Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Helens planning commission and council discuss inventory and outreach for vacant and underused storefronts
Summary
Commissioners, staff and councilors debated next steps for a vacant/underutilized storefront initiative: compile an inventory, coordinate with Main Street, and design owner outreach rather than immediate regulatory penalties.
Members of the Planning Commission and City Council on Wednesday discussed a proactive effort to understand and address vacant and underutilized storefronts in downtown St. Helens, focusing the group’s next steps on data collection and partner outreach rather than immediate regulations.
The discussion matters because local leaders said vacancy and underuse can affect downtown vitality, and they wanted an evidence‑based approach to any future policy or incentive program.
Scott (a Planning Commissioner who volunteered to lead the effort) told the group he had reviewed other cities’ efforts—including Astoria—and had drafted a problem statement and possible next steps. He asked for guidance on scope, whether to pursue incentives or penalties, and how to gather reliable information. Building official Mike DeRoya reported he had spoken with Astoria’s building official but said that office’s role in Astoria’s program had varied over time.
City staff and commissioners emphasized two distinctions: first, between a building that is truly vacant and one that is “underutilized” (for example, used for storage or partially occupied); and second, between owner motivations (financial constraint, age or inability to maintain the building) and market constraints (demand, leasing patterns). Several speakers urged the group not to “define the problem for owners” but to let data and owner interviews reveal the reasons properties are vacant or underused.
Participants identified practical next steps. Scott and others proposed that staff contact Main Street to obtain the organization’s existing inventory and contact history so the city won’t duplicate outreach. The group agreed to produce a geographic inventory or map of properties allegedly vacant or underused and asked commissioners and council members to email suggested properties to staff ahead of the next joint meeting. Speakers said the inventory should capture whether a space is vacant or underutilized, ownership details, and known barriers to reuse.
Commissioners discussed possible tools after inventory and interviews: incentives such as facade grants (the city and urban renewal program were cited as existing funding mechanisms) and regulatory options such as a vacant‑building registry or penalties used in other cities. Some members cautioned that penalties are politically sensitive and can trigger property‑rights concerns, and several urged early coordination with Main Street and local business groups.
No regulatory changes or penalties were proposed at this meeting. The group’s working direction was procedural: compile an up‑to‑date inventory, map the properties, request Main Street data, and draft a consistent questionnaire for owner interviews. The Planning Commission agreed to bring a compiled list of candidate properties to the next joint meeting for public discussion.
