Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Form Based Code Zoning Map topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reviews form‑based code sample, zoning map and development review process
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a form‑based code model, discussed simplifying use tables and definitions, praised an outline of the development review process, and noted House Bill 1293's implications for design review procedures.
At a meeting of the Buckley Planning Commission, members reviewed a sample form‑based code and a rough draft of the proposed zoning map, discussed consolidating use categories and clearer definitions, and considered how state legislation may change design‑review procedures.
Those topics matter because updates to the zoning map, use tables and development‑review process will shape what uses are permitted on Buckley lots, how easily businesses and housing projects navigate permits and how the city enforces standards.
Commissioners said they liked the form‑based code’s organization: definitions near the front, building‑type illustrations, concise building tables and landscape standards that require native plants or justification for alternatives. Several commissioners said the document’s definitions were clearer than Buckley’s current code and noted that better definitions make it easier to condense and simplify use tables.
Commissioners discussed administrative topics including variance criteria, conditional‑use clarity and peer review. One commissioner praised the sample’s “outline of the development review process” as a clear checklist of next steps for applicants. Commissioners urged staff to borrow useful language and process flow from the sample and from consultant work rather than rewrite existing material from scratch.
House Bill 1293, described at the meeting as a state mandate on streamlining design review, was discussed briefly. Staff said the commission and consultants are still determining how HB 1293 will interact with local design‑review procedures; staff described a potential outcome in which separate design‑review hearings are limited and design review must be tied to another permit application. Commissioners raised concerns about review timelines and suggested limiting the number of successive review cycles to reduce delay and cost for applicants.
On the proposed zoning map, commissioners asked staff to continue work and to bring individual zones forward for concentrated review at future meetings (one or two zones per meeting). Staff agreed to provide advance notice to commissioners about which zones will be discussed at upcoming meetings.
No formal zoning map changes or code adoptions were approved at the meeting. Staff said consultants are preparing revised definitions and a development‑review checklist to present at a future meeting.
