Stayton council declines change to allow general‑merchandise stores at Highway 22 interchange

The Stayton City Council on Monday closed a public hearing and voted to take no further action on a proposed amendment that would permit general‑merchandise stores in the city—s Interchange Development (ID) Zone near the Highway 22 interchange.

Jennifer Cicliano, the city—s Community and Economic Development director, told the council the ID zone was created to serve travelers (fuel stations, convenience stores and possibly hotels) and that the city—s comprehensive plan discourages broader commercial development at the Highway 22 interchange. Cicliano said the request originated with Dollar General, that the ID zone covers four parcels (two already developed as an Arco and a Dairy Queen), and that both the planning commission and staff recommend against the change.

Neighbor Jennifer Carter urged the council to reject the amendment, telling the council that Stayton already has ample discount retail, that another dollar store would threaten local business and character, and that national studies link dollar-store proliferation to negative local impacts. Carter said she lives at 411 Whitney Street, close to the proposed site.

Several councilors questioned whether traffic and pedestrian impacts were properly studied and whether the proposed development would require site and safety improvements. Staff said the planning-level traffic analysis for a change in allowed uses differs from a developer—s site-specific traffic study and that the commission—s review found the general‑merchandise use to be not travel‑oriented; staff also said that a site review would require certain public‑improvement work.

After deliberation, Councilor Gilliam moved "to take no further action on the consideration of the Legislative Code Amendment to permit general merchandise use in an Interchange Development Zone." Councilor Ward seconded the motion; the motion was approved on a voice vote with councilors expressing that the proposed amendment did not align with the zone—s purpose and appeared to benefit a single business rather than the community—s long‑term plan.

Because the council—s action was procedural (declining to change permitted uses), any individual development proposed for the site would still proceed through planning‑commission site review and separate permitting processes.

The planning commission—s consideration of the site development is scheduled in the near term and could vary depending on the council—s decision.