Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Growth Boundary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City of Grants Pass seeks county sign-off on targeted urban growth boundary exchange; county schedules workshop
Summary
City officials presented a targeted urban growth boundary (UGB) exchange to the Josephine County Board of Commissioners that would add and remove roughly 40–45 acres to better align land capacity and promote developable housing; commissioners asked for a follow-up workshop and a copy of the city–county intergovernmental agreement (IGA).
City of Grants Pass planning staff and their consultant presented a proposed, targeted exchange to the city’s urban growth boundary that would swap parcels in and out of the UGB with the intent of improving the efficiency of future housing development. County commissioners asked for more time, requested a copy of the intergovernmental agreement that governs city–county UGB actions, and scheduled a follow-up workshop.
Mark Trinidad, planning manager for the City of Grants Pass, told the board the exchange built on an adopted housing production strategy and a state-funded study. Trinidad said the study was intended to “identify and bring into the UGB properties that frankly are more feasible to develop, and to take some properties out that have some constraints or [are] harder to develop.” The study was led by consultant Matt Hasty of MIG.
Hasty said the final recommendation was a relatively small exchange: roughly 40–41 acres in total with a modest difference in housing capacity. At various points in the presentation he summarized options: earlier proposals showed roughly 45 acres in and about 47 acres out with an estimated 70 units potentially added and about 45 units removed; he later described the refined proposal as “around 40 acres, 41 acres, and about a difference in housing units of 25 units.” Hasty said the project used urban reserve areas and considered proximity to water, sewer and roads, and that staff had reached out repeatedly to affected property owners.
County Planning Director James Black and county legal staff clarified process questions. Commissioners confirmed the county will act as a quasi-judicial body for the county land-use hearing on the amendment and that the city’s timeline calls for a City Council hearing on May 7 and a county hearing the board could schedule on May 12. Commissioners asked for and were provided a draft schedule; they also asked for a copy of the 1998 IGA governing city/county urbanizing procedures and said they wanted Commissioner Smith present for final deliberations.
Board members raised procedural questions about whether the county’s rural planning commission should be involved; county legal counsel told the board the IGA language on that step is silent. Commissioners also discussed constituent questions about taxation and annexation; city staff and the consultant emphasized that the boundary exchange itself does not annex properties or change tax status until a separate annexation process is requested by property owners. Trinidad said annexation, service changes and tax changes would occur only if and when a property later applies for annexation to the city.
Action items and next steps recorded at the meeting included: the city will proceed to its planning commission and City Council hearings (planning commission hearing scheduled the next day and council on May 7), the board requested a county workshop one week later (the parties agreed to a workshop at 3 p.m. the following Tuesday), and the board asked staff to supply the IGA and relevant materials in advance of the workshop. The board did not vote on the boundary amendment at this meeting.
