Land Use Hearing: ZDO-293 - June 16, 2026

Agenda

The item will not begin before time noted. Interested parties may appear and be heard during the testimony phase of any hearing at the above address. If a hearing is set for decision only, the evidence phase has been completed, so interested parties may no longer be heard. Applications or comments may be inspected, and calls or correspondence directed to: Planning & Zoning Division, 150 Beavercreek Road, Oregon City, OR 97045, (503) 742-4500.

HEARING 

File No.: ZDO-293: FY 2026 Minor and Time Sensitive Comprehensive Plan and Zoning & Development Ordinance Amendments

Applicants: Clackamas County

Proposal: The 2025-2027 Long-Range Planning Work Program includes a project titled “Minor and Time-Sensitive Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinance Amendments.” Since 2020, a package of amendments has been developed annually or biennially to focus on relatively minor changes to the County’s Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) to comply with any new Metro, state or federal mandates, clarify existing language, correct errors, or adopt optional provisions that require only minimal analysis.

Staff Contact: Martha Fritzie, Principal Planner, MFritzie@clackamas.us; Jennifer Hughes, Planning Director, JenniferH@clackamas.us 

Land Use Hearing Item: Staff Report to the Board of County Commissioners

File Number: ZDO-293, Minor and Time Sensitive Comprehensive Plan and Zoning & Development Ordinance Amendments FY 2026

Staff Contact: Martha Fritzie, Principal Planner (mfritzie@clackamas.us); Jennifer Hughes, Planning Director (jenniferh@clackamas.us)

Board of County Commissioners’ Hearing Date: June 16, 2026

Proposal

The 2025-2027 Long-Range Planning Work Program includes a project titled “Minor and Time-Sensitive Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Development Ordinance Amendments.” Since 2020, a package of amendments has been developed annually or biennially to focus on relatively minor changes to the County’s Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO) to comply with any new Metro, state or federal mandates, clarify existing language, correct errors, or adopt optional provisions that require only minimal analysis. The last such package was adopted in 2024. Ordinance ZDO-293 includes the “minor and time sensitive” amendments for fiscal year 2026.

Proposed Amendments:

ZDO-293 proposes text amendments to one chapter of the county’s Comprehensive Plan and 40 sections of the county’s Zoning & Development Ordinance (ZDO); and proposes the addition of two new ZDO sections. A list of all amended sections, summaries of the proposed changes, and the full text of the proposed amendments in each section or chapter are included in Item 5 in this Board packet.

These proposed amendments would accomplish the following five actions.

1. Implement state mandates, which were adopted through legislation or administrative rulemaking, and that are currently in effect or will become effective by July 1, 2026. 

   Generally, these mandates relate to urban housing procedures; on-site parking in the urban area; and requirements to allow certain uses outright, including childcare centers, emergency shelters, residential treatment facilities and homes, mental and psychiatric hospitals, and crisis stabilization centers. Many of these changes would be limited to the urban area and include:

   • Amending the existing Middle Housing Land Division (MHLD) process
   • Adding the Expedited Land Division (ELD) process to the ZDO – it was previously implemented directly from the state statutes
   • Exempting housing developments that include 20 or more units of new single-family dwellings, manufactured dwellings, or middle housing within the Portland Metro urban growth boundary (UGB) from design standards related to such features as façade materials; roof decorations, form, or materials; or other architectural features.
   • Allowing for an applicant of a housing application within the UGB to “opt in” to new standards if they have become effective after the application was submitted, if public notice has not been issued.
   • Including standards for two new application types
     • An “urban housing application”, for a residential zone change, planned unit development or variance; and
     • Certain housing applications in urban and some rural areas that are reviewed under only clear & objective standards.
   • Allowing by right:
     • A residential treatment facility or residential home within the UGB on certain publicly-owned lands and lands zoned for residential, commercial, employment, and industrial uses.
     • A mental or psychiatric hospital and adjacent crisis stabilization center within the UGB on certain commercial, industrial or publicly-owned lands.
     • A preschool or pre-kindergarten with a place of worship (does not apply if place of worship is a nonconforming use)
     • An emergency shelter that meets certain defined criteria on land within a UGB or on rural residential land. This requirement sunsets if the sheltered and unsheltered homeless population falls below a defined threshold.
     • A childcare center in multifamily residential, commercial, and light industrial zones.
   • Implementing recent changes related to off-street parking and parking lots within urban zones inside the Portland Metro urban growth boundary (UGB) and include the following:
     • Remove references to minimum off-street parking requirements
     • Amend off-street parking maximums for certain locations
     • Include new tree canopy and other design standards for parking lots > 0.5 acre.

   These rules are currently in effect but are being administered directly from state law. The proposed amendments in ZDO-293 do not change the policy, practice, or standards applied to parking in the urban area. Rather they simply align the county’s ZDO with state law. More discussion of these rules is found in the “Significant Issues” section of this report.

2. Align the County’s requirements in Agriculture and Forest zones with state law. Ordinance ZDO-293 includes proposed amendments resulting from an audit of the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), Timber (TBR), and Ag/Forest (AG/F) zoning districts to ensure they are consistent with state law. The proposal would:
   • Incorporate amendments from recent state rulemaking that codified common law standards related to:
     • Farm impacts test analyses
     • Agri-tourism events standards
     • Transportation facilities subject to farm impacts test
     • Private park definition and clarifications
     • Home occupations if the proposed use is also allowed in another use category
   • Allow childcare facilities in farm zones, subject to criteria related to serving children in rural areas and only if collocated with a community center or school.
   • Repeal the fire hardening construction standards for replacement dwellings.
   • Add land division allowances that are not currently in the ZDO.
   • Amend the approval periods for various types of land use applications.
   • Repeal the “capability test” farm dwelling provisions in EFU because the county has not prepared the required gross sales figures. If that work is completed, the provisions can be added back, but currently they create confusion for staff and the public.
   • Remove the extensive table of uses in the AG/F District and replace with a statement that uses permitted in the AG/F District are those allowed in the EFU District, subject to standards in the EFU District, and those allowed in the TBR District, subject to the standards in the TBR District, and subject to certain limitations. This is not a substantive change, rather it is proposed for clarity and to ensure that future code amendments do not inadvertently create inconsistency between AG/F and EFU or TBR.
   • Reorganize some standards to be more consistent with structure in state law to make future amendments easier.
   • Other edits for consistency.
3. Amend certain height limit and dock prohibition standards within the Willamette River Greenway (WRG). The Willamette River Greenway (WRG), established through Statewide Planning Goal 15, is a corridor of water and land in which development is planned and built with recognition of the unique qualities of the Willamette River. Ordinance ZDO-293 proposes two amendments to standards that implement the county’s plan for the WRG.

   • Repeal an unnecessary dock prohibition affecting certain areas of the WRG. There are two stretches of the Willamette River – called Limited Use areas - in which new private non-commercial docks are prohibited. Private non-commercial docks are allowed, subject to certain standards, on all other stretches of the Willamette River within the county’s jurisdiction. Ordinance ZDO-293 would repeal the prohibition on new docks in the Limited Use area and allow private, non-commercial docks to be established, subject to the same standards and processes as such docks elsewhere on the river.

     Based on an analysis of lots, existing dwellings, and existing docks within the two Limited Use areas, staff have found that all but three of the lots within the Limited Use areas that have river frontage and a dwelling already have a dock, and that none of the vacant lots with river frontage in the Limited Use areas are zoned for residential development. In addition, there is no state requirement to prohibit docks anywhere on the river, and there is no basis or evidence in the county’s records to warrant the dock prohibition. As such, this prohibition appears unnecessary and creates a situation in which three property owners are precluded from using their property in the same way as many other neighboring property owners.

   • Remove the 35-foot height limit for properties located within the WRG and designated as High Density Residential (HDR). Currently the ZDO limits the height for all residential development within the WRG boundary to 35 feet. Non-residential development within the WRG has no specified height limit.

     Inside the UGB, most residential lots within the WRG boundary are in a zoning district that has a height limit of 35 feet for development even if the development were outside the WRG. There are, however, a limited number of lots within the WRG that have a High Density Residential (HDR) zoning designation, which is intended for multifamily development; currently has a maximum allowed density of 25 dwelling units per acre; and has no specified height limit outside the WRG.

     The owner of a property with HDR zoning in the WRG requested the county consider removing the 35-foot height limit so that more housing could be developed on their site, consistent with the other regulations in the HDR District. No change is proposed to the height limits in other zones within the WRG. This change is expected to have little impact due largely to the fact that there are only a small number of properties affected.

4. Clarify how to identify front, rear, and side lot lines for the purpose of structure setback measurement. The way that setbacks are reviewed has not changed substantially since the ZDO was adopted in 1980. Since then, however, many of the standards controlling lot shape and dimensions have been repealed; nonconforming lots are no longer required to be consolidated; new access and life safety requirements outside the ZDO have changed the way developments are constructed; and changes to state and local rules regarding infill development have resulted in lot configuration and development that was not contemplated when the 1980 ZDO was drafted. As a result, the current setback rules sometimes create conflicts and confusion when applied to certain lots.

   The proposal under ZDO-293 will not change required setback distances. Rather it includes amendments to clarify how the front lot line is identified for setback purposes, thereby addressing some of the most common administrative challenges identified by staff, including private access easements; fire turnarounds; unusual flag lots; and rounded and “unintentional” corner lots.

5. Make minor changes to the Comprehensive Plan and ZDO to clarify provisions, reduce administrative barriers, and correct citations and typographical errors. These amendments are intended to address basic errors (e.g., incorrect citations), revise text that consistently causes confusion for staff and customers, and amend standards or processes that create development barriers without adding significant value. To accomplish this, Ordinance ZDO-293 would:
   • Remove references to a zoning district that has been repealed.
   • Revise an outdated provision required by the Metro Code.
   • Correct citations and typographical errors.

   • Remove the option for a two-year time extension for most land use applications and instead extend the initial approval period for those applications by two years. Two-year time extensions are rarely denied, unless standards have changed during the original approval period (typically four years). Rather than require an additional fee and application that takes a substantial amount of time for staff to review, ZDO-293 proposes to eliminate the two-year time extension for most land use approvals in most zoning districts and allow two additional years for the original approval. This change would reduce administrative burden and directly supports the Board for County Commissioners’ strategic plan priority to review of all development regulatory processes to minimize burdens, providing an effective and timely permitting process for the community.

     If adopted, these amendments would apply to development applications submitted after the effective date; the current approval and time extension provisions would remain in effect for development applications submitted prior to that date. And time extensions in EFU, AG/F, and TBR Districts will remain in place, pursuant to state law requirements.

   • Allow outdoor silos, towers, or other specialized storage and processing structures in the Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI) Districts, subject to a height limit, siting standards, and screening requirements. Currently such structures in the BP and LI zones are only allowed if located within a building. The amendments would also clarify options for such structures in the General Industrial (GI) District. This proposal originated from a request from a member of the public with an existing business in the LI zone and a need for locating such a structure outdoors.
   • Add single-room occupancies (SROs) as an allowed housing type in commercial zones that already allow multi-family and congregate housing. Legislation from 2025 clarifies that SROs must be allowed in those zones. The change is required until January 1, 2027, but this change is proposed in ZDO-293 because it is relatively easy to implement and it will eliminate the time and expense of the “similar use” land use process currently required for approval of a SRO development in the identified commercial areas.
   • Clarify provisions that routinely cause confusion for staff and customers, which includes amending and adding definitions related to streets, roads, and internal circulation ways within parking lots to clarify where certain improvements are required and where front setbacks must be met.

Most of the proposed actions have generated little to no discussion since public notice was sent out and the Planning Commission public hearing was held; and are supported by the Planning Commission. Public testimony, Planning Commission deliberations, and questions have largely been focused on specialized storage structures and time extensions, as discussed in more detail later in this report.

Related Prior BCC Action

At a policy session on Dec. 2, 2025, the Board discussed items staff proposed to include in this amendment package, as well as three specific requests from members of the public. At that policy session, the Board directed staff to move forward with all the items proposed by staff and one of the three public requests – considering removal of the 35-foot height limit for residential development in certain locations within the Willamette River Greenway.

At a policy session on March 10, 2026, staff presented the Board with a more detailed list of items proposed for this amendment package and the Board had the opportunity to ask staff questions and discuss the proposal. No specific direction was requested from the Board at this policy session.

Planning Commission Action

The Planning Commission (PC) held a public hearing on ZDO-293 on May 11, 2026, before voting on a recommendation to the Board. Three parties provided testimony at the PC hearing; all the testimony was related to concerns about eliminating the two-year time extension process and lengthening the initial approval period from four years to six for land use approvals in river and stream corridors, as is discussed under “Significant Issues”.

After much discussion, the PC voted (6-1) to recommend approval of ZDO-293, as drafted. The one Planning Commissioner recommending denial expressed concerns regarding time extensions and agreement with the testimony requesting the approval period remain the same in river and stream corridors.

CPO and Hamlet Recommendations

All the County’s CPOs and Hamlets were sent notice of this proposal on April 6, 2026. Only one CPO - the Hoodland CPO - provided comments on the proposal (see Exhibit 5). In these comments, the CPO requested that the proposed changes to approval periods for land use applications subject to ZDO Sections 703, Flood Management District (FMD) and Section 704, River and Stream Conservations Area (RSCA) Permit be removed from consideration. The letter also requests additional changes to standards within those ZDO sections.

Two other written comments have been received from members of the public (see Exhibits 3 and 4). Both were from individuals interested in the proposed amendments to allow certain specialized structures to be located outdoors in light industrial zones. The comments request additional clarity and amendments to the original proposal (that was included with the hearing notices). Staff did amend the original proposal to provide additional clarity; these changes are reflected in the draft considered at the PC hearing and attached in this Board packet. No additional comments have been received regarding the amended proposal.

Significant Issues

1. Time extensions in river & stream conservation areas. Ordinance ZDO 293 proposes to remove the option for a two-year time extension for most land use applications and extend the approval period for those applications by two years. This means that land use approvals that currently are valid for four years, with an option for a two-year time extension, would simply be valid for six years.

   One Planning Commissioner, the Hoodland CPO, and several members of the public expressed concern with increasing the approval period for proposed development in river and stream corridors, and specifically along the rivers in the communities on Mt Hood. The testimony and discussion at the PC hearing was centered around the fact that sometimes rivers move and there was concern that in six years, the land and river could be in a different location than when the original approval was made. They requested the proposal to remove the two-year time extension and increase the approval period specifically exclude land use applications subject to ZDO Section 704, River and Stream Conservation Area (RSCA). In their letter (see Exhibit 5), the Hoodland CPO also requests that ZDO Section 703, Floodplain Management District (FMD) be excluded from this package of amendments and retain the current approval periods.

   The CPO identified other concerns in their letter and suggested additional changes related to standards within ZDO Section 703 and 704. Those types of changes are beyond the scope of “minor & time sensitive” amendments but may be considered in another project currently underway in Planning – file ZDO-290: Clear & Objective Standards. Planning staff working on file ZDO-290 have been coordinating closely with the CPO and other interested stakeholders to potentially make substantive changes within our protected resource areas.

   Regarding approval periods proposed in ZDO-293, however, staff acknowledges and agrees that the movement of rivers is a significant issue, but notes that retaining the four-year approval and two-year time extension for only one or two types of application would increase the complexity of the ZDO, while, arguably, adding little value for several reasons:

   • Development must be “set back” from the mean high water line of a river or stream by a certain distance (generally 50 to 100 feet). The mean high water line is defined in the ZDO and is intended to identify the bank of any river or stream, as established by the annual fluctuations of water. The mean high water line may change over time as river flows and volumes fluctuate, but it does not typically change multiple times throughout the year.
   • Further, if development is authorized within a river or stream corridor through a land use approval, a development permit (i.e. building permit) will be required and at the time of permitting a site plan needs to be provided identifying all features and structures on the site.
     • If, by the time a development/building permit is submitted, the river or stream and its mean high water line has truly moved, the setback would need to be measured from the new location (i.e. reflect what is actually on the ground at the time of the development permit).
       • If, by the time a development/building permit is submitted, a river or stream has moved so significantly that conditions on the site are substantially different, then an entirely new application would be required to determine if the proposed development could still meet all applicable requirements.
     • And finally, the primary reason behind the proposal to remove the time extension is to streamline processes and remove inefficiencies to help both customers and staff. Time extensions are not particularly common - over the last five years, an average of 10 time extensions are processed annually - and time extensions are rarely denied. But the review of time extensions costs both time and money to customers and the county.

2. Specialized structures. Ordinance ZDO 293 proposes to allow outdoor silos, towers, or other specialized storage and processing structures in the Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI) Districts, subject to a 12-foot height limit, siting standards which would place it behind a building, and screening requirements.

   As noted, such structures are currently only allowed in BP and LI zones if located within a building. This proposal originated from a request from a member of the public with an existing business in the LI zone and a need for locating such a structure outdoors. Written testimony was received from that member of the public, requesting changes in the proposal (see Exhibits 3 & 4) Prior to the PC hearing, staff revised the draft amendments and sent the revised draft to those who provided the testimony. No additional comments have been received regarding this proposal.

   Staff notes also that the proposed amendments are intended to be minor, and to respond directly to the request for the use to be allowed. This issue may be revisited again, and a definition of “specialized structure” may be developed as recommended in the written testimony, when staff proposes more substantive changes to the ZDO in response to the recent assessment of the entire code.

3. Off-street parking rules in the urban area. Although not a significant issue identified by the Planning Commission, this issue did generate a fair amount of discussion at the December 2025 Board policy session, and the following is provided for context on these proposed changes.

   In August 2022, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted changes to the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). These new rules apply to the urban, unincorporated areas of Clackamas County and include various compliance dates for the different types of changes required. While many of the changes will take effect when the county’s Transportation System Plan is updated, mandatory changes in off-street parking requirements took effect in two phases, the first on December 31, 2022, and the second on June 30, 2024.

   Because the county has not yet adopted the changes that took effect in 2024 into the ZDO, staff has been implementing the rules directly from state law. Although the rules include no longer requiring off-street parking with development in the urban area, it is important to note that the rules do not preclude the county from allowing off-street parking in the urban area.

   And, in fact, based on a search of developments approved since June 30, 2024, off-street parking is still being provided by developments in the urban area, and, in many cases, exceeds the amount that would have been required prior to these rules going into effect (see Exhibit 2). On average, middle housing developments provided over 50% more parking than would have been required (1 space per unit) and commercial and multifamily developments provided 98% of the parking that would have been required. To staff’s knowledge, only one development, a 5-unit cottage cluster, has provided no off-street parking.

   ZDO-293 would include the amendments necessary to implement the state’s parking rules through the ZDO, rather than continue to implement them directly from state law. This will reduce confusion for applicants and make administration of the rules more efficient for staff.

4. Concerns about eroding public input opportunities as the state removes neighbor notification requirements for some land use items. New land use processes mandated through recent legislation eliminate or significantly restrict the ability of the public to participate in some land use processes and development proposals. Several Planning Commissioners expressed concerns about this trend and noted that it seems to directly contradict Statewide Planning Goal 1. These Planning Commissioners did understand that the changes proposed in ZDO -293 that eliminate notice, reduce opportunities for participation, and, in some cases, remove appeal rights from neighbors, are mandated by the state. However, they felt strongly enough about this issue that they have created a “subcommittee” to work outside the code amendment process to try to address these concerns at the state level and have already connected with staff from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The Planning Commission also wanted to be sure the Board knew of their strong objections to these mandated changes to public participation.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends approval of ZDO-293, as drafted and found in Item 5 of the Board packet.

The proposed amendments found in Item 5 of the Board packet include those recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, except for the following minor changes staff has made to add clarity or correct errors that were found.

• ZDO Section 401, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) District. Staff discovered that the posted version of the state’s Rules related to the EFU District contained errors and has amended ZDO Section 401 to reflect the correct regulations. Also, after conferring with Counsel, staff corrected the proposed time extension text to more accurately reflect state law.
• ZDO Section 406, Timber (TBR) District. After conferring with Counsel, staff corrected the proposed time extension text to more accurately reflect state law.
• ZDO Section 1015, Parking and Loading. Staff added clarifying language related to the removal of minimum off-street parking requirements in the urban area and corrected several references.
• ZDO Section 1307, Procedures. Staff corrected several citations and added references that had been inadvertently omitted.

ZDO–293: Minor and time-sensitive Comprehensive Plan & ZDO amendments

Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing June 16, 2026

ZDO-293

Legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning & Development Ordinance (ZDO) to:

1. Comply with mandates, state law
2. Clarify existing language and correct errors
3. Adopt optional provisions requiring only minimal analysis 

Proposal Summary (5 Actions)

1. Implement recent changes in state law: procedures
   • New procedural pathways
     • Most apply to housing applications, Middle Housing Land Divisions (MHLD), or for new ‘special uses’
     • May include different notice distances or no notice, different comment periods, and different rules for how appeals are processed
     • Only one policy choice – optional property owner notice (Type 1-H)
   • Add new special uses as “primary uses” in certain zoning districts
   • Implement off-street parking rules for urban areas that are currently being administered directly from state law
2. Align Agriculture and Forest zone requirements with state law
   • Audit ZDO Sections 401(EFU), 406(TBR), and 407(AG/F) for consistency with state law
   • Amend Section 401 to reflect recent rulemaking changes for EFU
   • Farm impacts test analyses
   • Agri-tourism events standards
   • Private park definition and clarifications
   • Simplify 407 (AG/F); remove table of uses
3. Amend certain standards within Willamette River Greenway (WRG)
   • Willamette River Greenway
     • ZDO Section 705 and Chapter 3 of Comprehensive Plan
   • Would not amend Greenway boundary
   • Adds clarity about how to measure a dock
     • Reflects current practice and consistent with state (DSL)
   • Amends two standards, both with negligible impact
     1. Remove dock prohibition in “Limited Use” area of WRG
     2. Remove 35-foot residential height limit in High Density Residential (HDR) District within WRG
4. Clarify how to identify lot lines for measuring structure setbacks
   • Setback: “the shortest horizontal distance between a structure and the lot line”
   • Changes are proposed primarily via alterations to the way lot lines are defined
   • No change is proposed to the setback distances required by various zones and for various uses
5. Other minor changes to reduce administrative barriers, provide clarifications and corrections
   • Reduce administrative burdens
   • Correct citations
   • Clarify definitions and other standards causing confusion to staff and public
   • Other minor amendments
     • Time extensions
     • Specialized structures
     • SROs in urban commercial zones

Analysis & Findings

Proposed amendments meet applicable approval criteria

• Statewide Planning Goals
  • Goal 15 (WRG)
• Oregon Revised Statutes (ORSs) and Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs)
• Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP) and Regional Transportation Functional Plan (RTFP)
• Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan
  • Amendments to Chapter 3 necessary
• Zoning and Development Ordinance (ZDO)

Planning Commission (PC) Hearing

• May 11, 2026
• Three parties testified – related to time extension for applications in river/stream areas
• PC voted 6-1 to recommend approval of ZDO 293, as drafted

Significant issues

1. Time extensions in river/stream areas
   • Request from public and Hoodland CPO to retain existing approval period and time extension for development in river/stream areas
   • Concerns about rivers moving, changing mean high water line
   • Considerations:
     • At time of development, permits are reviewed against conditions of approval, like setbacks from river
     • Flood hazard area maps change infrequently
     • Streamlining processes important for efficient use of time and money
2. Outdoor silos, towers, or other specialized structures
   • Silos, towers, and other specialized storage and processing structures
     • Currently prohibited in Light Industrial (LI) and Business Park (BP), unless inside a building
   • Currently allowed inside or outside buildings in General Industrial (GI) District
     • Proposal would allow such structures outside in LI and BP, subject to certain limitations:
     • Max. height: 12 ft
     • Behind the building
     • Fenced/screened from neighboring properties
   • What is a “specialized structure”?
3. Off-street parking in urban, unincorporated area
   • Proposal updates ZDO to reflect what is currently being implemented directly out of state law
   • OAR 660-012-0405 to -0450
     • Applies in urban area only
     • Cannot require minimum off-street parking required (July 1, 2024)
     • Maximum off-street parking, certain urban areas
     • Tree canopy and other design standards for parking lots > 0.5 acres
   • In 2024/2025, off-street parking continued to be provided by developers in the urban area.
     • Middle housing: >50% more parking than would have been required
     • Other commercial/ multifamily/ institutional uses: 2% less parking than would have been required
4. Public engagement and concerns with mandated removals of notice requirements
   • Planning Commission very concerned about erosion of public input in land use processes
   • Understand proposed changes affecting public participation are mandatory
   • Created a subcommittee to work with staff from state agencies to find ways to address issue, voice concerns

Policy decisions

• Mandatory: compliance with state law
  • Optional: Notice for Type I-H applications (HB 4037[2026])
• Optional:
  • WRG amendments
  • Definition changes to clarify lots lines for measuring setbacks
  • Specialized structures in light industrial and business park zones
  • Time extensions
  • SROs in commercial zones (sort of)
  • Other definition changes, clarifying amendments, “housekeeping” items

Staff and PC Recommendation

Adoption of the ZDO-293 text amendments included in Attachment A

• includes amendments recommended for approval by PC, with minor clarifying edits to 4 sections, as described in BCC staff report