Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission continues Housing Action Plan review; many recommendations deferred for legal guidance and code drafting
Summary
Commissioners reviewed items in the Housing Action Plan including co-living (single-room-occupancy), ADUs, lot-size and setback adjustments, small-unit height bonuses and elevator requirements. Staff will return with state-law guidance and draft code language for several items; commissioners left multiple items for additional review.
The Anacortes Planning Commission continued its review of the Housing Action Plan on Jan. 22, discussing a range of strategies intended to increase housing supply, affordability and type. Commissioners agreed to defer several items pending state guidance or staff-prepared development-code language.
Chair Linda Martin summarized the commission’s role: narrow the menu of HAP strategies to those most likely to increase affordable housing, expand housing types or be accepted by the community. Commissioners work in pairs to recommend which strategies should be advanced for code drafting.
State guidance and co-living: staff reported new guidance from the Washington State Department of Commerce and a 2024 state law on “co-living” that affects the HAP recommendation on single-room-occupancy housing. Libby Grama said the state guidance appears to supersede the HAP recommendation and staff needs time to return with an updated recommendation; commissioners agreed to delay final action on SRO/co-living items until staff analysis.
Supportive housing and other statutorily driven items: commissioners noted several recommendations simply require updates to comply with state law; staff will return with the necessary language changes.
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs): the commission deferred further ADU recommendations pending additional staff work. Commissioners discussed using the International Property Maintenance Code and rental-registration approaches as reference points for occupancy and unit standards.
Minimum lot sizes, density and lot-coverage: the commission debated HAP proposals for minimum lot-size reductions and maximum lot-coverage increases in higher-density zones (notably R-3, R-4 and R-4A). Commissioners asked staff to clarify whether certain zones (R-1 and Old Town) were intentionally excluded from some HAP tables, and they asked the planning department to return with corrected, consistent language.
Setbacks and height bonus program: the HAP recommendation to reduce upper-floor setbacks in higher-density zones drew broad support as a design flexibility measure; garage setbacks would remain at 20 feet to preserve parking space. Commissioners were split on the small-unit bonus (current small-unit threshold 600 sq. ft.; a proposed increase to 650 sq. ft. was discussed). Staff and one developer asserted 650 sq. ft. could make some projects more feasible by allowing modest additional interior storage, but several commissioners said the change was unlikely to change affordability at scale. A proposal to relax elevator-penthouse height requirements to enable more elevator-served small-unit buildings was met with skepticism; several commissioners recommended not advancing that item at this time.
Process and next steps: commissioners agreed many items require more detailed code drafting. Chair Martin and staff set expectations that items still “being developed by staff” will be returned to the commission at the Feb. 12 meeting so the commission can finish its review without a long gap between sessions.
Ending: Staff will draft code language where the commission asked “move forward with PCED recommendation,” review state commerce guidance on co-living and bring clarifications back to the commission in February.
