Planning commissioners push for land‑use code overhaul, joint meeting with council and briefing on Senate Bill 1537

Depoe Bay planning commissioners used the Jan. 8 meeting to press for a broader review of the city’s land‑use code, to request a joint meeting with the city council, and to ask staff for a plain‑language briefing on how a recently introduced state bill could affect local land‑use processes.

Commissioners said they want the commission and council to “recalibrate” and set a clear definition of the city’s character — several commissioners used phrases such as “what it means to be a rural fishing village” and asked that the concept be translated into code provisions. “Right now everybody talks about that, but we don’t actually have anything,” one commissioner said, urging that design standards and the comprehensive plan be used to define and preserve the town character.

City Planner Zach told the commission that updating the comprehensive plan and the land‑use code requires consideration of state requirements for accommodating population and jobs growth. “Regardless of how much you want to make Depoe Bay…a small fishing village,” Zach said, the city must evaluate long‑term growth trends and how goals fit state planning obligations, and the city can use its plan to shape how growth is accommodated.

Commissioners asked staff to arrange a joint planning commission–city council meeting, with several suggesting early February before budget season intensifies. Commissioner comments urged commissioners to brainstorm priorities and forward them to staff for the joint session. Zach agreed to prepare a concise summary of Senate Bill 1537 (referred to in the meeting as “SB 1537”) and identify the provisions likely to apply to Depoe Bay so commissioners can see which administrative items would remain staff‑level decisions and which would need commission or council review.

On staffing, the city reported two planner candidates under consideration and the possibility of hiring a less‑experienced, enthusiastic candidate with supplemental support from contracted planning consultants (AKS). Commissioners asked staff to provide a monthly planning summary for the new council and to coordinate the joint meeting scheduling.

Commissioners framed the discussion as preliminary direction rather than a final decision; the commission did not adopt any code amendments at the meeting and requested staff briefings and scheduling to inform future, formal actions.