce on‑site open space requirements (up to a 33% reduction), while flagging the need to craft standards for permanent supportive housing separately, per state guidance.

• Parking lot landscaping and internal buffers: Staff proposed reducing some landscape buffer widths; commissioners sought compromise. After discussion the commission favored a consistent 7.5‑foot interior buffer standard (compromise between 5 and the existing 10 feet) while allowing site‑specific flexibility where right‑of‑way and street trees could meet screening goals.

• Service areas, mechanical equipment and rooftop screening: Commissioners generally supported the HAP language to require gutters/drains for service areas and weather protection for trash collection and asked staff to add clear provisions about screening rooftop equipment. The commission asked staff to revisit an existing prohibition on perforated metal as a screening material and to bring back recommended language recognizing some perforated and patterned metal can be an acceptable and cost‑effective screening solution if integrated into architectural design.

Process and next steps

Graige said staff will clean up cross‑references following the code renumbering that occurred after the HAP was drafted, add clarifying language requested by commissioners (for example, inserting “small” where appropriate, adjusting Old Town column entries, and specifying effective dates/vesting language), and return with revised draft code language. Several items — ADU specifics, permanent supportive housing open‑space standards, and any Old Town future‑land‑use adjustments — will require additional research and discussion; Graige suggested scheduling follow‑up sessions and noted a public hearing on other Comprehensive Plan elements is scheduled for Feb. 26, 2025.

Ending: Commissioners directed staff to prepare a revised draft that incorporates the commission’s clarifications, to confirm technical details (elevators, NFPA comparisons where relevant) with subject matter staff, and to return the amended code language for further review and public comment.