Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus And Comp Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident questions comp plan math as commissioners continue ADU review
Summary
A Buckley resident raised data and fairness concerns about proposed comprehensive plan edits and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules during public comment; the Planning Commission deferred formal recommendations pending fuller attendance and further review.
A Buckley resident and planning commissioners debated numerical inconsistencies in the draft comprehensive plan and the scope of proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules during the Planning Commission meeting.
Josh Hawes, a Buckley resident who said he lives at 28812 Hinkleman Road, told the commission he remains "concerned about the math not mathing" after apparent changes to high-density residential assumptions in the draft plan. Hawes said a December change from "15 to 40" and later numbers such as "30 to 50" were not reflected in the plan's tables, and that discrepancy had not been corrected in the materials he received.
Hawes said he asked a title company for parcel data showing there are 35 duplexes and triplexes in Buckley — "3 triplexes and 32 duplexes" — out of roughly 1,900 parcels. He argued that because only a small fraction of parcels are already multiunit, allowing ADU capacity for single-family lots but not for owners of duplexes or triplexes would be unfair. "Imagine you own a duplex and your neighbor owns a single family and your neighbor is able to build an ADU or 2 ADUs in the backyard, but you can't," he said.
Hawes urged an incremental approach: adopt ADU standards, monitor submittals for 12 months, and consider targeted tools that other cities use — for example, preapproved or stock ADU plans that reduce design costs. He cited Tacoma and Kent as examples where municipalities provide architect-approved or city-funded plans to lower barriers for homeowners.
Commissioners opened the meeting noting several members were absent and said they preferred to revisit ADU recommendations when a fuller commission can deliberate. Planning staff described the edits received from the Department of Commerce as "relatively minor" and said several recurring items — the ADU code, single-family design guidelines and the proposed use table — would return to future agendas for more detailed review.
The commission did not take any formal votes on ADU rules or comp‑plan changes at the meeting and directed members and the public to continue reviewing the draft materials. Commissioners asked staff to provide printed copies of maps and use tables at the next meeting to make review easier.
Hawes's comments were part of the meeting's public comment period; commissioners indicated the plan is expected to move through additional study sessions and eventual review by City Council.
