Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Plan Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners adopt Plan Development Multi‑Family zoning overlay with on‑the‑record limits and WUI additions
Summary
After extended public comment, the Washington County Commission adopted a zoning code amendment to add a Plan Development Multi‑Family zone along a portion of the I‑15 corridor, approving lower density and unit caps and inserting wildfire (WUI) and utility connection requirements.
The Washington County Commission voted to adopt an amendment to Title 10 adding a Plan Development Multi‑Family zone, following a multi‑hour presentation and public hearing. The ordinance (read in the meeting as "ordinance 20 26 13 0 8 0") was adopted with verbal amendments on the record to reduce maximum density, cap project size and add wildfire interface and utility‑connection language.
County attorney staff explained the draft would allow up to 18 dwelling units per acre in the initial draft but commissioners directed a change to 15 dwelling units per acre and a reduction to a maximum project size of 200 units. The staff presentation emphasized controls intended to “create community, not apartment complexes,” including unit‑count limits, height tapering, design standards requiring at least 50% community‑facing units and proximity limits between projects. Victoria of the County Attorney’s office said higher density “lowers water use per capita” and that developers must demonstrate water and sewer connections before a zone change.
Commissioners also instructed staff to remove the northwest/Pine Valley side of the corridor from the eligible map, reduce the height standard from the draft 40 feet to 35 feet, and to expressly add compliance with state WUI (wildland‑urban interface) requirements and a requirement to connect to Ash Creek or the Washington County Water Conservancy District where feasible. A commissioner moved to adopt the ordinance with the amendments and the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
The action is legislative: the ordinance changes the county code so future projects will still require site‑specific zone‑change applications with project plans, transportation and traffic studies, and radius notices at that subsequent stage. The county attorney noted that the written ordinance will be edited to reflect the verbal changes before final codification.
What’s next: the ordinance is now adopted with the commissioners’ recorded changes; any developer seeking to use the new PD‑multifamily zone must still file a zone‑change application and project plan and will face further public hearings and notice requirements.
