The Anacortes Planning Commission on Oct. 22 voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed 2025 development regulation amendments and related zoning‑map changes, while adding several commission-directed revisions and clarifications.

The recommendation directs council consideration of staff revisions that were included in the packet and six specific items the commission asked be changed or reviewed before final adoption: (1) retain the proposed single‑family small‑lot allowance in the Old Town zone and make associated form‑and‑intensity changes; (2) remove the smaller “or” duplex lot‑size options from the density chart (table 19.42.020) used in the draft; (3) request a review and revision of the J Avenue collector exception between 20th and 29th streets to consider engineering options described in a public‑works memo (Sept. 25, 2025); (4) add the word “Planned” to the Active Transportation Network exhibit title (Exhibit A); (5) update a cross‑reference so the code’s local bonus‑incentive language points to the official affordable‑housing definition in AMC 19.12.020; and (6) make three procedural clarifications in the applications/decisions table to reflect that some project‑level decisions will be acted on by the City Council rather than the planning commission.

Why it matters: The amendments are part of Anacortes’s periodic comprehensive‑plan update and rewrite of Title 19 (development regulations). The package implements recommendations from the city’s Housing Action Plan and other code cleanups; if the City Council accepts the commission’s recommendation, the changes will affect minimum lot sizes, permitted housing types (including small‑lot single family, triplexes and townhomes in some zones), development incentives in marine mixed‑use areas, and project review procedures.

What the commission discussed and decided
Libby Grange, planning manager in the Planning, Community and Economic Development Department, reviewed the public‑comment period and the staff table of proposed edits that had been added after the full draft was released for public comment on Sept. 17. Grange summarized numerous technical changes staff recommended, noting some items were cleanups (for example, removing the term “rooming house” where it is no longer used in the zoning code) and others carry policy implications (for example, changes to lot‑size and density standards tied to the Housing Action Plan).

Commission debate focused most heavily on Old Town density and minimum lot‑size rules. Commissioners said they wanted parity across zones and more housing supply in walkable areas but also discussed the scale of change. The draft table under discussion would allow smaller lot sizes in multiple zones (examples discussed included reductions from 9,000 to 6,000 square feet in some duplex minimums and changes that would allow a “small‑lot single‑family” on lots under 5,000 square feet). After extended discussion the commission resolved to keep the draft’s proposed allowance for single‑family small lots in Old Town but asked staff and the City Council to adopt associated form‑and‑intensity edits so the change is consistent with other regulations.

The commission also directed that the draft density table (AMC 19.42.020) be edited to remove the alternate smaller lot‑size options that had appeared after the word “or” for duplexes (for example, where the draft listed “7,500 or 6,000” the commission asked staff to remove the smaller “or” option). Commissioners said that change reduces the degree of immediate change while still reflecting Housing Action Plan direction.

Public‑works and active‑transportation item: J Avenue
Commissioners raised a safety concern about a specific clause that treats J Avenue between 20th and 29th streets as an exception from collector‑level bicycle standards. The draft notes that J Avenue currently provides a 36‑foot curb‑to‑curb roadway and uses sharrows rather than separated bike lanes. Planning staff showed a Sept. 25 memo from transportation staff outlining two remedial options and warning that adding 5‑foot bike lanes on both sides would require about 10 feet of roadway widening and likely right‑of‑way acquisition and utility relocation. The planning commission asked that the J Avenue text be revised to direct the Public Works Director to review and select one of the memo’s options (or an alternative) and incorporate that recommendation into the regulation text before the matter goes to council.

Other notable changes and clarifications requested
- Affordable‑housing definition: The Housing Authority identified an inconsistency where an older section of code defined “affordable housing” differently than the new definition proposed in AMC 19.12.020. The commission asked that references in AMC 19.42.050.D.3.a and any other inconsistent cross‑references be updated to point to the new AMC 19.12 definition.
- Marine mixed‑use incentives: Staff clarified language so property owners could retain title to a public open‑space area offered as a bonus if legal instruments guarantee perpetual maintenance and public access; staff also reported a 10,000‑square‑foot public‑open‑space option would qualify for increased bonus height (two bonus elements yielding up to 20 additional feet instead of one element yielding 10 feet).
- Assisted living: Staff recommended clarifying that a proposed 1,000‑foot separation requirement for assisted‑living facilities applies only to other assisted‑living facilities within the R‑3 residential zone, to avoid unintentionally precluding new facilities that are adjacent to existing facilities in commercial zones.
- Indoor recreation in industrial zones: Staff recommended limited allowances and a maximum occupancy cap of 30 people unless an applicant demonstrates a larger occupancy will not conflict with industrial operations.
- Alley access rules: Staff proposed clearer exceptions allowing driveway access from the street when alley access is infeasible (single‑family dwellings facing unpaved/unopened alleys, severe topography constraints, ADA need, or where most properties already have street driveways).
- ADU impact fees: Commissioners asked staff to include a planning‑commission finding asking City Council to consider whether and how impact fees should apply to accessory dwelling units; staff noted state law places limits on ADU fees and the commission requested council review as a finding (not a code change in this motion).

Votes at a glance:
- Motion to recommend that City Council adopt the proposed development regulation amendments and official zoning map amendments, incorporating staff‑recommended edits and the commission’s six requested amendments (as listed above). Motion moved by Commissioner Mills; seconded by Commissioner Stoneman. Roll call: Mills — yes; Ryan — yes; Martin — yes; Stoneman — yes. Outcome: recommendation approved (4‑0).

Process and next steps
The planning commission’s action forwards the draft regulations and the commission’s recommendations to the City Council for legislative consideration and possible revision. Several motions and clarifications the commission requested (for example, changes to the density table and the J Avenue exception) are editorial or technical but will affect policy outcomes if council accepts them.

What the commission did not decide
No final land‑use approvals, rezonings or permit determinations were made tonight; the planning commission’s vote was a recommendation to council on proposed code and map amendments. The Shoreline Substantial Development permit decision process was discussed: staff reiterated that shoreline decisions have state‑level appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board and recommended not adding a separate local appeal procedure for those permits in the code.

Who spoke (selected)
Libby Grange, planning manager, Planning, Community and Economic Development Department; Commissioner Mills (Planning Commission); Commissioner Ryan (Planning Commission); Commissioner Martin, chair (Planning Commission); Commissioner Stoneman (Planning Commission); Commissioner Coleman (Planning Commission); Miss Watson (planning clerk); Public Works Director (unnamed staff referenced). Direct quotes in this article are taken from the public hearing transcript of the Oct. 22 planning commission meeting.

Ending note
Because the draft contains multiple interlocking changes (minimum lot sizes, density rules, form‑and‑intensity standards, and cross‑references to definitions), the commission asked staff to identify the specific cross‑section edits needed so the City Council can see both the primary amendments and the technical edits the commission expects should accompany them.