Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer presents revisions for Bowen Road rezoning as council debates extending response period for P&Z recommendations
Summary
Malto's representative showed modest site changes — buildings and parking pulled east, a 4–5 ft berm added — intended to buffer adjacent homes. Councilors debated ordinance 24‑24 to extend the council response window on Planning & Zoning recommendations (from 45 days to as much as 90 or removing the limit) and voted to table the ordinance pending research into other municipalities' standards.
A developer seeking a zoning amendment for a 23.7‑acre parcel along Bowen Road presented revised buffering and parking changes on Aug. 19 as council members debated whether to lengthen the period Council has to act on Planning & Zoning recommendations.
Malto representative Andrew Caraban said the applicant shifted both the auto‑parking area and the building east by about 10 feet and added a 4– to 5‑foot landscaping berm along the northern property line to increase buffering between the proposed industrial buildings and existing residences. "The hope is that both those changes ... act as additional buffering for our project from the adjacent residential uses," Caraban said.
The presentation preceded an extensive council discussion on ordinance 24‑24, which would change the time the Council is required to act after Planning & Zoning passes a rezoning. Council member Mr Shay proposed extending the existing 45‑day window, mentioning examples of a 90‑day option or removing the limit entirely. Supporters said extra time would allow more deliberation and better alignment with community expectations; critics warned that longer windows add uncertainty and cost to developers and might deter applicants.
Planning and zoning staff and the law director noted the practical calendar implications: because of scheduling, the effective review time already includes weeks between Planning & Zoning passage and the Council hearing. Staff suggested alternatives such as a 60‑ or 75‑day window or simply allowing Council discretion; members asked staff to survey neighboring municipalities. Ultimately Council voted to table ordinance 24‑24 and asked staff (Miss Pierce and/or the law director) to gather examples from other jurisdictions.
Separately, development staff updated Council on a larger PUD rezoning refiled for Sept. 9 (approx. 95.71 acres at Lopis/Haers/Oregon Roads) and noted that any site‑development plan will need to return with specific landscape and screening details.
