Council reviews comprehensive plan updates and clarifies building‑height step‑back standard

The Anacortes City Council spent significant time on Nov. 10 reviewing the proposed 2025 comprehensive plan update and related development regulations. Planning director John Coleman and staff framed the conversation as a work session designed to identify substantive changes that would require additional public notice before final adoption.

Major elements and staff proposals: Coleman said the draft includes a new climate element, several housing‑element updates (including middle‑housing and development‑regulation changes), a rewritten transportation element and addition of some city‑owned parcels to the urban growth area. Planning staff and the planning commission offered eight targeted recommendations — including adding critical‑areas language, a glossary, improved maps and a short animal‑species list.

SEPA procedures: Staff also presented Resolution 3189 to adopt procedures for SEPA threshold determination appeals for non‑project actions, reflecting an ordinance change that moved those appeals to the council; council approved the resolution.

Development‑regulation clarification — height and step‑back: A persistent query from a docket comment (MJB) asked staff to clarify a CBD/MMU provision that requires modulation for buildings that exceed the base height. Planning staff and consultant Marcus explained the provision calls for a horizontal step‑back of at least 8 feet on at least 75% of the street‑facing facade on a single floor above the ground floor (the council asked staff to revise the text and the graphic for clarity). Marcus said the standard is intended to reduce the tunnel effect of tall facades, provide daylight and create opportunities for outdoor decks or terraces; councilmembers requested clearer code language and a revised graphic showing the step‑back can be placed on any floor above the ground floor, including the top floor.

Transportation and other issues: Councilmember Walters asked that the comp plan avoid language that could be interpreted as opening certain local streets (West 2nd Street) as alternate commute routes that would invite ferry traffic; staff agreed to strike or clarify ambiguous references. Council also flagged the glossary for review to avoid creating definitions that conflict with terms used elsewhere in the plan.

Next steps: Staff will update graphics and code language for the height/step‑back provision, refine glossary entries and provide an animal‑species list and canopy map so council can consider any substantive edits and, if necessary, open a comment period before final adoption. Planning staff indicated the next opportunity for changes could be the Nov. 24 council meeting.

Provenance: Comp plan presentation and development‑regulation discussion (transcript SEG 2871–3310; detailed step‑back exchange SEG 3744–4060).