Commission continues Housing Action Plan review; many items sent back for staff code language or further study

The Anacortes Planning Commission on Jan. 22 continued a multi‑month review of the city's Housing Action Plan (HAP), focusing on which recommended actions staff should convert into concrete code amendments. Commissioners agreed to send several items back to staff for drafting of specific regulatory language and to revisit others after additional research.

The HAP update is intended to be a prioritized, implementable menu of actions. "My intent with saying that was move forward with directing staff to develop language amendments to the development regulations so that the Commission and the public could see what the actual changes would look like in the code," Planning Manager Libby Grage said.

Why it matters: The HAP contains a variety of tools — from co‑living and single‑room occupancy allowances to minimum lot‑size changes, density standards, ADU rules and small‑unit incentives tied to a height bonus. Any change could affect housing supply, housing type mix and neighborhood character; commission members emphasized choosing items that produce measurable results and are implementable in code.

Key discussion points and staff directions

- Single‑room occupancy / co‑living: Commissioners were reminded of recent state guidance and a 2024 law on co‑living. Grage said staff needs more time to align HAP recommendations with the Department of Commerce guidance; she asked the commission to let staff return with an updated recommendation. Commissioners agreed to revisit the item.

- Rooming/boarding houses and terminology: Grage said Commerce guidance allows jurisdictions to retain separate terminology for existing rooming/boarding house regulations where zones do not already allow six or more multifamily units; staff indicated the city is likely to keep a separate category for rooming houses in those residential zones.

- ADUs (accessory dwelling units): The commission asked staff to return with recommendations tied to building and rental standards, noting the International Property Maintenance Code and local rental‑registration approaches are relevant to size and occupancy questions.

- Minimum lot sizes, maximum lot coverage and setbacks: Commissioners discussed HAP proposals to reduce minimum lot sizes in some zones, raise maximum lot coverage in high‑density zones (R‑4, R‑4A) and reduce certain upper‑floor setbacks. The commission generally supported increasing maximum lot coverage in R‑4/R‑4A (HAP recommends moving coverage toward 55–60%) and supported reduced upper‑floor setbacks to allow more flexible building designs; other items — including whether to apply minimum‑lot changes to R‑1 and Old Town and how to treat existing vs. new lots — were returned to staff for clarification.

- Density and minimums vs. maximums: Staff reminded the commission that code in some zones already relies on minimum lot sizes rather than a DU/acre measurement; commissioners asked staff to come back with implementation language addressing minimums, density calculations and grandfathering for existing lots.

- Small‑unit bonus and elevator/height provisions: Commissioners discussed a developer request and HAP recommendation to amend the small‑unit bonus rules so qualifying units could be up to 650 square feet instead of 600. The commission was split on whether that change would materially increase affordable housing supply; several members said the market, not regulation alone, determines what gets built. An accompanying height bonus that would require elevator installation drew stronger opposition: commissioners said elevator requirements increase project cost and that the elevator/height bonus option does not appear likely to be widely accepted in the community. The planning department will return with refined recommendations.

Staff direction and timing

Commissioners instructed staff to research and draft clear code language for items they want to advance (for example, the R‑4 lot coverage change and revised setback options), to reconcile HAP text that references all residential zones with the draft table that omits certain zones, and to bring back updated materials and the missing technical recommendations at the Feb. 12 Planning Commission meeting so the commission can aim to complete its review then.

Ending

No final regulatory amendments were adopted at the Jan. 22 meeting. Staff will prepare draft code amendments or clarifying memos where requested, incorporate Department of Commerce guidance on co‑living, and return to the commission on Feb. 12 to continue narrowing the HAP implementation list.